ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 53.

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 11299

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

Quote from: jbreher on March 29, 2016, 02:31:39 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 29, 2016, 01:17:21 PM

Therefore, if segwit does not achieve 95% or whatever is the level needed, then the old system will continue to carry out.

Unless, of course, some other client amasses its activation threshold (e.g. Classic @ 75%).

Yes... I agree that a client with changes in Bitcoin's governance built-into the language seems to be an alternative scenario that could arise out of the ashes and lead to a lower threshold in the governance... . .and it seems that is what Classic - and even XT were geared towards achieving, no?

Now, that several people have identified that change in governance ploy (and recognized the debilitating nature of such a ploy), how likely would this be in taking place within the next 12 months? Less than 5%, no? Maybe you have better information than me regarding this point and probabilities of such occurring?

BitUsher

legendary

Activity: 994

Merit: 1035

Quote from: exstasie on March 29, 2016, 02:43:29 PM

Very much disagree. The only real issue is delayed difficulty readjustment and longer confirmations. This could easily be patched in an emergency (code is ready).

There is good evidence that Classic Supporters will go to great lengths to attack the network and lie to those that oppose them. One should expect a 51 % attack if one only has 5-25% of hashing power in this contentious environment. In such a scenario I would not be so naive to trust the network without a change to the consensus algo that would secure against a 51% attack. In such a scenario I would slowly sell off my new classic coins(all of them ) for maximum amounts of new core?- coins . (Because I am not petty or spiteful and have no wish to attack the classic chain like Hearn attacked us all in his ragequit) . I would be open to multiple solutions but one that appears to be interesting was one proposed By Greg when Litecoin was about to roll out ASICs to make a coin that would be ASIC proof and likely remain GPU only, thus achieving better decentralization of mining and remain largely botnet proof.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ltc-changing-the-litecoin-proof-of-work-function-to-avoid-asic-mining-359323

I don't expect any of this to occur , but would definitely avoid following the majority of classic mining power even if it meant I risked losing out on a fast adoption of a coin going mainstream because I am more interested in the health of the ecosystem in the long term.

exstasie

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1521

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 29, 2016, 02:27:22 PM

and no one is disputing "Blockstream having so many Core developers"

Quote from: BitUsher on March 29, 2016, 02:38:07 PM

Quote from: jbreher on March 29, 2016, 02:31:39 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 29, 2016, 01:17:21 PM

Therefore, if segwit does not achieve 95% or whatever is the level needed, then the old system will continue to carry out.

Unless, of course, some other client amasses its activation threshold (e.g. Classic @ 75%).

Very true, the old Bitcoin , would definitely need to make big changes to bitcoin core if classic miners controlled over 75% hashing power. Personally, I have enough problems with the direction of the Classic Scaling roadmap that I would support these changes and stay on the original/different chain regardless of it leaving merchant processors and a majority of SHA256 ASIC hashing power, but I agree , either way you are right the old protocol would be dead.

Very much disagree. The only real issue is delayed difficulty readjustment and longer confirmations. This could easily be patched in an emergency (code is ready).

BitUsher

legendary

Activity: 994

Merit: 1035

Quote from: jbreher on March 29, 2016, 02:31:39 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 29, 2016, 01:17:21 PM

Therefore, if segwit does not achieve 95% or whatever is the level needed, then the old system will continue to carry out.

Unless, of course, some other client amasses its activation threshold (e.g. Classic @ 75%).

Very true, the old Bitcoin , would definitely need to make big changes to bitcoin core if classic miners controlled over 75% hashing power. Personally, I have enough problems with the direction of the Classic Scaling roadmap that I would support these changes and stay on the original/different chain regardless of it leaving merchant processors and a majority of SHA256 ASIC hashing power, but I agree , either way you are right the old protocol would be dead.

Luckily , Classic support seems to be dying or at least stabilizing between 5-8% of blocks , thus this isn't much of a concern.

blunderer

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

If anyone asks me how Bitcoin works (lol, like that actually happened IRL to anyone ever), I'll just direct them to this thread Cheesy

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1688

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 29, 2016, 01:17:21 PM

Therefore, if segwit does not achieve 95% or whatever is the level needed, then the old system will continue to carry out.

Unless, of course, some other client amasses its activation threshold (e.g. Classic @ 75%).

BitUsher

legendary

Activity: 994

Merit: 1035

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 29, 2016, 02:28:35 PM

fuck this shit.

Yes, you are indeed very unstable or just trolling. No use discussing technical aspects until you get help. I hope you get better soon.

Quote from: jbreher on March 29, 2016, 02:26:33 PM

BU is an alternative Bitcoin client, not a client for an alt currency. It is running right now on the Bitcoin network, processing Bitcoin transactions.

I agree that we shouldn't call BU, XT, or classic alts. While they are in a different category as implementations like libbitcoin or bitcore which don't attempt to break consensus rules. They are clearly bitcoin at the moment.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

fuck this shit.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: BitUsher on March 29, 2016, 02:25:09 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 29, 2016, 02:20:40 PM

Quote from: BitUsher on March 29, 2016, 02:16:52 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 29, 2016, 02:11:03 PM

look you see threads with the title

Quote

True or False? Blockstream having so many Core developers is a conflict/centralization of interest.

and no one is disputing "Blockstream having so many Core developers" as not factual and you assume its the truth.

Please quote where I indicated this. You are now spreading misinformation about me.

i'm not implying you said these things, i'm saying other users have

No , you clearly said "I assumed" it is the truth and quoted me.

In all seriousness, and with no intentions to denigrate you directly , do you smoke a lot of marijuana or do harder drugs or have any mental illnesses? You appear to be unstable and lack clarity even between posts. I'm trying to determine if you have a problem or if you are merely trolling.

omfg....

and no one is disputing "Blockstream having so many Core developers" as not factual and ~~you~~ one assumes its the truth.

better?

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1688

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: Carlton Banks on March 29, 2016, 10:31:33 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 29, 2016, 10:19:40 AM

there available now, no? the code has been written and is working on some nodes ( BU nodes right? )

I'm here to talk about Bitcoin, you're clearly here to talk about some other currency that doesn't exist. You should use BU yourself ...

BU is an alternative Bitcoin client, not a client for an alt currency. It is running right now on the Bitcoin network, processing Bitcoin transactions.

valiz

sr. member

Activity: 471

Merit: 250

BTC trader

Please bring in smarter shills Cheesy

It's a shame if they can't afford Veritas's services anymore Sad

. Adam's shilling is boring.

Btw, fork off already. I want to sell some Toomincoins to get more real coins.

BitUsher

legendary

Activity: 994

Merit: 1035

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 29, 2016, 02:20:40 PM

Quote from: BitUsher on March 29, 2016, 02:16:52 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 29, 2016, 02:11:03 PM

look you see threads with the title

Quote

True or False? Blockstream having so many Core developers is a conflict/centralization of interest.

and no one is disputing "Blockstream having so many Core developers" as not factual and you assume its the truth.

Please quote where I indicated this. You are now spreading misinformation about me.

i'm not implying you said these things, i'm saying other users have

No , you clearly said I assumed it is the truth and quoted me.

In all seriousness, and with no intentions to denigrate you directly , do you smoke a lot of marijuana or do harder drugs or have any mental illnesses? You appear to be unstable and lack clarity even between posts. I'm trying to determine if you have a problem or if you are merely trolling.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 29, 2016, 02:11:03 PM

look you see threads with the title

Quote

True or False? Blockstream having so many Core developers is a conflict/centralization of interest.

and no one is disputing "Blockstream having so many Core developers" as not factual and you assume its the truth.

So, because someone made a thread with that title, it's true? Are you ok? Everything alright at home, etc?

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: BitUsher on March 29, 2016, 02:16:52 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 29, 2016, 02:11:03 PM

look you see threads with the title

Quote

True or False? Blockstream having so many Core developers is a conflict/centralization of interest.

and no one is disputing "Blockstream having so many Core developers" as not factual and you assume its the truth.

Please quote where I indicated this. You are now spreading misinformation about me.

i'm not implying you said these things, i'm saying other users have

beastmodeBiscuitGravy

full member

Activity: 181

Merit: 100

Quote

~~gavinandresen (Gavin Andresen) - funded by MIT Media Lab and coinbase and bloq~~ Compromised by CIA
   ~~jgarzik (Jeff Garzik) - bloq (formerly supported by bitpay )~~ Wrote a few lines of code many years ago, irrelevant.
   jonasschnelli (Jonas Schnelli) - digitalbitbox.com https://twitter.com/_jonasschnelli_/status/706792094841573376
   laanwj (Wladimir J. van der Laan) - MIT Media Lab Lead Consensus Observer
   sipa (Pieter Wuille Sort) - blockstream
nullc (Gregory Maxwell) - Lead Wizard - blockstream - Altruistically rescinded commit access around the time he undertook a short seclusion in the west wing, totally NOT for political reasons and bad "optics".

Good to see this section of the forum is still inhabited by legions of ~~sig farmers~~ hardworking laborers, ~~children~~ mature professionals, and ~~illiterate rubes~~ srs investors... Give them a taste of some back-and-forth between the Blockstream shills, a stockholmed adam, and the always graceful Jay Juan Gee... they won't be able to say "no".

Digital gold has never been shinier. Mewn boyz... sewn.

BitUsher

legendary

Activity: 994

Merit: 1035

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 29, 2016, 02:11:03 PM

look you see threads with the title

Quote

True or False? Blockstream having so many Core developers is a conflict/centralization of interest.

and no one is disputing "Blockstream having so many Core developers" as not factual and you assume its the truth.

Please quote where I indicated this. You are now spreading misinformation about me.
Or are you so confused that you think this statement :

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 29, 2016, 01:01:39 PM

core is trying to get the flow of bitcoin TX into there blockstream projects?

is equal to this statement:

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 29, 2016, 02:11:03 PM

Quote

True or False? Blockstream having so many Core developers is a conflict/centralization of interest.

and no one is disputing "Blockstream having so many Core developers" as not factual and you assume its the truth.

If you find a quote where I suggested such I will openly apologize.
Otherwise when you apologize for conflating the two I will be happy answer your new question.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

look you see threads with the title

Quote

True or False? Blockstream having so many Core developers is a conflict/centralization of interest.

and no one is disputing "Blockstream having so many Core developers" as not factual and you assume its the truth.

yochdog

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1000

NT

BitUsher

legendary

Activity: 994

Merit: 1035

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 29, 2016, 01:56:11 PM

Gavin and Jeff arent core devs...

Sigh... another false statement.....

This is the up to date list of devs with commit access. Regardless of Gavin and Jeff being distracted by other ventures and implementations they both do indeed participate and control the private keys to make commits to core. They have not given up this priveledge and not made any indications that they are no longer core devs, in fact they have indicated the opposite.

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 29, 2016, 01:56:11 PM

where jr luke in this list? and gmax ( they dont have commit access ?

Greg Gave up commit access a long while ago and luke never had it.

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 29, 2016, 01:56:11 PM

i'm not sure of the exact ties between core and blockstream. at the time, poeple arguing that there was a conflict of interest in the Core dev team seemed to have compelling evidence. I took that "info" as is, and assumed that most of the Core team was also getting paid by blockstream.

So since you are now learning the truth , that can all be backed up with evidence , will you correct those that spread those lies and apologize for not verifying the misinformation that you helped spread?

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Still entertaining the adam useful idiot I see Roll Eyes

Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 53. (Read 157162 times)