Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 54. (Read 157162 times)

Gavin and Jeff arent core devs... (  imagine Gavin committing his 2MB code into core Bahahahahah )

where jr luke in this list? and gmax ( they dont have commit access ?  isn't segwit their baby? )

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.

Still willing to mislead others I see... LN isn't controlled, invented or owned by blockstream. Sidechains are opensource and anyone can run an elements alpha sidechain, you can even setup and run your own liquid sidechain yourself. You are also conflating core with blockstream which is both misleading and insulting to core which has a diverse set of backgrounds opinions and funding sources. Even if your were to ignore the fact that almost all devs aren't associated with blockstream and just focus on devs with commit access you will see this -


    gavinandresen (Gavin Andresen)  - funded by MIT Media Lab and coinbase and bloq
    jgarzik (Jeff Garzik) - bloq (formerly supported by bitpay )
    jonasschnelli (Jonas Schnelli) - digitalbitbox.com
    laanwj (Wladimir J. van der Laan) - MIT Media Lab
    sipa (Pieter Wuille Sort) - blockstream

That is only 1 dev of 5 within core with commit access and 2 of those devs have even started their own competing implementations.

How could you not know this by now ? Will you stop spreading misleading statements meant to spread unfounded conspiracy theories?

In these various speculation threads, I think that it is healthy to speculate to some degree, but sometimes, any of us can sound nutty if we speculate too much or if we begin to describe speculative scenarios as being more likely than they really are.  That seems to be a kind of practice of what trolls do.  They take some plausible 1% scenario, and begin to send it around as if it is 30% or some other higher probability and then begin to string a variety of these 1% scenarios together to spread FUCD.

Personally, I have kind of evolved on some of this blocksize limit, governance and hardfork discussion.    About 5 months ago, I could give less than a shit about these issues, but over the past few months the discussions have become more and more persistent, prevalent and invasive, and even though I was attempting to stay out of such discussions, from the deluge of repetitive posts and the sky is falling scenarios, my hand (and head) was forced to some extent to have to look into it and to realize that a kind of sabotage of bitcoin seemed to have been occurring with the framing of an emergency and the assertions that hard forking, block size limit increase, governance change blah blah blah were absolutely necessary blah blah blah. 

You have been around long enough too, and should have been able to see through some of this recent bullshit, by now.. no?   a lot of it seems to boil down to change for the sake of change rather than really being an emergency or even necessary... in sum a way to attempt to undermine bitcoin in a variety of ways.

Discussion of blockstream as being unduly influential in bitcoin's governance or future direction remains a distraction to what had really been taking place in recent times...

I suppose that there are a variety of ways to look at the situation... but I like to think about it as if the status quo bitcoin is going to trudge on no matter what.  If any group wants to change the system, then they need to achieve overwhelming consensus, otherwise the old system just keeps going as it is.... Accordingly, it seems to be much better, especially, when dealing with finances and a lot of people potentially investing into the system to error on the side of a higher level of consensus (in order to make a change) than to have a lower level of consensus. 

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

I personally believe that segwit will achieve the necessary level of consensus, but I agree with you also that the future is not known, so we will have to see how the whole situation plays out exactly.

being opened minded and willing to be a blacksheep, does that to you.
core is trying to get the flow of bitcoin TX into there blockstream projects?
not sure, but i'm willing to entertain the idea, and throw out crazy actuations to get some reactions.
in the heat of the moment ( getting banned from bitcointalk.org, and talking to the bitco.in ), i may has said some nutty stuff.

I wrote a long response but decided not to publish it as that would add more fuel to the fire. Others can read the other thread for themselves and clearly see two completely different people.

just because 25% prefer one direction over the other doesn't mean they will fork off because the vote didnt go there way.
95% hashing power all voting for 1 option over an other means the that option is FAR superior.
i dont think segwit will be able to achieve this 95%. ( even if they count all non-voting hashing power as segwit votes )
but we'll see...

You are correct... sometimes Adam seems to be all over the place......

Sometimes it is better to do nothing..... .especially when dealing with money/assets and development systems... so I would not rush into the belief that "something has to be done"

On the other hand, it appears in the case of bitcoin, a lot of things are coming into play within this next year, so any perception that bitcoin is stagnant and "things are not happening fast enough" serves as a line of propaganda rather than a reflection of this truly dynamic and innovative space...

For example, we have a lot of developers working on a lot of ideas in the bitcoin space, and some of those developers are working in alt coin space with eyes upon connecting such innovations into bitcoin.   Surely a large majority of such bitcoin related developers prefer to have changes come about incrementally and somewhat predictably.. rather than potential changes for the mere sake of changes.... ... and no matter what, even if seg wit were the only implementation to occur this coming year (which it is not), that change in itself is going to very likely cause a lot of innovation, adaptation, further development and wait and see concerning currently unknown innovative opportunitiies and possibilities.

I share your curiosity about the exciting times still ahead in the very near future.

I also do not fully understand why core has this HF fear, but this interview with Eric Lombrozo is some really good one and tends me into the mood: yes, core really has the right road map yet (still hoping they could do the size adjustment before or with SW)

Just watch that FULLY, since also all that Smart Comtracts hype and ETH paradoxis are scratched in!

http://youtu.be/DJdS-9hVwck

Thanks also Lauda for the endless patiens here but also to Adam for fighting for the poor masses.

Hope all comes to good in the end and the nedded (code) complexity in it is tested well and BUGFREE...

If one were to break into the personal laptops of the various Bitcoin Judas'es out there (Hearn, Andresen, Garzik etc, hi guys ), I wonder which sock puppet bitcointalk.org accounts would turn out to be them? It's a pretty pathetic way to commandeer a p2p network, but when the goal is ignoble, I guess the means need be similarly so.


Are you a Bitcoin Judas (not BitUsher, for the hard of thinking) shilling with "idiot weirdo" personas on bitcointalk? Lol @ you, if so. Nice life you got there.  

i can be reasoned with if thats what you mean.
but i'm not neutral...
i do believe both directions have merit, but i favor big blocks.
the more i talk about it the less i feel strongly about either direction.
I plan to yield to majority, but thats hardly a reason to not debate the topic from my prefered point of view.

Libertarian Paradise...

I just read the thread Johnny J posted above regarding Segwit and you make it abundantly clear that you have made up your mind by recommending people to :


spreading more false conspiracy theories :


And have indeed made up your mind regarding which course is best -



and content spreading false conspiracy theories that assume ill will with core-


Than you have the nerve to come here and try and appear to be neutral or impartial. So what is it , did you pull a 180 within a week or do you have a split personality?

You should probably just leave and hang out on the other forum , because we can't take anything coming from you as genuine anymore. Your credibility is shot.

I can't wait to see what bitcoin looks like a year from now
It will be quite interesting to watch the second layer take shape.
I disagree with the majority will to change the status quo by such a degree, but i can't help but be curious as to how it will all unfold.
I believe both schools of thought have merit and its hard to say which is best, in anycase either direction is better than simply doing nothing.

johnyj is likely confusing softforks with the nuclear option of soft-served HF's. It is indeed difficult to distinguish between ignorance and those deliberately spreading misinformation. One has to wonder though, when individuals need to repeatedly be corrected. Perhaps many are genuine and merely need to believe in their conspiracy theories and half truths to fit their narrative .

Especially when you realize that people connected to classic are demanding not "75% of users" or "75% of bitcoin ownership" but 75% hashpower, the last of which could just be a couple people.

That isn't true. A long time ago they were done with hashrate thresholds that low and it was problematic. More recent ones have been 95% hashrate.

That is also not true. You could create some kind of colored coin and try to convince people to accept it as "bitcoin" even without any soft-fork, but no soft-fork can increase the supply of actual Bitcoins.

You are not making a distinction between activation(75%) and enforcement (95%) within a soft fork which is different than with HF's and Segwit is planned to be released with versionbits anyways which requires 95 % for both.

Are you unaware of this or spreading FUD?

Softfork is also 75% trigger condition and the new segwit softfork method demonstrated that you can change anything (including 21m coin supply) with softfork without the consent of nodes, so this method can be considered an attack on nodes, should be forbidden in bitcoin. Using code to manipulate node is a terrible idea, especially when that code is not well discussed and understood

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/segregated-witness-sotf-fork-segwit-pros-and-cons.986/

Additionally, a grace period of 28 days is very problematic. This is because once a certain threshold has been met, it only symbolizes the support of the miners. There is no way of knowing what percentage of other entities has upgraded. Such a low grace period would definitely result in chaos once the HF occurs (especially if a good portion of people are left behind). Core developers know this, both Gavin and Garzik know this. Garzik disagrees with Gavin and recommends a minimum grace period of 3 to 6 months. Gavin is going against everyone on this one.