Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 71. (Read 157162 times)

When the gains from AI designed compilers and architectures flatten out, we'll design AI that creates better AI.

Sadly, you missed my point. Read the post in full (I called you and the rest of the Bitcoin Core supporters thieving leftists on the following line).

I wasn't really insulting you, or really calling you a "right-wing fascist". I was deriding the entire concept by using extreme examples of both "left" and "right" political sleights against Bitcoin Core (I'm particularly proud of successfully attacking the git repo using both "left" and "right" )

These are interesting ideas. I have heard Bitcoin referred to as a private members club, yet open to all. Holding bitcoin gives you private membership rights to trade bitcoin with other members, temporary members or initiates.

I have not forgotten this at all, I do not consider the lighting network to be a solution for scaling the Bitcoin blockchain directly at all both because it adds a layer of abstraction that is not good for the user experience, and because there are no decentralized solutions to routing yet. The same is true for side chains, so far only federated side chains have proven to be viable, these solutions are essentially centralized third parties, in the case of lighting network they are at least trustless third parties. However I would consider being able to transact on the Bitcoin blockchain directly, and transfer value directly without the need for any third parties, a superior design. Considering that this is possible, Bitcoin can scale. It makes sense to me that this is the path we should take.

By restricting the growth of Bitcoin with such an arbitrary limit we would be turning Bitcoin into a type of settlement network, fundamentally changing the economic policy of Bitcoin. I do question what the point of such settlement layer even would be in a world where everyone can transact directly, cheaply, easily and quickly. It is almost as if the very idea of a settlement layer might even be antithetical to a world where cryptocurrency becomes the dominant form of currency, rendered obsolete like many of the other functions that banks carry out today.

A settlement layer is what large financial institutions use to settle balances between them. It is exclusive, elitist and reinforces or recreates the power structures we have today. By attempting to turn Bitcoin into a settlement layer we are turning it into the very financial systems Bitcoin was meant to counter. I find the entire idea to be unrealistic however, the large banks and financial institutions would be much better off if they designed their own systems for this purpose, even Ripple is a better settlement network then Bitcoin, I do not think these large financial institutions would even adopt Bitcoin because it is not in their interests to do so, the only way I see that happening is because they are "forced" to do so in order to stay relevant, and that could only happen because of mass adoption of Bitcoin as a currency. Not increasing the blocksize undermines Bitcoins ability to be a currency as was always intended, the whitepaper even describes this in its title, Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer Electronic Cash System.

https://medium.com/@jgarzik/bitcoin-is-being-hot-wired-for-settlement-a5beb1df223a#.ozf3pv3vs

We do not need to increase the blocksize to twenty four gigabyte blocks or whatever, we only need to increase it enough to keep up with demand so that we preserve the economic properties of Bitcoin.

If adoption does increase faster then technological progress then Bitcoin will hit a limit and that is fine, fees will go up and people will move elsewhere as use cases are pushed out, off chain solutions will also help relieve pressure on the main chain. However restricting the growth of Bitcoin now when it is not even necessary is wrong and will most likely lead to its obsolescence. Especially considering that alternative cryptocurrencies are able to scale their blockchains directly, Bitcoin does need to be able to compete.

http://konradsgraf.com/blog1/tag/block-size-debate

This is not good enough for a six billion dollar economy, they can not even commit to a blocksize increase beyond 2017. Which businesses rely on, certain use cases are pushed out, uncertainty is not good for the market. Not to mention that because of the complexity of segwit the possibility of further blocksize increases might even not be possible because parts of the new code might break when it is increased again according to Core.

Doubling the capacity of the network is not a small increase and would do much good for the entire Bitcoin ecosystem, by refusing to even do this they have made there position quite clear that they are completely unwilling to compromise on this issue, this has the effect of further widening the rift in the community.

Segwit is far more complex and difficult to implement compared to increasing the blocksize limit, to increase the blocksize limit itself is literally only one line of code, Segwit has thousands of lines of code, and is full of unnecessary complexity in part due to the soft fork. The soft fork method of "anyonecanspend" is an ugly hack essentially neutering all of the nodes that do not upgrade, it might as well be a hard fork, considering that even the blocksize limit itself can be increased using this soft fork method, it certainly does disprove this notion that soft forks are good and hard forks are bad, it depends more on the content of the changes that are made.

We could easily have much larger blocks now compared to what we have today, and these innovations to alleviate some of the technical limitations have already been implemented by alternative implementation like Xthin by Bitcoin Unlimited and head first mining by Bitcoin Classic. The truth is that Bitcoin Core has been more focused recently on building everything they need for off chain scaling, compared to actually scaling the Bitcoin blockchain directly which the alternative implementations are more focused on now.

That is not the case actually validation times have already been addressed in libsecp256k1, so that is no longer an issue. Segwit fixes malleability this is true though it includes many other changes, including an arbitary discount for certain transaction types that benefit the lighting network. The ability to make radical changes to Bitcoin through its scripting language by bypassing the consensus mechanism. It actually makes transactions less efficient, the total capacity is increased but not as much as just increasing the blocksize limit to two megabytes would. There are also some very concerning vulnerabilities that allows malicious miners to steal peoples coins, this vulnerability has so far yet to be addressed, I personally would consider that unacceptable.

Segwit would be better implemented as a hard fork, it would lead to much cleaner and more efficient code. Hard forks are an important part of the governance mechanism of Bitcoin, it should not be avoided but embraced as a test of consensus. Segwit is contentious to say the least, I am not against Segwit itself actually I just think the code should not be rushed and it should be implemented as a hard fork without all of these other changes. Increasing the blocksize to two megabytes now is much safer and is actually the conservative choice, not increasing the blocksize represents a fundamental change to the economic policy of Bitcoin.

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011973.html

I`m not a right wing fascist.

I`m a free market capitalist, and yes i also think that the bitcoin development should be better organized, but that doesnt mean that bitcoin classic has any legitimacy because it's technologically inferior.

Bitcoin is not a product, and it has no creation cost other than your time and efforts, so anybody can join it for free, but that doesnt mean that anyone can just do anything they please with it.

Bitcoin is also a private property system, and those that hold the most % of it, should have more rights over it. But as a guest, anybody can join.

Just wait until CPU architecture is also designed by AI

(the "eventually" is irrelevant for our finite processing needs, of, say, a few thousands of tx/s - we'll easily cope with that type of task).

Careful with that left/right stuff, as it's all too easy for your object to use the abstract nature of the left/right paradigm to subvert your argument.

After all, you right-wing fascists are only using clever mental gymnastics to hoard your illegitimate greed. And remember, you Bitcoin Core guys are simultaneously the biggest leftists out there, what with your communist centrally planned coin. And those capitalist right-wing property rights that prevent the Bitcoin github from being a socialist free-for-all have got to go, as does that filthy meritocracy that keeps robbing me of my opportunity to get my (perfect) code committed. Oh, and the whole inconfiscatable thing is too liberal, too leftist.


After all, the left/right political theory exists for that reason alone: you can use it to box any opponent in, if their response allows it.

ugh what a bore

this thread has become a party that no one will leave...

oh dear, and i'm still here too

Yes it can probably handle 2 mb blocks, but that isnt the point.

The point is that once you increase it to 2 mb, the blockchain size will grow 2x faster, so why increase it at all??

Because it might not be a problem now, but it might become a problem in 10 years.

I know that leftists dont like to think for the longer term, and only want free stuff now, but really if you want bitcoin to stay you have to think for 30-50 years ahead.

Ok, so when AI will write the assembly language then stuff will become efficient, thats good, but that also wont last forever.

Eventually you will hit a hardcap on efficiency and the growth curve will become logarithmic.

---

The stupid classic supporters on the other hand want exponential growth forever, which will eventually end bitcoin, inevitably.

You're forgetting the alternative solution estimated to allow billions of people to make essentially unlimited transactions while retaining node decentralisation once technology makes it safe to scale up to 150MB blocks--lightning network. Obviously 150MB blocks are a long ways off from where we are now, but they're certainly closer than the 24GB blocks which would be needed under the current design to allow a similar throughput.

The Core plan for blocksize increase is not, "never", but, "not today". It seems that they have judged the difficulties associated with deploying a hard-fork to 2MB outweigh the gains which might be had from such a small increase. Maybe after we see segwit and weak blocks/IBLTs implemented to alleviate some of the technical limitations we can consider a blocksize increase, perhaps to something more substantial than 2MB, though as the calculations regarding the bandwidth/computational resources required for any given blocksize are beyond me, I won't make any guesses as to what size we might want to target.

Or maybe a fork to 2MB will be announced after segwit to attempt to lessen complaints, though I can't imagine this will change the minds of anyone convinced that, "blockstream is evil". My understanding is that segwit will fix the biggest technical problem associated with 2MB blocks (validation times potentially getting really long for particular blocks), but deployment is still a problem regardless.

Isn't the answer to that question obvious? 

What makes Veritas Sapere so sure that watashi kotoko was explicitly speaking to him? (and not to all the shills, lol)

Veritas, how do you know he was talking to you? Veritas responded to NOT being slandered, more interesting mistakes, eh?

No. There are people who disagree with the visions of others. Core is made up out of a lot of individuals that are employees by various companies. There are different views.

Bullshit. Simple example (change with cash, internet, computers, whatever): You don't even have a single clue on how your smartphone's camera works and yet you're using it. Stop with these idiotic statements.

Says nothing about increasing the total supply. Some random comments on reddit speculating that it might be possible means nothing.

You're actually quoting Toomin?   Input from someone with real knowledge and skills is desired. Obviously he is very biased in this case, thus quoting making no logical sense.

---

---

You expect us to respect you when you are cheer leading your nonsense everywhere with foolish statements/attempts at arguing. Yes, please go back to that shit-hole.

Now this is a different proposal. Sure we'll consider your invitation and visit your venue from time to time to have some kind of argument. I see that this could be interesting in itself while reaching some kind of a consensus may be hard.

Experiments in distributed governance sounds like something suspicious that could be going on.

Well, seeing as literally no-one insulted you, you're going to have a hard time getting people to follow you to bitco.in (does it have a website?).

And you still didn't answer my question: if the blocksize is a trade-off between transaction throughput and centralised nodes, how does one calculate the current ideal size? Do you have an answer?

You guys are rude, I am not a shill and your arguments would be more convincing if you did not resort to personal attacks in almost every one of your posts. I will be retreating back to Bitco.in which is my new home. If anything you should be thanking me for offering up some opposing opinion and helping to avoid this place becoming to much of an echo chamber. You certainly are welcome to present your critiques of our theories at Bitco.in. As a fellow human being I do wish all of my small blockist ideological opponents here the best, happiness, love and prosperity. Peace.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-444

How many of those Classic nodes are Gavin?

I wonder how does the funding work. Is it pay per shill post? What if the posts are too boring to convince anybody?

It would make sense to use some better model like, pay per conversion. But tracking how many people were actually convinced can be difficult.

I'm willing to bet that it's traditional time based payroll. The shill sits in some cubicle, the hours spend posting are billed, at the end of the period gets some payroll.

Ocasionally, a manager comes, shouting at you, demanding to reduce use of appeal to authority and focus on the actual lies a little bit more.

This is the first real experiment in decentralized governance, it might fail, or the economic majority might even make the wrong choice. There are many factors that will determine the outcome of this existential crisis. If I could just increase the blocksize I would not be here attempting to convince my peers that it is the right thing to do, it is a process, one that we are all a part off.