Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 84. (Read 157162 times)

The very Brian Armstrong showing support for a Sybil attack. How lovely. These nodes are completely useless for decentralization.

Mmhhh

I'd like to see evidence of these features working first. As far as Traffic-shaping is concerned, this is implemented in Core (Reduce upload traffic - in changelog) under another name  (they claim that they "coded it"). This does not even surprise me. I'd like to see real data on Thinblocks, however I do remember maxwell saying somewhere that it is noticeably worse than the relay network from Corralo. So let's see.
Try posting something positive on r/btc and you will get downvoted to oblivion (ergo another type of censorship, yet nobody bats an eye).  



 

this seems like good stuff, what's your take on it iCEBREAKER?

does Core have or plan to have this?

In the latest news from Jerusalem...

Tensions between Team Unlimited and Classic's Censorship Martyr Brigade are running high.


https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/47mj3i/announcing_bitcoinunlimited_v0120_experimental/d0e74s6

P> Announcing BitcoinUnlimited v0.12.0

Q> This is a bad idea.   All you're doing is stirring the pot and giving ammunition to those who would paint us all as idiots and trolls.

Unlimited or Core?

just upgraded to 0.12.0

This definitely did not begin with this thread. It started back with XT.

Nobody cares. You're free to fork off right now. ~5% hashrate is also a form of consensus right?  

If you only had real developers that were actually coding instead of wasting everyone's time and causing confusing, it might have been a viable option.

Yes, Classic is dead. 0 team members, Gavin jerking off instead of coding, Ethereum is the next Classic, deal with it nigger;

The Bitcoin core groupies started with the ad hominems in this thread, not me. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

More than one pool is mining Classic. But wait, this "REKT" party is over, right? Classic is dead!

Your shitty classic blocks are completely pointless. Joke's on you idiot.

If that was the sole focus you would link to a proper website, not this joke of a "counter" (which is very biased). A single pool can't do anything, you are free to fork off with KNCMiner. Here comes the ad hominem, very 'classic'.

---

---

This is the real link (from that website) for the block statistic.

It's the number of blocks mined, you fucking idiot. Learn to read.

How many times does one have to tell you that the number of nodes is not a good metric, especially not when taken in a very short period of time? Either you are unable to comprehend this, or are refusing to. One can easily jump-start a high number of nodes in a short period of time.

What's this about the "R3KT party winding down"? Surely you guys should be dancing on the grave of Bitcoin Classic now it's well and truly history, right?

https://coin.dance/nodes/blocks

I mean, why is this thread still active if Classic is "R3KT"?

So in the social UX layer, it's the ever-looming potential loss of "practical freedom to use their preferred software" that puts the criteria in 'consensus-critical.'  If the data layer is borked by some catastrophe, the nodes are mostly useless for their users.

Not being a hippie an altruist, I'd reverse or at least equate the assumptions w/r/t linking the benefits of cooperation and costs of competition.  Dodo Island Effect, don't you know.

Then I'd invert the frame, asking if it is possible to compete at being the most cooperative ('frenemies')!  



Very profound.  Great catch on pointing out I'd mistakenly referred to as "zero-sum" contentious hard forks' negative-sum game theoretics.

It's important to emphasize a Pyrrhic GavinCoin victory doesn't involve a smooth transfer of power from Evil Core to Heroic Classic.

There are Samson Options on the table.  Many Gavinistas actually want a moment of maximal risk, either because they don't own many Bitcoins or like the narrative appeal of a TV Trope style Cathartic Scream.

If hard-forkers insist on a first strike in the form of a "75/25" split, the rest of the network may respond with their Doomsday Machine, aka PoW change.

The sum productivity of such a situation quickly drops from zero to extremely negative.  Perhaps that's just creative destruction at work.

But the recriminations will surely flow, as the Gavinistas survey the decimated Bitcoin ecosystem and exclaim "Look what you made me do!"

Let me share with you some proven strategies on hostile boards.


The above post send via mail to non-shill (not-upvoted) users. It exposes the shill narrative `PROBLEM-FEAR-SOLUTION` and makes fun of the perfect grammar of the shills.

Open source software generally both cooperates and competes. Handled well the benefits of the former offset the costs of the latter and the result is a gain for everyone. --- but software differentiating in consensus rules is the worst kind of competition: competition here can deprive users of the practical freedom to use their preferred software, and the fight risks leaving a salted earth in its wake.

This is not completely unheard of outside of consensus systems: A less powerful version of it exists in the form of file format compatibility. Microsoft was a pioneer of business strategy based on making incompatible extensions to formats, first leveraging their network effect and then-- after introducing incompatible changes-- using it against them, an approach they themselves called embrace, extend, extinguish. Worse than zero sum, these kinds of moves can be tremendously damaging overall.

Bitcoin's creator described alternative implementations as a likely "menace to the network"-- words which I think were spoken with an early insight into the incredible difficulty in making distinct software actually consensus compatible even when that is your highest goal, an art our industry is still just learning.  I wish we'd built mechanisms earlier on for better ways to enable diversity in the non-consensus parts without ending up with unintended diversity in the consensus parts.  But we play the hand we're dealt. The potential harms from consensus disagreements from mistakes in re-implementation are tiny in comparison to those from adversarial implementations which intentionally push incompatible rules.

It gets confusing and idiomatic (esp for non-native speakers) if we have to distinguish between the friendly positive-sum competition of btcd vs the cutthroat zero-sum competition of GavinCoin.

I'd classify other implementations like libbitcoin and bctd as complementary, not competing, in that they all share the same goal of maintaining the One True Holy Ledger.

But let's defer to the core dev, if gmax has a better suggestion for the taxonomy/nomenclature.

Correct. And btcd. And they are net positive.