Bitcoin Forum>Bitcoin>Bitcoin Discussion

Pages:

Author

Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 55. (Read 157137 times)

BitUsher

legendary

Activity: 994

Merit: 1035

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 29, 2016, 11:12:51 AM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on March 29, 2016, 10:34:00 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 29, 2016, 10:31:07 AM

where do you get that getting 75% hashing power to agree to a change is easy?
its obviously proving to be very very hard.

isn't it easier to introduce a SF??

Adam, you were trying to say that hard forks were easier to implement than soft forks, only a post or two ago. What changed?

hmmm i said HF might be preferable not easier.

Translation: HF are preferable when it suits my personal needs or opinions regardless if it alienates a large portion of the Bitcoin community. Of course I would feel much different about HFs if they involved any issues I disagreed with. I am sure a lot of classic folks would be complaining about a 75% threshold for any change they disagreed with.

This is as opposed to the sentiments of many Core developers who feel that we should only implement HF's if it included a super majority and 75% isn't even close to it.

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3892

Merit: 11105

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

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 29, 2016, 10:31:07 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 29, 2016, 10:24:54 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 29, 2016, 10:03:43 AM

contentious HF's aren't evil, and implemented with 75% tigger + grace period they are hardly contentious. its silly to think everyone will agree on all changes, and its even sillier to not implement a change that the supermajority want to see. HF might actually be favourable over softforks, poeple who run machines which secur people's money have a responsibility to run a well oiled machine. A few SF later and now nodes on the network might start to have undefined/different behaviours, this will complicate things and hinder future developments.
we will see this first hand with segwit. the effective block size incress might not be be so effective.
one day Core will require a HF for some new thing they want to add...

If you really think about what you are saying Adam, you should come to the opposite conclusion. We don't want people fucking with our money and to be able to change bitcoin so easily.

Currently bitcoin is secure, and we want it to be very difficult to change. If you believe that you want it to be able to change easy, then you have been taken for a ride by people who really want to undermine bitcoin (possibly unwittingly).

The various upcoming changes for bitcoin are going to be incremental, good and keep bitcoin secure with people's money. For everything else, there's visa. hahahahahahaha Cheesy

where do you get that getting 75% hashing power to agree to a change is easy?
its obviously proving to be very very hard.

isn't it easier to introduce a SF??

Maybe I am being too random, but to me, it seems that 75% is way too easy to accomplish change, and 25% is way too many people to leave discontent in the event that there is a change.

I don't know what the numbers should be exactly, but 90% or 95% seems much more reasonable, especially when we are dealing with decentralized money / assets that are potentially worth billions and some day (hopefully soon) trillions of dollars.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: Carlton Banks on March 29, 2016, 10:34:00 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 29, 2016, 10:31:07 AM

where do you get that getting 75% hashing power to agree to a change is easy?
its obviously proving to be very very hard.

isn't it easier to introduce a SF??

Adam, you were trying to say that hard forks were easier to implement than soft forks, only a post or two ago. What changed?

hmmm i said HF might be preferable not easier.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 29, 2016, 10:31:07 AM

where do you get that getting 75% hashing power to agree to a change is easy?
its obviously proving to be very very hard.

isn't it easier to introduce a SF??

Adam, you were trying to say that hard forks were easier to implement than soft forks, only a post or two ago. What changed?

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

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

afaik thin blocks will benefit user node just as much as miner nodes?

yes that's what I said. Explicitly. What's wrong with your reading?

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? ), Core just needs to copy past.
is it part of the plan to add that in at some point? does core have reasons for not wanting thin blocks?

Lol. Adam, 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 and hang out on their forums, You're never going to have any influence on Bitcoin development, especially not with commentary like "Core just needs to copy past." Core will add thin blocks, just not some 5 minute hack job cooked up from the belly button lint of the BU coders

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 29, 2016, 10:24:54 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 29, 2016, 10:03:43 AM

where do you get that getting 75% hashing power to agree to a change is easy?
its obviously proving to be very very hard.

isn't it easier to introduce a SF??

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on March 29, 2016, 10:19:54 AM

Good lord, what a shit nest this thread has become. I can't believe I actually read through everything since the last time I looked at it. I've seen less name calling watching WWE Smackdown.

3-4 years ago every other thread was about the government interfering with Bitcoin. What could the big bad government do to destroy poor Bitcoin? Well, we don't have to worry about that anymore. The users and developers are going to destroy it. Everyone thinks Bitcoin is just fine because the price is high and stable. I guess no one remembers MtGox and the world of the artificial price.

everything is fine, our bitching is confined to this thread, and no one bothers to read it except for a handful of poeple.

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3892

Merit: 11105

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

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 29, 2016, 10:03:43 AM

QuestionAuthority

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1393

You lead and I'll watch you walk away.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: Carlton Banks on March 29, 2016, 10:00:34 AM

Quote from: sickpig on March 29, 2016, 08:16:49 AM

Given today's technology, 2MB would be a bad idea tomorrow.

Miners that are using RLN could support 2MB blocks without even noticing. For normal nodes -blockonly could do the trick. According to gmax this would save 88% of bandwidth.

Now if you're worried about nodes not relaying txs, just do not use -blockonly and convince Core dev to apply Xthin to BitcoinCore. You could save a lot of bandwidth while propagating new blocks (more or less 10 times less BW required) .

Well, that solves the problem for miners, but what about the users? Remember, I said "tomorrow". Thin blocks/IBLT are not available on the network tomorrow. But in principle, I agree, it's just that "tomorrow" part.

afaik thin blocks will benefit user node just as much as miner nodes?
there available now, no? the code has been written and is working on some nodes ( BU nodes right? ), Core just needs to copy past.
is it part of the plan to add that in at some point? does core have reasons for not wanting thin blocks?

sickpig

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1008

Quote from: Carlton Banks on March 29, 2016, 10:00:34 AM

Quote from: sickpig on March 29, 2016, 08:16:49 AM

Given today's technology, 2MB would be a bad idea tomorrow.

-blocksonly is available today in Bitcoin Core, (see: #6993 b632145 Add -blocksonly option (Patrick Strateman))

even Xthin is available today, not in Bitcoin Core though.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: sickpig on March 29, 2016, 08:16:49 AM

Given today's technology, 2MB would be a bad idea tomorrow.

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3892

Merit: 11105

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

Quote from: Lauda on March 29, 2016, 02:20:25 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 28, 2016, 07:34:01 PM

Personally, I believe that it would not be a good business practice to either encourage people to use other forums or to allow members to promote other forums within your forum.... even though surely we know that other bitcoin forums do exist.

Technically, yes. However, if you've spent a lot of time in threads related to contentious HF's, you would see that some are constantly trying to manipulate others in addition to discussions just kind-of looping.

Fair enough. I don't spend too much time in HF threads, even though many threads in this forum are seeming to incorporate that HF topic.

I understand that it is probably not easy to keep up with banning and suspending of troll accounts that keep repeating themes with little to no substance, and some trolling is probably acceptable... but maybe banning and suspending is the best solution, ultimately, rather than suggesting that members go to other forums....

Don't get me wrong;.... I am also of the opinion that neither hardforking nor making hardforking easier in bitcoin seems to not be the solution to a better and stronger (more secure bitcoin), and there seems to be quite a bit of success in bitcoin in recent times from the fact that there has not been any actual hard fork, and the idea of a hardfork seems to be less and less convincing for people who give the repercussions some serious thought and who really want to make bitcoin stronger.

sickpig

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1008

Quote from: Carlton Banks on March 26, 2016, 03:24:24 PM

Quote from: Lauda on March 26, 2016, 02:38:04 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 26, 2016, 02:49:58 PM

No matter how many times you bump the block size limit you will always run into this issue. This is because increasing the block size limit is not a solution, it is a band-aid.

meh i disagree about the band-aid analogy.

in 100 years when internet speeds are 10000X faster 1GB blocks will be viable.

Given today's technology, 1GB blocks would be a bad idea tomorrow. Given today's technology, 2MB would be a bad idea tomorrow. Given next year's tech and SegWit active on the network for several months, 2MB is probably not too bad. Let's hope the internet itself doesn't take any backward steps between now and then, I guess

(bold's mine).

Miners that are using RLN could support 2MB blocks without even noticing. For normal nodes -blockonly could do the trick. According to gmax this would save 88% of bandwidth.

Now if you're worried about nodes not relaying txs, just do not use -blockonly and convince Core dev to apply Xthin to BitcoinCore. You could save a lot of bandwidth while propagating new blocks (more or less 10 times less BW required) .

edit: fix grammar

bargainbin

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: hdbuck on March 29, 2016, 06:14:59 AM

...
The problem is believing has nothing to do with learning, idiot.

True.

Bergmann_Christoph

sr. member

Activity: 409

Merit: 286

Quote from: hdbuck on March 29, 2016, 06:14:59 AM

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on March 29, 2016, 06:08:56 AM

I have to learn more before I believe. What's the problem?

The problem is believing has nothing to do with learning.

Good reply

But, no, wrong.

Give some humility to all that great philosophers your country has brought up! With every word you say you believe in something.

Thinking that knowing and learning has nothing to do with believing is one of the typical properties of that kind of people who think they see the truth while they sit in a dark hole. It's always fun to watch them explaining the world they don't see ...

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on March 29, 2016, 06:08:56 AM

I have to learn more before I believe. What's the problem?

The problem is believing has nothing to do with learning, idiot.

Bergmann_Christoph

sr. member

Activity: 409

Merit: 286

Quote from: Carlton Banks on March 29, 2016, 05:48:16 AM

Chistoph, you're in no position to be appraising my conduct, you've been an idiot thorn in the side for this forum ever since you turned up.

You're ignorant. And you admit it freely. Either read up on the topic, or get some humility.

Carlton -- I highly recommend you to think before you press enter. Such statements do nothing good for you.

At least get some style. By now your attempts in insulting demonstrate just your lack of creativity. Learn from hdbuck and iCEBREAKER! They are, at least, funny.

I'm currently learning about Lightning. I asked some questions, I'm happy about your answers, but since you did not explain them I have to learn more before I believe. What's the problem?

blunderer

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on March 29, 2016, 04:04:55 AM

...

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on March 29, 2016, 04:04:55 AM

Will I be able to use my bitcoins locked in a payment channel to pay everywhere where I can pay with bitcoins?

yes, it might be unwise, but it might not be. depends on the specific circumstances
...

Ignorant or flat-out lying?
Either read up on the topic, or get some humility.