Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 66. (Read 157166 times)

In other news....


pull out the crying gifs for poor old buddy Cconvert 

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-448#post-16006


 

Indeed. Something in the line of a "commercial or controversial fork" must never succeed. However, keep in mind that a HF might be needed one day (to upgrade or fix something).

I've been wondering what changed for some time now.

Well, you can't let him post nonsense around here either. Some inexperienced people might think that he's telling the truth.

  I leave this place for a couple of weeks and people are still trying to knock some sense in LyingSapere

when did johnyj sell his account 

Yawn, mainstream dgaf about Privacy, monetary policy and even less cryptography.

If you want mainstream get back on facebook.

But you can always fork off with your mainstream man in the middle corporations and play the proselytic card ad eternum, vote to fork more because the first one was not enough to save africa.

Talking about a friggin shitcoin wannabe. You and all your CEOs are irrelevant and powerless, bitcoin unaffected by your mainstreameries.

That's the problem. QE added money supply by 500%, that's a 500% tax on everybody who uses USD, it is a super fat gain. How could they give up that power. So far they let bitcoin run because its scale is a pocket change comparing to their money printing


You can't play this "hide-from-your-parents" game forever if you want it to go mainstream. For shady purposes there are thousands of alt-coins. Government ultimately have control over the internet infrastructure, you can not build internet backbone without the regulation of the government. Does it really matter your traffic goes through private line or enterprise line?

An extreme case is that Jeff wanted to launch satellite to run bitcoin nodes. Still, those satellites are regulated by the corresponding government agencies

As long as them commercial ph0rks fails, bitcoin is pretty much decentralized.

Good question. I'm certain that people like him would not mind all those "enterprise level" nodes being run on a single datacenter as well. There were even people saying that non-mining nodes don't matter at all.

Indeed. Without decentralization, Bitcoin is nothing. This is why we need to work to retain as much of it as possible.

I don't get how this guy is still posting after implying "7000 enterprise level internet connection as full nodes" being all that's needed to keep the network running is a good thing. Is he for real?

Please, don't you understand yet that 1000 nodes run by random people spread all over the world in different places under Tor, is way more secure and decentralized than 100000 nodes run by a couple corporations on their super fast internet perfectly located datacenter buildings? Please just stop it.

Briam Armstrong is a special case apparently. He's talking about corporations promoting their own agendas when he's the main person doing so. Additionally, let's not forget that he has shown support for and has promoted a sybil attack on the network.

http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/03/21/first-global-credit-ceo-gavin-smith-on-bitcoin/

NewsBTC: Despite being a famous company in Bitcoin space, you have remained quite calm on Bitcoin block size issue? How do you see the current scenario?

Gavin: My view on this is very different to that of Brian Armstrong.  I believe that, providing the timetable is maintained, the proposal by the core developers to introduce Segregated Witness followed by a blocksize increase in 2017 after extensive testing is the correct approach.

Brian Armstrong’s view is based on how his company uses bitcoin. They need to complete a large number of what can be very small transactions. He is less concerned about bitcoin as a store of value, for him it’s all about the transaction fee. His willingness to propose rapid change, with what I and many others consider inadequate time for testing might keep transaction throughput cheap and efficient, but I feel is imprudent.

First Global Credit, on the other hand, is striving to build a capital market around digital currencies in general and bitcoin in particular. Therefore, we prefer an approach that ensures the hard fork is carefully tested and adequate time is taken to ensure the change doesn’t have unexpected consequences that adversely impact bitcoin as a store of value – we believe the proposal by the Core team meets this objective.

Did you notice any funny volume fluctuations on your platform during the recent FUD against Bitcoin?

One thing that has been a constant in the Bitcoin space is the disinformation spread by the mainstream media about its viability.  I think it’s a shame that some within the community have now started adopting the same tactics to promote their own agenda but I guess that’s to be expected when corporates start to get involved.

Bitcoin has already risen, several times. Governments can't tax it. Any more questions, Jonny?

Provide money laundering infrastructure is one excuse. You know KNC's bank account has been shut down by SWEDBANK because some of the buyers are using mining infrastructure investment to launder money

They only need to shutdown the channel towards fiat money to make majority of the activities disappear. I see that as the first direct threat to bitcoin if it goes mainstream. Chinese central bank prohibited financial institutions to do bitcoin related transactions, but currently chinese exchanges still operates. I don't know how they managed to operate, but I guess they use lots of private relations (in China almost everything works depends on personal relations). They will get hit if the central bank sound another alarm


If Government officially support bitcoin, then you don't need to hide your bitcoin nodes, you can build thousands of enterprise level nodes around the world, even draw 40Tbps fiber lines across the ocean to specifically serve the bitcoin network, so that on chain scaling will never be a problem. Of course the chinese GFW will still be a problem, but same, if the government said yes to bitcoin, then it might be possible to setup your own fiber

The current things in Venezuela does not sounds so good, because fiat money is a great way to tax the population, if bitcoin rises then that ability to tax the population will be threatened, I just don't see how bitcoin can pass that line without being heavily restricted

Nobody in their right mind would suggest something like this (seems something wrong with Veritas). We are talking about introducing competition in a consensus based algorithm. Do they not see how wrong this sounds? Bitcoin should remain as is.

The thinking is that if Classic took over right now, this problem (fear mongering) would magically disappear.

He wasn't always like this; something drastically changed in the recent months. I wonder why.

Arrest them for what, exactly? The latter doesn't change anything -- if hash rate drops, miners elsewhere will pick up the slack, assuming it is profitable. If hash rate drops extremely quickly, we can release an update that causes the difficulty algorithm to update faster.


How so? They can issue bans, but they can't disable anything.


What does being regulated have to do with bandwidth limitations? Those are infrastructural limits, nothing to do with the prospect of government prohibition.

I am beginning to think you are even more clueless than franky. But no one could top VS on the short bus candidate list. That guy is a Grade A Retard.

I find it deeply troubling that you seem to consider an environment of multiple implementations that constantly threaten to fork the Bitcoin network over their pet issues to be the healthiest system. Altcoins are a fantastic mechanism for testing new ideas and proposing different models, without the threat of forcing, "upgrades", across the entire ecosystem, inadvertently stealing people's coins, and possibly breaking everything if a hard fork is made to a faulty client--which is what clients like Classic threaten to do. gmaxwell doesn't seem to express an interest in working in that sort of environment--for reasons that should be pretty obvious--and I'd imagine that a great number of other developers would share similar positions on the matter.

The amount of discussion had over opt-in RBF was rather surprising; making out a node policy change like that to be as contentious as changes to consensus rules was mind-boggling.

... it is a bit more than that, you've omitted the Gavin cargo cult angle to it.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult people behave strangely when you throw money into the mix.

Toomincoin the new bitcoin for the elite or should I say anyone who wants to own a bitcoin.

What I described is security though DIVERSITY (in conjunction with diffuseness/defensibility/resiliency).

I didn't say nodes should ONLY exist in obscure Asian jungles and Florida swaps, to the exclusion of ubiquity.

I said those far-flung geographically/politically obscure full nodes are essential complements to the high bandwidth ones hosted in data centers (not, as you dishonestly imply, replacements for them).

That would be plainly obvious if you hadn't omitted the quote(s) to which you were purportedly responding.

Knock off the lying by omission and context redaction, or GTFO.

Nope, this is not what I'm talking about. I could try explaining it from the begging, but I don't feel it is worth our time since it is about a hypothetical situation (100 MB block size limit with 5 MB average usage).

Yeah, keep drinking the kool-aid from people that have limited knowledge and impaired abilities.

Well said.