Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 89. (Read 157162 times)

Straw man. You've told me multiple times that this is happening right now, I'm telling you that it isn't. Segwit gives adequate capacity and will be deployed faster than a HF.

No. You've said multiple times that Bitcoin can scale directly, as in we should scale it always this way. I've told you to provide evidence to back this up, but you can't.

No. You are mistaken again, and I have to correct you multiple times. Here are some ways which help scale Bitcoin:
1) Segwit (transaction capacity 180-190%)
2) Payments channels (e.g. 21 inc, LN)
3) Sidechains (e.g. Liquid)
We are scaling Bitcoin 'right now'. Your flawed thinking that "scaling" means only by increasing the block size limit is foolish at best. Also, stop quoting Satoshi out of context.

Either you are lying or you do not know better, the fundamental question that changes the economic policy of Bitcoin is whether the blocksize limit should be used as an economic policy tool where it is used to restrict the transaction througput of the network because of the some claimed economic benefit of such a policy, as opposed to the blocksize limit being above the average transaction volume which would allow the blocksize to be determined by real supply and demand instead, which is what I favor. To deny this conflict of incompatible visions is either disingenuous or you simply do not understand the gravity of the questions that are at stake here.

This is a fundamental question for the future of Bitcoin, it is quite clear that Core has the position that transaction volume needs to be arbitrarily restricted in order to bring about a "fee market". Which radicly changes the economics and use cases of Bitcoin. A fundemental change of vision, since if Block Stream got their way Bitcoin would not even be considered a currency anymore. I personally think Block Streams plans for Bitcoin are guaranteed to fail, because of deep flaws within their conception of the economics and game theory of Bitcoin. Bitcoin will certainly not be the dominant currency of the world if Block Stream succeeds in radically changing Bitcoin from what we are all used to into something very different.

You are just constructing a huge straw man argument again after telling you time and time again that we just need to increase it to two megabytes and increase it again as needed, hopefully in step with technological progress.

This has everything to do with the nirvana fallacy, you are saying that if Bitcoin can not scale completly now we should not scale it at all. I think this is deeply flawed and we should scale Bitcoin as the technology allows, this was always the plan to begin with even Satoshi recognized that its global adoption depended upon continued technological progress.

Again, they aren't. This was written completely ignoring Segwit. Segwit is also a variant of "kick the can" as he says. If people want the increase in capacity they will try to adapt Segwit as soon as (safely) possible in order to start transacting more efficiently. His observations hold merit, however are not really relevant anymore as this is not happening. Classic can not safely deploy a HF (Garzik calls for a 3 to 6 months minimum grace period) in less time than it takes to deploy Segwit.

I'm telling you that it is impossible to scale Bitcoin via the block size limit to accommodate a global adoption without sacrificing the fundamental principles. This does not mean that I'm telling you that the block size can't be increased.

This has nothing to do with the nirvana fallacy; stop trying to use these if you are unable to use them correctly. Ignore Garzik and Andersen for now, give me the list of these "experts". I'm asking you to explain to me how we can do 10 000 TPS in the near future (5-10 years) using only the block size limit. If you are unable to provide an analysis and data to back it up, then you can stop posting nonsense and false claims (of it being able to scale directly to accommodate global adoption). 10k TPS is a reasonable number and is going to be very small in comparison to Visa by 2025.

Being wrong for so long and so often must hurt the ego, mister "I'm kind of an history bluff". Funny you don't seem to be learning from history though

They most definitely are, that you can not recognize this is not helping your case. Even Jeff Garzick made this point very clear. In his article he is using technical language instead of political and economic language to make his point, this might be very good for people like you, I highly recommend you read it again if you have not already read it and then tell me earnestly that Jeff Garzick's observations hold no merit and that Core is not changing the economic policy of Bitcoin, it should be very obvious that that is exactly what they are doing.

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

For you to say that it is "impossible" to increase the block size limit until of course Core does it. I find ludicrous, I am sure that even highly technically inclined people would not take such a position seriously.

It does not need to be all or nothing today, this is the nirvana fallacy that you still entertain. In regards to prominent developers that support a blocksize increase outside of Core, both Jeff Garzick and Gavin Andresen where both prominent members of Core to say the least before they left due to this disagreement. I do not think that you can say that these two people do not know what they are talking about, they most certainly do. Not to mention the many other less well known developers working presently for both Classic and Unlimited.

https://medium.com/@jgarzik/bitcoin-is-being-hot-wired-for-settlement-a5beb1df223a#.49o143892

They aren't, this is why Segwit is coming.

Core consists of tens of independent developer/engineers who have signed the roadmap. I'm telling you that it is impossible as well, I'm not part of Core so your 'idea/argument' has no merit. What are these "other engineers" that this so? How are they relevant? If you take Rizun or someone of such sort as an example, you should be classified as a joke and be put on ignore. I'd like to get a list of these "engineers", "experts" that think Bitcoin can scale directly (without sacrificing everything that it stands for) enough in order to become a mainstream currency. 10 000 tps would be a nice starting number.

Bitcoin is a form of democracy, that is where I think you might be fundamentally mistaken. This is why subjective opinions do matter, it is what makes Bitcoin. We value decentralization and freedom for instance because they are subjective values, they are not scientific at all.

It has been shown scientifically that increasing the blocksize is possible. We have scientists and transparent developers doing exactly that, check out the work done by Bitcoin Unlimited recently with Xthin Blocks for instance, it is ground breaking work solving some of the last issues of scaling. Papers have been written and tests have been carried out. We could have easily increased the blocksize to two megabyte six months ago I do not think that anyone can argue from a scientific point of view that this was or still is impossible.

But for that to be measured we need transparent devs putting out ideas and specialists and technicians verifying that, with actual proofs like whitepapers and scientific documentations.

Opinions dont matter here, bitcoin is science and it needs to be dealt with it that way. It's not a democracy sorry.

I could also argue that maybe the Engineers should not fundamentally change the economic policy of Bitcoin without listening very closely to the advice of economists and social scientists. It would be wise for the engineers to recognize that economics might not be their area of expertise.

I also do not buy the whole idea that if Core says it is impossible it therefore must be impossible until of course they say that it is not. There are other engineers that are not within Core that are saying that we can scale Bitcoin directly, so faced with this contradiction by the technical experts I choose the path which is most favorable from the perspective of economics, game theory, decentralization and freedom. Which happens to also be the original vision for Bitcoin.

You've missed the post above you:
Unless you have a degree that is relevant to scaling large scale system Veritas, you should not be telling the engineers how to do it.

+1

I do not consider off chain solutions to be a way to scale Bitcoin directly at all. We can scale Bitcoin directly, if Bitcoin will not do it alternative cryptocurrencies will. I do not see any reason why people would choose to use a layer build on top of the blockchain when they can just use the blockchain directly, easily, quickly and cheaply. Without the added complexion and abstraction that is required by having to use a third party on top of the blockchain in order to transact.

I think that you are fooling yourself if you think that Bitcoin can become the dominant currency of the world with high fees. Especially considering that it is not even a technological necessity yet. I accept that with far greater adoption this might be the case but blocking the growth in transaction volume now at this stage so early in its development will guarantee that Bitcoin will be outcompeted and obsolesced. I think that the blocksize limit should be significantly above the average transaction volume, this way the blocksize limit serves its original purpose as an anti spam feature, not as an economic policy tool for central planning, wielded by a group of technocrats.

The biggest problem with Classic shills is that they can't deal with the fact Bitcoin will never scale anywhere without Lightning Network and no matter how much you raise the blocksize, the only thing you are doing is centralizing the nodes compared to what you would get out of it which is sightly cheaper on-chain transactions (and no one is going to be using on-chain transactions in the future when they realize they can do it for near free with LN and no one is having any problems with it whatsoever).
Just absolutely no idea how to scale protocols these guys.

ITT: we think as goodly as we right.

                                                                            rite?


...righte?

Maybe right a BIP about it.

So we're moving on to Dash, the best candidate in the market that had no premine or anything (your words)?   What simple people like you don't understand is, if Bitcoin fails it is highly likely that every crypto-currency gets abandoned (until there is something new and truly innovative).

I wonder when they're going to de-list the, if ever?

The incentives for bigger blocks will continue to align, it is the very game theory that Bitcoin is based on. Core can not delay the inevitable forever. The miners will realize eventually that it is in their own best self interest to scale Bitcoin directly. Even if we do still need to go through and feel the pain of a congested network and the consequences that entails. I am confident that the original vision of Satoshi will triumph even if it will be in the form of a chain fork or altcoin which will become the dominant cryptocurrency of the world. The cryptocurrency revolution will succeed no matter what happens to Bitcoin.

Understand that there is a fundamental difference in vision here, for the future of Bitcoin. It is important to recognize this fact so that we can objectively choose the best path for ourselves. Not necessarily following who ever we think is more "qualified" because questions of vision might not necessarily be the expertise of a group of programmers. Considering that Core is attempting to change the fundamental economic policy of Bitcoin, putting it on a radically different path compared to what was always intended, until relatively recently.

I strongly disagree with this path that Core wants Bitcoin to take, I would not even want to be part of such a project. I think their plan for Bitcoin going into the future has major flaws in both economics and game theory, if Block Stream succeeds I am certain that version of Bitcoin will not remain the dominant cryptocurrency for long. Fortunately this can still work out for the better, more people are starting to realize this and you do not need to be an expert in economics to realize that reliability, cost and ease of use do matter, and that Bitcoin can be outcompeted and obsolesced. Bitcoin is freedom, Bitcoin is a form of democracy even though Block Stream will try and convince you that it is not, what does that tell you?

Update on Classic hashrate support



 


Gavinistas deeply saddened.

Bitco.in flags at half mast.

/r/btc on suicide watch.

If only someone had warned them Classic would enjoy just as much success as XT, ie none at all.

Oh wait...   

Huzzah!