Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 74. (Read 157137 times)

Thanks you two for the breakdown. That's pretty much the way I see it too.

It was always a power grab and nothing more. It seems like Gavin misses the old days when he was in charge. This reminds me of XT, slipping in features without actually discussing them and falsely promoting the implementation. Meanwhile, Core is actually doing something useful (BIP 9 just got merged).

Where are my 20 MB urgent blocks from 2015? 

So the "nothing but Core with a 2MB block change" classic party line is turning into a load of total BS.

It is, and always was, all about politics.

Next feature to be coded into Classic will be a button saying "give all your coins to NSA".

And it will be pre-clicked

Gavin coding SPV mining into Classic
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/gavin-coding-spv-mining-into-classic-1402118

 

When I say socialist, i refer to totalitarian socialists: marxists, leninists, and the rest of them. They want to steal bitcoin from productive people and give them to nonproductive ones.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"  - Marx

This forum and the entire bitcoin community has been infiltrated by heavy leftists, that want to destroy bitcoin, or at least they want to steal bitcoin from rich people and give it to the poor.

I`m not sure why you support leftists, but these kind of lefitsts here are totalitarian.

i agree. all of the technical experts in the field gravitated to core, openly discuss proposals, have thorough peer review and code debugging. none of that is true of classic.

but i will point out: while i am staunchly on the side of decentralization and unbreakable consensus -- i am actually a socialist politically (to be specific, a market anarchist) so i don't think that it's necessarily political affiliation as much as a base misunderstanding by many (or most) users about how bitcoin works. people have been pushing this "free, instant transactions!" line for years, but it's always been bullshit. transactions have costs and there is no incentive to remain p2p if all costs are externalized to nodes. you either keep the network p2p by paying for it, or you don't, and you lose it.

the biggest problem is that people (predictably) gravitate to talking points without evidence, which is why they gravitate to Gavin -- the "we don't need to plan for worst cases, technology gets better so don't question anything, your criticisms are wrong but i don't need to provide evidence" master.

CORE:  50+ Bitcoin specialists, PhDs , Engineers, Programmers, Technicians  and many academic professors support them.

CLASSIC: 2 Bitcoin 'specialists' who havent contributed much to bitcoin over the past years + An army of socialists and shills who want free lunch and free transactions

---

Let's see which team is more credible.

Basically just piles of evidence that Classic is a horrible "solution" that threatens to break bitcoin for nothing.

So, were there any great discoveries or solutions included in these giant walls or are we just trying to keep the Mexicans out?

Of course the blocksize change is small, but Core has formed a roadblock, and the Classic/XT/Unlimited team is using reprehensible techniques to try to ram the change through. The struggle is for control of the codebase - ironically it's open source, so the real struggle is for hearts and minds of users, node operators, and miners. Gavin is being a passive aggressive woman. Everyone else on his side of the fence is a nobody with no technical prowess. Core devs are far smarter, better organized, better funded, and are working well together.

If Core devs changed the blocksize right away, they'd be seen as giving in to the horrible tactics. So they have to wait a year to raise the limit.

If you don't have time for drama, trust that logic and patience will win in the end, and move along.

Yes. But every node on the bitcoin network does not. That's how we make bitcoin scale beyond the limitations of broadcast networks.


Okay, so as usual, the "solution" is to ignore the question of scalability entirely. Great solution.


Yes. There were no statistics to support anything you said. Greg Maxwell's testing provided the numbers to refute you.


Why? And why can't you produce any evidence that growth is fading out, or will? You keep saying baseless things like:

More meaningless FUD. On the contrary -- the immutability of bitcoin's consensus is precisely what makes it a serious currency.


It optimizes transaction architecture such that we can achieve increased throughput without pressuring nodes off the network. If you can't understand the value of that trade-off, there is no point to this discussion.


It doesn't. See my earlier post explaining the math. You continue to focus on increasing the block size when the question is how to increase throughput without degrading the network.



Sorry, that's not how logic works. You make the claim that growth is being stifled. The burden is on you to support that claim. The impossibility of definitive proof is not sufficient to make baseless claims and act like they are true.


I'm saying that a fee market guarantees income for miners absent block subsidy. In your scenario, where capacity remains ahead of demand (cheap and free transactions), there is no such guarantee. There is no guarantee of mass adoption and perpetual growth. So the absence of a fee market greatly threatens network security since there may be little to no incentive for miners to secure the blockchain once block subsidy ends.


I've explained how LN transactions are theoretically far cheaper than on-chain transactions, since they do not require that every node on the network validate and relay them. Any proof for this assertion that one can expect "big" fees?

You just keep repeating the same tired arguments, which fall flat on their face upon first examination. I can't keep taking the time to respond if you make no effort to move the discussion forward. If you make claims, back them up before presenting them as truths.

yea, lots of shitcoins already in the wild that forked off with less than say 1% of the network.. or even with a whole new set of rules and network!!1

Network = users/nodes also and not just miners. 75% of miners doesn't mean 75% of the network. A hard fork could occur with way less than 75% of the network's support.

It isn't, this is a common misconception. Anything that requires a hard fork is anything but a simple change. Actually it is a very complex change since it should require almost everyone to upgrade (consensus). Classic on the other hand does not care about the opinion of 1/4 of the network and would fork without it.

---

---

Update: Yes, my wording was not adequate. However, it is safe to assume that it would fork (if it came to that) with less than 75% users/merchants supporting it.

The thing is, the blocksize thing is such a small change. If BTC is having such drama over such a little thing, how will it cope in future with more stressful demands (and these will certainly present themselves). I would have thought common sense would have prevailed by now, but this thing has been dragging on for years and seems like it will continue on for years.

Altcoin markets are already active and thriving - these are a good indication of demand and really are "offchain solutions" that merely require trust in exchanges and devs (which is often not warranted...).

Nonetheless consider the level of (unwarranted) trust the typical BTC holder has in exchanges...

If the offchain solutions become widespread, than that some point will become like 25 years.

Definitely not in the near future, faucets will have to have offchain transaction solutions like faucetbox and LN.

Disclaimer:
Classic sucks. But blocksize needs to increase at some point.

I just want to throw this out there: I believe the BTC price is being kept up by long-term holders like the Winklevii, and that 1MB blocksize allows big traders like them to saturate the network capacity with buy transactions. I can't prove it, but I believe that big traders just buy their own coins back and forth through the exchanges anytime there is a dip, since there is no regulation against this. Every time I look at block explorer, I see transactions for 15K+ BTC listed. Looking right now I see a transaction for 626,839.53 BTC - that's almost 300 million USD! This is likely SPAM and/or speculation by a whale. Somebody must be buying up all of the coins that are mined each day by China to keep the price up (technically, mining is inflation).

It's also likely that big financial players are deliberately shorting BTC and trying to drive the price down. Again, there is no regulation against shorting your own coins, so this is easy if you have 100 million to play with.

Obviously Core devs, large holders of BTC, investors in the crypto space, and most people on this forum want the price to stay up. If somebody did succeed in shorting the price way down, they would likely be working in the US government's best interest. I believe that small blocksize is a cap that mitigates this risk.

I don't have proof of any of this, but it makes sense to me.

Do you predict prices?