Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 44. (Read 157137 times)

man come on, "dumbest person" understanding bitcoin, or even ever be in the need of it before any other tangible life basic need is dul, and im staying polite here.

If anything, we need to spread out the motive that the average user does not need to understand how the underlying technology works exactly. They only need to know that it works. The same applies to the current monetary system, as I'm sure that the majority do not know how it works exactly. Even if we simplify the roadmap, it won't help much. An ELI5 to 'almost' every major change such as Segwit might help though.

Well, that was unexpected.

They barely understand what a lightbulb is.

---

---

Meanwhile, another attack in progress (notices high bandwidth usage for my node so went to check):

You have just summed up why democracy fails

And why a libertarian meritocratic capitalist governing model is the only way to progress humanity


Actually thats not true, there are youtube tutorials how to upload a selfie. So there are even more braindead people out there, that cant even understand that.

The collective intelligence of the sheeps cant even light up a lightbulb

I don't think that will work either. Even if you just tell them, we're going to build X that will increase capacity to Y, they will start asking questions. If you keep answering these questions, eventually you're going to come to more complex ones that require technical answers. Such people will stop understanding somewhere along the way.

There is also this. Well, almost nobody.

Indeed.

Good





The problem is that that will halt bitcoin's growth.

Its clear that 70% of the population has an IQ of a stone, so if you want bitcoin to gain mass adoption:

It has to be easy to use.


Nobody understands HTTP and TCP or even javascript, but every idiot can upload a selfie to facebook.

there is no issue.

status quo prevails.

bitcoin wins.


ps: nobody gives a shit about "dumbest person", mother theresa.

Bitcoin really needs a very clear roadmap now, that is dumbed down, so that even the dumbest person can understand it.

Otherwise it will only be shilling and fudding forever. If people cant understand the issue, then its not good for the community.

I don't think it was specifically stated (yet?) that it would be at 95%. People only assume this as it was used in the past.

This is one of the problems with increasing the block size, people (due to lack of knowledge) are going to continue cheering for another increase pretty soon even if that one would effectively cause huge problems. Just because we can do it now (after segwit), it doesn't mean that we will be able to do it once again next year. I'm certain that one or multiple developers have talked about this.

I don't think many of the people running classic nodes will know how to upgrade to segwitcore and it doesn't seem like classic will merge it at this stage.

I imagine they'll try hard and succeed for some weeks but eventually they'll give in.  Why would those that want any increase at all block segwit once it's out there?  Much of the support for Classic will just accept segwit size increase and continue lobbying for another one.

its going to be interesting to see how the network reacts to segwit being released...

i wonder how much effort it will take to get that 95% they want

Classic's last hope died when the Buttcoiners working among the Gavinistas decided to block segwit using 5% of the hashrate.

Classic couldn't survive the stunning hypocrisy of whining about delays in a tps bump, then suddenly committing to prolonging that delay.

I think tha Classic movement is fading day after day.

Can you point me to it? I'm looking for a high level overview of the nuts and bolts- pros and cons? not some marketing spin.

The material is out there for any person with genuine interest to learn. Your gang of troll is being intentionally obtuse

Here, Greg let me help you bring this back on topic. Can you explain SegWit to a lay person who's been using bitcoin following developments and mining, and since Early 2011?  

Quoting you here" Perhaps you should consider posting less and studying more? -- not trying to insult, but without the basics you're wasting people's time" and I'm pointing out its not clearing up any of the FUD around SegWits.

could you please explain it from a high level instead of insulting people.

The Irony is no one give a hoot about a title, but money should be easy to understand, whose the target market if it's more complicated than our existing fiat system.

It's too technical for most people to understand, and people prefer the title of "Chief Scientist" over "Staff".

That document is a thoroughly confused rant written by some fraudster.

What the "paper" is pointing out is that although the hash preference list or "8 2 9 10 11" and the other metadata were not conceived of or implemented until a year after the claimed date (as I pointed out); it was possible, by a long series of complex manual commands to manually override the preferences and punch in whatever ones you wanted, even the 'future' ones.

You may note that it take great care to provide no citation to my actual comments, in fact it quotes me but uses an image for the text-- making it more difficult to even search for it. Allow me:

"The suspect keys claim to be October 2008; the commit was July 2009. So no, not without a time machine. It's possible that the settings could have been locally overridden to coincidentally the same defaults as now." https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w027x/dr_craig_steven_wright_alleged_satoshi_by_wired/cxsm1yo?context=2

-- so the whole theory that this "paper" writes for pages and pages as if it were some great concealment on my part is a possibility I explicitly pointed out.

The problem with it is that it requires the user to have executed a long series of complex commands to override the preferences and have to have guessed the exact selection and ordering of the preferences that wouldn't be written for a year-- when if they preferred a particular cypher they would more likely have taken the existing "2 8 3" and stuck their choice on the front.  Not only that, but they would have had to have done so on the same day that they created a totally ordinary key and published it, yet this other key-- which looks exactly like one created with post-2009 software and entirely unlike the well known one-- was provided to no one for years, not placed on public key servers and until now and otherwise has no evidence of its prior existence. Come on, give me a break.

It's "possible", a fact a pointed out explicitly back then, but this possibility thoroughly fails Occam's razor-- especially on top of the evidence presented by others: Archive.org showed the subtle "hint dropping" added in blog entries was back-dated, added in 2013, SGI reported that the published letter on their letterhead was fake, the lack of cogent technical commentary from that party, etc.

Bringing it back on topic, I'd say that it's surprising that all these Bitcoin Classic folks believe such tripe, but in the context of all the other incompetent nonsense they believe, it doesn't seem so surprising.