Topic: ToominCoin aka &quot;Bitcoin_Classic&quot; #R3KT - page 51. (Read 157166 times)

Quote from: sickpig on March 30, 2016, 03:04:44 PM

It is. But what I'm often asking myself is not whether Gavin would adopt segwit, but if ...Satoshi would. Would he be pro or against such a change, and for what reasons...
Some will say Satoshi is irrelevant right now, so... but still, I have that question in my mind.

It doesn't matter at all. This is the classic appeal to authority that I've been seeing. Just because Satoshi invented Bitcoin that does not mean that he can show up today and "force" his opinion (i.e. it having more merit than the opinion of some other engineer). Don't forget that he had abandoned 'his' project.

if you are among the group of people that completely understand SegWit

Not exactly. I do want to have a even better understanding, but the time is just not there. The question was answered by someone else (although you could find this information quickly yourself; i.e. easy question).

marcus_of_augustus

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 2349

Eadem mutata resurgo

Quote from: sickpig on March 30, 2016, 03:04:44 PM

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on March 30, 2016, 07:03:00 AM

The developers only matter when they say what you want to hear?

I've yet to see a single person who completely understands Segwit and is against it.

if you are among the group of people that completely understand SegWit, could you please explain to me the reason why a discount of 75% is applied to signatures (witnesses) while computing block space limit? (serious question)

the witness data (signatures) portion of a transaction usually makes up around 75% of the total transaction data size ... so by moving it out the main block and into a separate 'witness block' of data makes available approx. that much space in the main block for other data.

sickpig

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1008

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on March 30, 2016, 07:03:00 AM

The developers only matter when they say what you want to hear?

I've yet to see a single person who completely understands Segwit and is against it.

if you are among the group of people that completely understand SegWit, could you please explain to me the reason why a discount of 75% is applied to signatures (witnesses) while computing block space limit? (serious question)

marcus_of_augustus

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 2349

Eadem mutata resurgo

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 30, 2016, 11:50:30 AM

I've yet to see a single person who completely understands Segwit and is against it.

its hard to be really against segwit, even classic plans to adopt segwit.

It is. But what I'm often asking myself is not whether Gavin would adopt segwit, but if ...Satoshi would. Would he be pro or against such a change, and for what reasons...

Some will say Satoshi is irrelevant right now, so... but still, I have that question in my mind.

relax, satoshi is cool with it.

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 11416

Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 30, 2016, 11:50:30 AM

I've yet to see a single person who completely understands Segwit and is against it.

its hard to be really against segwit, even classic plans to adopt segwit.

It is. But what I'm often asking myself is not whether Gavin would adopt segwit, but if ...Satoshi would. Would he be pro or against such a change, and for what reasons...

Some will say Satoshi is irrelevant right now, so... but still, I have that question in my mind.

this is a ridiculous thing to have in your mind.

Surely, in a decentralized system, some people have more persuasive credibility than others, but in the end, it does not matter too much what one person wants - it is just part of the considerations to take into account regarding what to do...

We all already have information out there, and there are Satoshi - like people out there who have credible perspectives. Merely because some people have been disingenuous and have tricked us with their intentions does not mean that there do not remain a lot of credible people working in the bitcoin space, and it is up to each one of us to determine which ones are more trustworthy than others and to do our best in deciding what we want to do on a personal level in lending our support in one direction or another (and maybe as we learn, we may chose to change our own personal direction, too).

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 30, 2016, 11:50:30 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 30, 2016, 11:50:30 AM

I've yet to see a single person who completely understands Segwit and is against it.

its hard to be really against segwit, even classic plans to adopt segwit.

It is. But what I'm often asking myself is not whether Gavin would adopt segwit, but if ...Satoshi would. Would he be pro or against such a change, and for what reasons...

Some will say Satoshi is irrelevant right now, so... but still, I have that question in my mind.

I think Satoshi would be for letting nakamoto consensus determine all future upgrades.

AlexGR

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1049

I've yet to see a single person who completely understands Segwit and is against it.

its hard to be really against segwit, even classic plans to adopt segwit.

It is. But what I'm often asking myself is not whether Gavin would adopt segwit, but if ...Satoshi would. Would he be pro or against such a change, and for what reasons...

Some will say Satoshi is irrelevant right now, so... but still, I have that question in my mind.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on March 30, 2016, 03:40:08 AM

I've yet to see a single person who completely understands Segwit and is against it.

its hard to be really against segwit, even classic plans to adopt segwit.
segwit is awesome and a necessary first step for getting the second layer going.
i fully agree with you, you can't fully understand segwit and be against it.

exstasie

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1521

Quote from: exstasie on March 30, 2016, 02:41:18 AM

Quote from: exstasie on March 25, 2016, 08:18:24 PM

And what do respected wallet developers/library maintainers have to say? Let's see:

Blocktrail CTO and BitcoinJS Co-Maintainer Ruben De Vries: Segregated Witness Not Very Complicated
Lawrence Nahum: Bitcoin Wallet GreenAddress Already Integrating Segregated Witness
Breadwallet CEO Aaron Voisine: SegWit Soft Fork First, Block Size Hard Fork Later
Mycelium's Leo Wandersleb: Segregated Witness a Technical Necessity
Electrum Developer Thomas Voegtlin: Segregated Witness Highly Supportable
Core Developer, libbtc Library Maintainer and digitalbitbox Developer Jonas Schnelli: Segregated Witness is Less Than a Week of Work to Test and Deploy

Ermagherd!!!! Segwit is just too complex!!!! Roll Eyes

Try reading the articles, not just the headlines

Leo Wandesleb (Mycelium)

Quote

“Segregated Witness is not a block size increase, but a technical necessity to fix completely different issues, by also producing less load on the blockchain,” Wandersleb explained. “There is, however, a realistic chance that it will take a long while before it has an effect on total transaction throughput.”

Quote

“I believe that Bitcoin Core, committed to these values, should acknowledge that increasing the block size or other hard forks might possibly be necessary. Nothing more

Thomas Voegtlin (Electrum)

Quote

“It will be very easy to support transacting to Segregated Witness addresses,” Voegtlin explained. “But to really support Segregated Witness, we need to change address generation in the wallet, and the way transactions are signed. The first step will be to update the Electrum servers, in order to index Segregated Witness scripts – then to update the client. I can combine the server work with a more general update which I planned to do anyway. All in all, that will probably keep me busy for a few months

Aaron Voisine (Breadwallet)

Quote

However, Segregated Witness will only give us something like an 80 percent capacity increase, and hard forks take a long time to deploy. The hard fork needs to be readied, and roll-out started quickly after. While I’d prefer it if Bitcoin Core does that, it appears Bitcoin Classic is the leading option for deploying a hard fork. As such, we do support that project.”

Perhaps you could pay attention to the subject at hand. johnyj's claim was that "Segwit is too complex".....the truth is that developers don't see it that way at all. Or did you not read the articles?

Idiot.

btcusury

sr. member

Activity: 433

Merit: 260

Quote from: Lauda on March 30, 2016, 01:51:24 AM

Quote from: BitUsher on March 29, 2016, 05:01:19 PM

For the most part these are all intelligent people with well rounded interests and educations in many fields including economics. I would say the same for Garzik and Gavin and even Hearn.

I wouldn't.

Intelligent they are but "rounded interests"? More like boxed interests. Don't you think that that's the root of the problem, BitUsher? If we assume that they are acting out of self-interest and not being paid/bribed/threatened to push for a hardfork-mediated hostile network split, then then it must mean that their interests do not extend to understanding the problem created by central control over money. Gavin openly stated that his intention is to use Bitcoin as a better Paypal, and Hearn is now working for the banksters, and Garzik... well, just check his twitter to see where he's coming from (he seems to believe everything the MSM says).

Quote from: BitUsher on March 30, 2016, 06:27:57 AM

This does bring up an interesting attack vector and weakness of Segwit. The fact that it is more complicated allows the ignorant and misinformed and those who wish to deliberately spread confusion a better means of spreading FUD than a simpler change.

Hahaha, good observation. Good thing the weakness is in human minds and not in the cryptography.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on March 30, 2016, 07:03:00 AM

The developers only matter when they say what you want to hear?

I've yet to see a single person who completely understands Segwit and is against it.

Quote from: hv_ on March 30, 2016, 07:25:38 AM

To me it all comes down to the HF risk & fear.
If BTC would have regular HFs as in some alts they are normal, the 2 MB was done a year ago, correct?

The problem with Classic is that it uses Gavin's BIP which is fundamentally flawed and goes against everything that was learned over the years:
1) Low consensus threshold (causes network split 1/4 and 3/4).
2) Very short grace period (supports the split).
If he had properly designed it, there would probably be less "hostility" towards it.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on March 30, 2016, 07:03:00 AM

Quote from: Lauda on March 30, 2016, 04:06:13 AM

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on March 30, 2016, 03:40:08 AM

Try reading the articles, not just the headlines

It doesn't really matter in this case.

The developers only matter when they say what you want to hear?

The developers dont matter at all at this point.

Bitcoin will outlive us all anyway.

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2548

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

To me it all comes down to the HF risk & fear.

If BTC would have regular HFs as in some alts they are normal, the 2 MB was done a year ago, correct?

So with SW it looks fine do scale by a SF and this is just seen (and sold) as lower risky...

Since most here cannot evalue both, join the boat.

Bergmann_Christoph

sr. member

Activity: 409

Merit: 286

Quote from: Lauda on March 30, 2016, 04:06:13 AM

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on March 30, 2016, 03:40:08 AM

Try reading the articles, not just the headlines

It doesn't really matter in this case.

The developers only matter when they say what you want to hear?

BitUsher

legendary

Activity: 994

Merit: 1035

Quote from: exstasie on March 30, 2016, 02:41:18 AM

Quote from: exstasie on March 30, 2016, 12:42:22 AM

Quote from: johnyj on March 30, 2016, 12:23:05 AM

Similar to witness block, you can just add another extended block called 21 block to accommodate the added 21 million coins and corresponding new transactions, and that block is also invisible to old nodes, only if you upgraded to 21segwit nodes, you will have 50 coin per block to mine, and Chinese miners might like it!

Valid outputs need to originate from valid coinbase transaction in valid block. Non-upgraded nodes will never confirm blocks containing tx that spend non-existent outputs ..... for the same reason they won't confirm blocks containing a 21million coin spend. Those transactions--and if mined, those blocks--are simply invalid, ignored, by old nodes. Miners don't even matter in this context. If they keep building on such a block, their chain will be forked off the network.

Unless, of course, node operators en masse uninstalled their node software and reinstalled software that recognized these outputs as valid. i.e. a hard fork.....

It does not matter what non-upgraded nodes do when majority of the blocks are 21block format

Miners don't matter in a hard fork. Some miners could collude to inflate the money supply, but that is no guarantee that anyone will care to transact on their network. They can just be ignored.

, e.g. original block + 21 block, those non-upgraded nodes will just receive empty original blocks (all the new transactions are in 21 blocks and their merkle root is hashed into the coinbase transaction of the original block) and they are forced to upgrade.

Sigh...

You're confusing transaction type (standard vs. non-standard) with validity. Using non-standard transactions can't hide the outputs from old nodes. They won't be "empty blocks"; they will be "blocks full of invalid transactions."

That's the whole point of soft fork: You can force all the original nodes out of the network since their miserable 5% hash rate will only mine one block every 200 minutes, and that block is not enough to process the transaction on original net

How would old nodes be forced off the network? You're very confused. Since no consensus rules would be broken--only restricted--the 5% are never forced off the network. Their problem is that they may include transactions in their blocks that are invalid under the new soft fork rules, and thus rejected by the network.

It does not surprise me that so many people blindly cheer for segwit soft fork while they don't understand what that means at all

It's pretty clear that you don't understand a damn thing about bitcoin.