Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 68. (Read 157162 times)

Veritas is a blind fool. He sees Satoshi as some kind of god and once you call him out on that he says that he "just agrees with his vision". Satoshi was not a good programmer (let's not talk about engineering) nor did he had the data that we have today. Actually, we should just leave him in peace. His words (from the past) about this debate don't really matter.

Nonsense. Just because you don't have the money to do that, that does not mean that somebody else doesn't.

In other words, having such a block size limit is stupid at best.

Exactly. I wonder why it is so hard to get for those pesky big blockistas that keep twisting their arugments to fit their agenda.
As soon as you raise it to 2, you'll have a small amount of time of "relief", then you'll be forced to hard fork again and again and again... exposing the network to the inherent dangers of a hardfork infinitely.
Veritas doesn't also understand that LN doesn't increase any complexity for the end user, the end user is already using banking which will be more complex than a modern polished Bitcoin that we will have in the next 2/3 years, when I predict the end user experience will be way different than it is now, easy to use so even your mom can send transactions. So please stop this LN FUD and go back to la-la-land to another forum where you can discuss a decentralized coin with global onchain fast and cheap transactions.

So you do realise that if we had followed Satoshi's idea then Bitcoin would have actually failed because the number of txs could not be processed in 10 minutes (or don't you care about such facts)?

I suppose Satoshi must have been a "Classic Shill" as well then, since he was most certainly also what you would call a big blockist.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6306

Again - the guy who says he is not a "Classic Shill" just shows that he is.

Yeah it is pretty simple really. A crippled Bitcoin can not compete with alternative cryptocurrencies that can scale their blockchains directly, in regards to thinking LN is the solution to all problems, it most definitely is not especially considering that there are not even any decentralized solutions to routing between the different hubs, which will therefore lead to increased centralization in the form of this hub and spoke model.

You might think that adding all of this complexion and cost in the user experience is a good thing, but it most certainly is not. Nothing beats just being able to transact directly on a blockchain to transfer value between peers. Turning Bitcoin into a settlement layer for the lighting network would just be recreating part of the current financial system, becoming what Bitcoin was meant to counter in the first place.

We just need to increase the blocksize to keep up with demand, two megabyte blocks does not centralize the network like you claim, in my opinion having to rely on third parties to transact represents a much greater threat of centralization compared to just increasing the blocksize to two megabytes.

On chain transactions where always how Bitcoin was meant to operate, I am not against off chain solutions, I am just against crippling the Bitcoin network in order to "force" everyone to use off chain solutions. Even when Satoshi was still around people criticized this aspect, many engineers and computer scientists thought that this idea of all transactions being recorded on a shared ledger to be ridiculous. But that is what Bitcoin is, I understand that many people do not believe in this vision, it is clear that Core has diverged from this original vision. But I do still believe in it, and I would like to see the experiment be continued. If anything it should be the people that do not believe in this original vision that should move to alternative currencies instead of trying to change Bitcoin to conform to this alternative vision.

Fundamentally I believe technological growth will keep up with adoption, and even if it does not we should still scale Bitcoin as much as technology allows, nobody can predict the future, who are you to say that this will definitely not work, it depends on the relative rate of adoption and technological growth, both being unknowns. I think many here are guilty of the engineers nirvana fallacy. Which is that if Bitcoin can not scale to VISA levels today we should not scale Bitcoin directly at all, I believe this is deeply flawed.

If you are a new user, you won't be able to mine any block in any meaningful time, so your only choice is to connect to any of the mining pools, and this is already the case today, mining has been separated from the full nodes client since years ago. You need some extra knowledge to setup mining pools, all the mining pools today have certain degree of customization of their code and they understand the block size limit issue much better than average people on this forum. They have overwhelming support for BIP100 since that gives them the right to decide the block size limit based on their calculation

Even if you are a new mining farm with enough R&D resources, you won't be able to construct 100MB block since there is usually only 1MB transaction every 10 minutes, maybe 5MB during peak. Unless you are an attacker intentionally construct huge blocks with lots of spamming transactions, you won't be able to construct a large block. But in that case the rest of the miners are rejecting such attacking blocks

Yeah. I wonder how anybody thought bitcoin was a good idea in the first place.

...until it isn't.
US$ transactions were once gold transactions, but once US$ kicked in, everyone started using US$ and few cared when US$ got decoupled from gold.

lol, all altcoins are bitcoin forks....

anway, how's your trial going on?

scammers are the ones that hurt bitcoin - temporarily - at least until justice^TM is served...

that's already been done:  altcoins.

so far, that hasn't hurt Bitcoin one bit.  unless of course, we persist on this lunatic path of preventing HF's to lift the blocksize limit.

Increasing the blocksize to centralize the network nodes is the opposite of doing good for the world. We have data that proves increasing the blocksize is a stupid idea now that we have SegWit, and it's simply stupid after LN. On-chain transactions are a waste of resources, every transaction should be through LN, which is as safe and decentralized as on-chain in practical terms.

Once LN kicks in everyone will use LN and few will care to use on-chain, because LN transaction is still a real bitcoin transaction, it just gets wrapped up with other transactions then when it's worth sending into the blockchain it goes there.

Resources are limited, please understand this you delusional big blockers.

No, it's alive, because it needs no social contract that prohibits that people write and promote software.

what ya waiting for?! bitcoin is dead!

Sure you can do. I think bitcoin will survive it. If bitcoin needed a social contract that we don't write some kind of software, it would be already dead. Bitcoin is about throwing the need for trust away. If I had to trust that you don't build a consens-breaking clone I would instantly sell my bitcoins and buy paypal-coins.

Yup - a "classic puppet" if ever there was one.

Don't try and pretend to be anything other than the shill that you are.

And don't expect that anyone with a brain is going to pay attention to your nonsense posts.

In the post I linked before I described "consensus" as being the governance mechanism of Bitcoin, which necessarily needs to include several implementations in order to maintain the freedom of choice. Today we do have multiple competing implementations running over the network, so for you to say that this is impossible is "rubbish" since the reality of today serves as a counter factual to your claims.

After all if the majority chose to adopt classic in order to increase the blocksize, two megabytes blocks would become part of the new consensus. This is how the network can change regardless of what a relatively small group of people within Core thinks. If they are smart they would just increase the blocksize in their code as well in order to stay compatible, otherwise they will be free to fork off the network creating their own chain by going against the majority. Though of course you could still run a simple blocksize increase patch over Core to make it compatible with the network again.

This is the governance mechanism of Bitcoin whether you like it or not. I like this mechanism because it maximizes freedom and self determination, and it ensures against the centralization of power of any development team.

Don't try and say what the "truth" is when you seemingly completely unaware of it. Without consensus you do not have a "network" so your statement is just rubbish.

My guess is that you are a paid shill for Classic (the Unlimited crap is just something you're adding in to try and make yourself look less like a shill).

I support both Classic and Unlimited, they are actually compatible with each other unlike Core. Bitcoin Unlimited is my preferred implementation. Though I can see how with your mentality it would have to be either one or the other. The truth is competing alternative implementations can cooperate and function over the same network.

Strange - that someone who just said a few posts ago that he supports Unlimited is now promoting Classic (as I knew all along).

Easy to catch people who aren't really very clever - isn't it?

(@VeritasSapere R3KT by CIYAM and you're all very welcome)