Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 52. (Read 157162 times)

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.


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."


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


I'm not clicking that link. I don't know who this "Dr." is or what relevance he has. But it seems like the burden is on you to explain exactly how he is wrong, rather than just stating it as truth.

People like you pretend to understand how bitcoin works, but fall flat on their face. And many more people than that don't even pretend to understand bitcoin. So your premise is stupid to begin with. How about developers? Well:

Even if that were a possibility, those would not be Bitcoin. You're being fed false information.

I wouldn't.

I'm certain that that isn't the only reason, but it was a contributing factor. The fact is, nothing has changed and the baseless propaganda might have just gotten worse.

It is witness block, not witness tree, check it again

Of course old nodes won't be able to see new coins, and new coins won't be able to sent to old addresses, but does that really matter if old nodes and new nodes have two different money supply? Like some of the people use both Euro and USD while others only accept one type

Why do you have added money supply while existing users can not do anything about it? That's the problem of soft fork. In a hard fork you would never have this possibility

Let me quote some text from Mike who hold the similar view:

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

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

Another example here:

https://www.bitcoinhk.org/bitcoin-lecture-series/episode-1-upgrading-bitcoin-segregated-witness
This Dr. made some metaphor to explain segwit, but his example how transaction works is obviously wrong. So even a Dr. who is giving lecture about segwit does not understand how bitcoin transaction works (or intentionally give misleading information?), how could the rest of the people have any idea what it is?

What you are suggesting is a softserve HF which differentiates from segwit's SF because with Segwit old, un-upgraded nodes will still follow consensus rules and can send and receive tx from segwit nodes, but with your suggestion the consensus rules would be broken and none of the new coins would be recognized or accepted by the old nodes.

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.....

I just checked sipa's segwit4 branch, it shows the versionbit is the new logic, but it seems incomplete here, where is that 95% support?

    // Start enforcing WITNESS rules using versionbits logic.
    if (IsWitnessEnabled(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus())) {
        flags |= SCRIPT_VERIFY_WITNESS;
    }


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!

Thanks for that explanation.  I would hit "like" for your comment, but there is no "like" button... hahahahaa

We will be ready to capitalize on these attacks as well. We need 50 more of these memes created. Obama may become one of the biggest bitcoin promoters just like how he has been the biggest catalyst for AR-15 sales.




Family/personal reasons was the reason given and its none of our business to pry more out of him. Him giving up commit access doesn't matter much as his influence isn't dominated by any special privilege but by his prolific contributions. That is a fact that escapes many classic supporters... the reason developers can "hold hostage " the miners is because the miners aren't idiots and can listen to reason and make up their own mind to agree or disagree with the developers. There is absolutely nothing stopping or holding hostage core developers from joining classic besides the fact that they understand core has a better roadmap. The fact that so many developers agree with core should be a warning sign that classic is a coup that has little technical merit. Of course many classic supporters are trying to distort the conversation by insinuating that core developers are merely adept at programming and cryptography when this isn't the case and is dehumanizing. 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.

If that was the real reason that Maxwell gave up his commit access, then that is too bad. 

Sometimes there is more going on behind the scenes that contributed to the giving up of something, so sometimes rationale that is explained may not be the full story or the most logical inference based on the totality of circumstances.

The spam attacks are a curious type of hostility. From the attackers perspective, it's difficult to choose the right time to begin. They chose to spike heavily last September, but you could argue that a better tactic would have been to build up to total saturation gradually, as it would be all too easy to portray those who suspect the effect to be spam-driven as mad or unhinged. It suggests the attackers were holding off from running their spam routine, but became suddenly alarmed in September of last year for some reason. It seems strangely inept, bearing in mind that we're supposedly squaring off against the machiavelli of machiavelli's. Where was the coordination with Hearn's XT campaign? Surely they weren't so short-sighted?


Absolutely, Bitcoin is the proverbial nine-lived cat Anything that demonstrates it's resolve to the public should be welcomed. And if it can be broken by that which it was designed to be resilient against, then it was all a dream anyway.


Oh, but the private blockchains and the high profile ragequits can only inflate the Bitcoin effect. Even if a very one-sided media campaign really pushed against it, the continuation of the Bitcoin network's usage will only prove further that their words are backed by nothing. It can only become more relevant, especially if "Bitcoin booms while Caracas burns" headlines prevailed: smarter people will see that it's a story of two halves; one anachronistic failure and one futuristic success.

Fair enough, you are correct. I too have echoed the sentiment that these attacks have only exposed the resilience of our community. I suppose my thoughts were tinged with the frustration of perpetually feeling the need to respond to these people--even though they continue to repeat the same falsities over and over in the face of cogent refutations. Ad nauseum--never ends.

Hm... To me that says just blockstream + bitcoin is better than ETH  

Interesting perspective. The real threats and rage quits and attacks have likely created a temporary price depression, as of which I am perfectly fine with buying into. The spam attacks, including the current variation that is focusing on filling blocks with many inputs to fill up space -



Have caused a bit of chaos but have been very valuable in testing dynamic fees and wallets implementations of their solutions. (More work still needs to be done here. )

I do agree with you that these attacks will be perpetual, and that is a good thing because it will harden and test the network and is a sign that there is true interest.(better than being ignored).

It will be interesting to see what this evolves into as I can see classic becoming more unfeasible when segwit rolls out (and petty attempts to delay or block it by classic supporters will certainly backfire on them) .

I actually expect attacks to heighten, in late 2016 and 2017 as more block chain companies come online and we have the potential for a country or two to ragequit and outlaw bitcoin when they go through an economic crisis.

That puts the end to that foolish story. They've been trying to find ways of attacking Segwit by spreading a lot of different misinformation.

It is just baseless propaganda and ad hominem against people who are much more intelligent and skilled than the entities that are trying to attack them. Maxwell gave up commit access so that they would complain less, but nothing has changed. The lesson learned here is that one should never give in to such people.

For me, a perpetual propaganda plague is the best thing they could have done: the longer it goes on, the more apparent that the genuine truth becomes. Especially because of the long list of empty threats that the coup supporters have issued (Gavin Andresen did most of the threatening, and lets be honest, it's not very intimidating); empty threats that were never doled out.

Oh yes, here's the comittee of truth. Adam surrounded by four-six people hammering the one and only truth in his head ... BIG BLOCKS ARE EVIL! CORE IS OUR HOLY MASTER! CLASSIC IS THE ANTI-CORE!

And hey, my bank buddy is in this thread too, and it makes him lucky. Why? First because he learned that bitcoin's new holy mantra is that IT CANNNOT SCALE. So he is sure bank will stay in power. Second because - I think you know

And yeah, this is one kind of the news my bank buddy makes happy: http://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-10-new-firms-hyperledger-blockchain-project/ -- the company that says bitcoin can not scale helps the banks and other companies to build the blockchain that can scale.

Generally agree. Frankly I'd prefer they fork off now (or rather, 3 months ago), rather than acting as a perpetual plague on the bitcoin community. Indeed, the only thing we holders can do is avoid tainting the validity of our coins (well, we can double spend on the opposing chain--assuming one understands how to properly mix inputs to ensure the transaction is rejected on one, but not both chains). And this will slow down the economy to be sure. Though I have to wonder how much of the bitcoin economy would continue on without even noticing the fork--particularly lite/SPV users. Price crash would definitely be expected, and for good reason. Nobody would care about an altcoin splitting off.....but on top of a massive disinformation campaign claiming that a 75% miner attack dictates the economic consensus, it might appear that bitcoin's fundamental control on fraud and theft (rule enforcement) is broken.

I agree there would be a lot of confusion during the 28 day window and couple weeks after as well and the scenarios you describe could play out. The point is that during the week to 2 after the 28 day grace period and if activation occurs I will not trust the confirmations and reframe from performing any tx's . This another reason why a contentious HF with a low threshold is so dangerous because a sizable amount of the community will be cautious like me and the Bitcoin ecosystem will slowdown to a halt with fear of the ambiguity and being on the wrong chain. I simply wont trust either change until either security measures were put in place or I was on the chain with a majority of the hashing power.

The combination of fear and uncertainty and knowledge that part of the community will fork off would certainly cause a massive price crash, which is unfortunate for many but not something we can control, because although I do not agree with the classic roadmap I support their right to fork off at any given moment and for whatever reason they choose to and at any threshold they desire.

Unlike some who indicate a willingness to follow the majority of miners regardless of the outcome, I refuse to do this  because I am more interested in the ideas , technology and long term health than making a quick buck from a quick mainstream adoption (This isn't guaranteed with the classic roadmap and those large blocks might be filled up with spam from a few businesses rather than many knew users).

An algo change could be warranted, but to assume so would make a lot of assumptions about the proportion of miners. It's really not clear in game theory sense that a 75% miner majority would necessarily lead to a mid or long term mining majority remaining on Classic--or even a significant majority at fork time. That would require that users install Classic's software; if they by and large don't, miners will leave the economically dead chain. It would also require that the 71% share of hash power (i.e. lucky run) required to trigger the rule change does not decrease as the fork approaches. There are reasons it might:

Miners are working with incomplete information about what users, nodes, developers and industry players want, so they may trigger the fork then backtrack. Miners remaining on the minority chain will increase their relative hash power (therefore block rewards) by a factor of the % of defecting miners, incentivizing some to leave the majority at the risk of increased rewards if their determination is correct. The contention that a 75% majority must result in 100% consensus is based on nothing. If the fallacious bandwagon arguments claiming it as a truism fail (i.e. 71% triggers rule change but the rest of miners do not follow as fork approaches)--will none of the defecting miners switch back to the old rules? Once it becomes clear that the "inevitable victory" claims were untrue? If it is very obvious to miners that consensus won't be reached within the 28-day pre-fork period, some may opt to reject the change.

We should not be limiting this analysis to a situation where only 0-25% relative hash power exists on the 1MB chain. That is being far too generous to Classic and their supporters.