|
Title: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: HostFat on January 17, 2016, 04:17:59 AM This is a list of the competing full nodes currently available.
Some of them may have rules that can results in a soft fork and/or a hard fork, so you have to understand them before choosing which one you will install on your system. Near the name of the node there can be a "flag" -> HF - This means that if a majority of the network (usually over a % of blocks) will update to this node over the most used before, than it will hard fork. But, you should always check for updates on their official website to be sure about last minute updates. I'll try to maintain this list updated as possible. Advices are welcome. The discussion is self-moderated, I'll probably delete spam (and paid sig spam) and trolling. The first is the most used node currently, the others are in random order. Bitcoin Core Site: https://bitcoincore.org Code: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin BTCD (new implementation in Go) Code: https://github.com/btcsuite/btcd Bitcoin Unlimited (Core fork) - HF Site: http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info Subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_unlimited Code: https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited Bitcoin Classic (Core fork) - HF Site: https://bitcoinclassic.com Subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_classic Code: https://github.com/bitcoinclassic Bitcoin Knots (Core fork) Site: http://bitcoinknots.org/ Code: https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin Bitcoin XT (Core fork) - HF Site: https://bitcoinxt.software Subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt Code: https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt BitcoinJ (common used as Java SPV node only, it has an experimental full verification) Site: https://bitcoinj.github.io/full-verification Code: https://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj Release notes: https://bitcoinj.github.io/release-notes Toshi (new implementation in Ruby) Site: https://toshi.io/ Code: https://github.com/coinbase/toshi The Bitcoin Foundation (not "Bitcoin Foundation" - Fork of old Bitcoin code) Site: http://thebitcoin.foundation/ Code: http://btc.yt/lxr/satoshi/source/ Haskoin (new implementation in Haskell) Code: https://github.com/haskoin/haskoin Libbitcoin (new implementation in C++) Site: https://libbitcoin.org Code: https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin Bcoin (new implementation in Javascript) Site: http://bcoin.io - http://bcoin.io/browser.html Code: https://github.com/bcoin-org/bcoin Blocks stats https://coin.dance/blocks http://nodecounter.com/#bitcoin_classic_blocks Node stats: https://bitnodes.21.co https://coin.dance/nodes http://nodecounter.com Fee & Size stats (other stats?) https://www.btc.com/en/stats/block-size https://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/fee-and-priority-estimates Bitcoin website (different owners) https://bitcoin.org https://www.bitcoin.com http://bitcoinforks.org - Proposing hard forks General subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin - Against hard fork https://www.reddit.com/r/btc - Open to hard fork https://www.reddit.com/r/Btcfork - Proposing hard forks Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: achow101 on January 17, 2016, 04:30:49 AM Are these all software that will fork the blockchain? If so, I don't think Btcd and Bitcoin LJR belong since they don't implement anything that would fork.
Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: HostFat on January 17, 2016, 04:36:35 AM Are these all software that will fork the blockchain? If so, I don't think Btcd and Bitcoin LJR belong since they don't implement anything that would fork. No.I've added this text: "Some of them may have rules that can results in soft fork and hard fork, so you have to understand them before choosing which one you will install on your system." Do you think that it's better to show a "flag" to indicate that the node will push for an hard fork over the most used one node? EDIT Added Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: achow101 on January 17, 2016, 05:28:19 AM Are these all software that will fork the blockchain? If so, I don't think Btcd and Bitcoin LJR belong since they don't implement anything that would fork. No.I've added this text: "Some of them may have rules that can results in soft fork and hard fork, so you have to understand them before choosing which one you will install on your system." Do you think that it's better to show a "flag" to indicate that the node will push for an hard fork over the most used one node? EDIT Added In that case, I have an addition, BitcoinJ. It is primarily SPV but it does have an experimental full node implementation. Edit: also, I think that this site: https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/ is bitcoin core's official page than bitcoincore.org is. It has more info and the downloads are hosted there. Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: HostFat on January 17, 2016, 05:41:01 AM bitcoincore.org is going to be the official website of Bitcoin Core. (I think that it is already official)
Links to the download are already present here https://bitcoincore.org/en/releases/0.11.2/ They are updating it day by day, bitcoin.org is already well known as website and it's more a general website. Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: achow101 on January 17, 2016, 05:44:29 AM bitcoincore.org is going to be the official website of Bitcoin Core. (I think that it is already official) Those are just release notes. The actual downloads are still on bitcoin.org.Links to the download are already present here https://bitcoincore.org/en/releases/0.11.2/ They are updating it day by day, and bitcoin.org is already well known as website. Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: HostFat on January 17, 2016, 05:47:56 AM I've added bitcoin.org as bitcoin website.
On https://bitcoincore.org/en/releases/0.11.2/ there is also the link to download binaries on bitcoin.org. I'm sure that they'll add them on bitcoincore.org as well. Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: Amph on January 17, 2016, 08:50:40 AM i'm fairly certain that none of those will get any real consensus besides core,
core is aiming as well to increase the limit to 2mb, so the other are obsolete they seems like a way, for some dev to say " this version is mine, i made it..." Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: shorena on January 17, 2016, 08:52:23 AM Toshi.io (full node in ruby) -> https://github.com/coinbase/toshi
Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: canth on January 17, 2016, 11:40:25 AM i'm fairly certain that none of those will get any real consensus besides core, core is aiming as well to increase the limit to 2mb, so the other are obsolete they seems like a way, for some dev to say " this version is mine, i made it..." Do you have any updates showing that core devs are moving toward a 2MB max block size? I agree that they are going to have to do it eventually but communication from Core devs have been relatively quiet this week after most miner (pools) indicated they would use Classic (if needed) to move to 2MB blocks via a HF. I am not looking to get into yet another debate about the merits of block size, just wanted to see if you had any info I don't. (deleted image - waiting for a better miner representation) Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: Lauda on January 17, 2016, 11:43:06 AM Do you have any updates showing that core devs are moving toward a 2MB max block size? I agree that they are going to have to do it eventually but communication from Core devs have been relatively quiet this week after most miner (pools) indicated they would use Classic (if needed) to move to 2MB blocks via a HF. I am not looking to get into yet another debate about the merits of block size, just wanted to see if you had any info I don't. This picture is false, F2 does not support Classic. Please stop posting it around.https://i.imgur.com/qaLBXnO.png Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: canth on January 17, 2016, 11:46:05 AM Do you have any updates showing that core devs are moving toward a 2MB max block size? I agree that they are going to have to do it eventually but communication from Core devs have been relatively quiet this week after most miner (pools) indicated they would use Classic (if needed) to move to 2MB blocks via a HF. I am not looking to get into yet another debate about the merits of block size, just wanted to see if you had any info I don't. This picture is false, F2 does not support Classic. Please stop posting it around.http://[img]https://i.imgur.com/qaLBXnO.png[/img] Fair enough - I searched and wasn't able to find F2Pool thoughts on Classic. Edited my original post - there's enough other pools that support Classic at this point, it's not to be ignored. Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: Amph on January 17, 2016, 12:33:52 PM i'm fairly certain that none of those will get any real consensus besides core, core is aiming as well to increase the limit to 2mb, so the other are obsolete they seems like a way, for some dev to say " this version is mine, i made it..." Do you have any updates showing that core devs are moving toward a 2MB max block size? I agree that they are going to have to do it eventually but communication from Core devs have been relatively quiet this week after most miner (pools) indicated they would use Classic (if needed) to move to 2MB blocks via a HF. I am not looking to get into yet another debate about the merits of block size, just wanted to see if you had any info I don't. (deleted image - waiting for a better miner representation) https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq, they want to do it via segregate witness Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: canth on January 17, 2016, 12:49:48 PM i'm fairly certain that none of those will get any real consensus besides core, core is aiming as well to increase the limit to 2mb, so the other are obsolete they seems like a way, for some dev to say " this version is mine, i made it..." Do you have any updates showing that core devs are moving toward a 2MB max block size? I agree that they are going to have to do it eventually but communication from Core devs have been relatively quiet this week after most miner (pools) indicated they would use Classic (if needed) to move to 2MB blocks via a HF. I am not looking to get into yet another debate about the merits of block size, just wanted to see if you had any info I don't. (deleted image - waiting for a better miner representation) https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq, they want to do it via segregate witness At best, that's a 1.7M block size equivalent. The miners supporting 2M blocks via Classic are well aware of SW. I'm also very supportive of SW although less so for the accounting trick scalability increase and more so for the new scripting features and malleability fix. Back to my original point, no Core does not support a 2M block size via HF which is what miners (among others) are now pushing for. Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: HostFat on January 17, 2016, 01:55:20 PM @shorena
Added. Fair enough - I searched and wasn't able to find F2Pool thoughts on Classic. Edited my original post - there's enough other pools that support Classic at this point, it's not to be ignored. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=700411.msg13571787#msg13571787 Policy change announcement: We support the hard fork effort to increase the max block size to 2MB. Seg-wit may be deployed together in this hard fork if it can be ready in time, or it can be merged later. Non-controversial features in the hard fork wishlist, if it does not delay the hard fork process, can be deployed at the same time. The hard fork should be implemented in Core, eventually. “Bitcoin” Classic, which despite was born on the same day that XT dies, is an attempt that could make the hard fork happen sooner. We welcome Classic. We are going to cease support for FSS-RBF after upgrading to version 0.12, some time in the next few weeks. We may not implement the opt-in RBF feature. We believe that we should do everything we can do to make 0-conf transactions as secure as possible. We do not believe the concept of fee market. Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: LiteCoinGuy on January 17, 2016, 02:13:54 PM thx for making this HostFat, i think that is a valuable summary. is theymos allowing that these days? ::)
Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: HostFat on January 17, 2016, 02:15:22 PM thx for making this HostFat, i think that is a valuable summary. is theymos allowing that these days? ::) I hope so, but please avoid this argument here now.Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: Amph on January 17, 2016, 03:24:23 PM i'm fairly certain that none of those will get any real consensus besides core, core is aiming as well to increase the limit to 2mb, so the other are obsolete they seems like a way, for some dev to say " this version is mine, i made it..." Do you have any updates showing that core devs are moving toward a 2MB max block size? I agree that they are going to have to do it eventually but communication from Core devs have been relatively quiet this week after most miner (pools) indicated they would use Classic (if needed) to move to 2MB blocks via a HF. I am not looking to get into yet another debate about the merits of block size, just wanted to see if you had any info I don't. (deleted image - waiting for a better miner representation) https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq, they want to do it via segregate witness At best, that's a 1.7M block size equivalent. The miners supporting 2M blocks via Classic are well aware of SW. I'm also very supportive of SW although less so for the accounting trick scalability increase and more so for the new scripting features and malleability fix. Back to my original point, no Core does not support a 2M block size via HF which is what miners (among others) are now pushing for. in case tere will be a saturation of the 2mb limit, having 1.75 will suffice with a little delay on the transaction, much better than what happened with the stress test Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: achow101 on January 17, 2016, 03:49:18 PM Fairly certain that bitcore: https://bitcore.io/ is a full node software as well.
Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: canth on January 18, 2016, 12:33:56 AM it's equivalent of 1.75 mega at minimu, and it can be expanded to be above 2MB, and anyway 2mb, is a temporary step toward the issue, so having 1.75 or 2mb will not change anything in case tere will be a saturation of the 2mb limit, having 1.75 will suffice with a little delay on the transaction, much better than what happened with the stress test Huh? SW cannot get more than a 1.75x increase on its own. I'm unaware of any on-chain throughput increases that can be had as a soft fork, other than the SW accounting trick. 1) We have no idea when SW will be ready for release. It's over 500 lines of code that need to be reviewed, very much unlike a max block size increase. 2) We have no idea when most wallets will be ready to accommodate SW. 3) We don't really know whether miners will charge lower fees for SW transactions and theoretically incentivize users to upgrade and start using SW transactions rather than typical transactions. I'm a big fan of some of the features that SW brings, but it's not a sure bet that this has any effect on throughput in 2016. Even if it does, the number of daily transactions has been growing quickly enough that we'll need a 2017 solution as well, and this brings up the 2MB + SW block size increase. There's a reason that miners aren't jumping on board SW alone. Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: HostFat on January 18, 2016, 11:54:23 AM Fairly certain that bitcore: https://bitcore.io/ is a full node software as well. I added and then removed Bitcore.Quote “Bitcore has bitcoind built right in, so joining the peer-to-peer network is simple.” Quote Bitcore is a full bitcoin node — your apps run directly on the peer-to-peer network. By binding directly into bitcoind's source code, Bitcore's API is 20x faster than connecting to a separate bitcoin node, and orders of magnitude faster than a centralized API. So it is exactly a Bitcoin Core daemon, same code, same rules. Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: HostFat on January 28, 2016, 07:45:34 PM Added two implementations
Haskoin (new implementation in Haskell) Code: https://github.com/haskoin/haskoin Libbitcoin (new implementation in C++) Site: https://libbitcoin.org Code: https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin I'll give you updates about new versions of all these listed implementations. Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: HostFat on February 10, 2016, 03:02:55 PM Three new releases:
Bitcoin Classic v0.11.2 https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/releases/tag/v0.11.2.cl1 Bitcoin XT v0.11E https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/releases/tag/v0.11E Libbitcoin v2.11.0 https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/releases/tag/v2.11.0 Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: Lauda on February 10, 2016, 04:58:41 PM Bitcoin XT v0.11E Who are these people that are still working on XT? I mean, do you know their names (I can see the commits myself)? Looks like they enjoy wasting their free time. https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/releases/tag/v0.11E Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: HostFat on February 10, 2016, 05:03:08 PM Who are these people that are still working on XT? I mean, do you know their names (I can see the commits myself)? Looks like they enjoy wasting their free time. With a little look on issues/pr I see these names:https://github.com/dagurval https://github.com/dgenr8 https://github.com/MarcoFalke Maybe there are others, time and incentives can be subjective. Anyway, they can still take other code from other forks as Classic, Core or Unlimited. Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: canth on February 15, 2016, 02:49:46 AM Bitcoin XT v0.11E Who are these people that are still working on XT? I mean, do you know their names (I can see the commits myself)? Looks like they enjoy wasting their free time. https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/releases/tag/v0.11E https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bitcoin-xt/FCdTN1oKbkY (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bitcoin-xt/FCdTN1oKbkY) Quote Bitcoin XT Release 0.11.0E has been tagged. Binaries are not yet available. This release includes a bunch of work that was done before Mike Hearn moved on. In particular, Dagur Johannsson has finished the block download acceleration that Mike started. Thin blocks fast block downloading, enabled by default Supports and votes for 2MB hard fork (identical to Classic). BIP101 reverted. Switch to secp256k1 custom bitcoin ECC library Random mempool eviction reverted, low-fee txes evicted when mempool full Mempool expiration at 72 hours (identical to Core) Configurable user-agent comment Display coinjoins better in GUI wallet LevelDB anti-corruption fix (Windows platforms) Gracefully handle migration from obfuscated (Core v0.12) chainstate Thin blocks is simply block download acceleration. It works without requiring changes to your peers' software. You will become a source of faster blocks and contribute to faster confirmation times for the bitcoin network, so keep an eye on your upload bandwith usage. Any future that Bitcoin XT has beyond this release depends totally on your interest and contributions. Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: 7788bitcoin on February 15, 2016, 03:02:08 AM It seems like people come and go and left behind works for different versions...
However, this is almost the "once in a life time" moment when we witness the evolution of bitcoin and the blockchain technology itself in real life implementation. Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: HostFat on February 23, 2016, 11:17:28 AM Bitcoin Core v0.12.0
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases/tag/v0.12.0 https://bitcoin.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.12.0/ Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: HostFat on February 26, 2016, 02:24:30 AM BitcoinUnlimited v0.12.0 - HF
Experimental BU Client Release - Focus on Main-chain Scaling https://bitco.in/forum/threads/announcing-bitcoinunlimited-v0-12-0-experimental-release.909/ https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/tree/0.12bu http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/download Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: Jet Cash on February 26, 2016, 07:04:56 AM The site NodeCounter.com (http://NodeCounter.com) shows some of the options and their growth. That count increase for Classic seems to be counter-intuitive given that Core 0.12.0 has just been released, also the classic users in my (small) peer list seem to have dropped out. It leads me to believe that the stats are being manipulated to try to force a destructive change onto Bitcoin. Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: HostFat on February 26, 2016, 11:06:12 AM @Jet Cash
This site checks the number of nodes by counting many as only one per IP address http://coin.dance/nodes Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: HostFat on February 29, 2016, 03:42:12 AM Bitcoinj v0.13.5
https://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj/releases/tag/v0.13.5 https://bitcoinj.github.io/release-notes Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: HostFat on March 07, 2016, 11:29:00 PM Bitcoin Classic v0.12.0
https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/releases/tag/v0.12.0cl1 Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: shorena on March 08, 2016, 08:03:50 AM Bitcoin Classic v0.12.0 https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/releases/tag/v0.12.0cl1 Any idea why they didnt enable the chainstate obfuscation? AFAIK its only used to avoid false positives from anti virus software. Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: HostFat on March 08, 2016, 10:26:27 AM @shorena
Maybe they thought that could be a problem from retro compatibility with older versions, but it is still be possible to enable it. EDIT From Tom Zander on Slack Quote its an awful idea to make everyones chainstate unreadable by older or competing software while this only happens on Windows (not exactly the most used server platform) and then only on machines that have a crappy virus killer (which practically no servers do have). Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: shorena on March 08, 2016, 01:05:46 PM @shorena Maybe they thought that could be a problem from retro compatibility with older versions, but it is still be possible to enable it. EDIT From Tom Zander on Slack Quote its an awful idea to make everyones chainstate unreadable by older or competing software while this only happens on Windows (not exactly the most used server platform) and then only on machines that have a crappy virus killer (which practically no servers do have). Makes sense, but the problem is not limited to windows only. There is at least one[1] linux scanner that also detects virus signatures in the chainstate folder. I suspect that it will be a problem for all OS in the future. [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1388201.0 Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: HostFat on March 08, 2016, 02:07:01 PM Is the problem on Bitcoin or in this single linux scanner?
How much bigger is the problem now? How much does it cost to fix it on possible disadvantages? However, it isn't a removed feature, it is just disabled by default. If someone will need it, he will be able to enable it again whenever he wants. Disabled or enabled it doesn't change the experience of the other users/nodes of the network. Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: shorena on March 08, 2016, 02:22:17 PM Is the problem on Bitcoin or in this single linux scanner? How much bigger is the problem now? How much does it cost to fix it on possible disadvantages? No, I dont think its a significant problem now. It might become more pressing in the future. I doubt windows will stay the prominent OS, thus new viruses will emerge for Linux and MacOS and more snake oil will be sold to users to protect them. However, it isn't a removed feature, it is just disabled by default. If someone will need it, he will be able to enable it again whenever he wants. Disabled or enabled it doesn't change the experience of the other users/nodes of the network. I dont disagree with you. I just missed the downsides when I read the patch notes. Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: scryptic on March 08, 2016, 05:55:24 PM So I am curious now to what will happen when serious amounts of hashpower start splitting consensus.
I see pools are supporting this in a 'voting style' like slush making pools for each to let the miner vote with their hashpower. So my question is will this create giant forks and if so, how will it be determined which one is "Bitcoin" and which ones are not? So far its quite puzzling to me. Thanks. Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: HostFat on March 09, 2016, 01:22:45 AM So my question is will this create giant forks and if so, how will it be determined which one is "Bitcoin" and which ones are not? With Classic possible fork, it could happen 28 days after 750/1000 blocks signed as BIP102.So far its quite puzzling to me. Thanks. I said it "could" because miners aren't forced to make bigger blocks, anyway after these 28 days Classic nodes will start accepting bigger blocks. Bitcoin then (after the possible fork) will be the chain with more work. Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: scryptic on March 10, 2016, 02:10:28 PM So my question is will this create giant forks and if so, how will it be determined which one is "Bitcoin" and which ones are not? With Classic possible fork, it could happen 28 days after 750/1000 blocks signed as BIP102.So far its quite puzzling to me. Thanks. I said it "could" because miners aren't forced to make bigger blocks, anyway after these 28 days Classic nodes will start accepting bigger blocks. Bitcoin then (after the possible fork) will be the chain with more work. So it will be automatically democratic? Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: HostFat on March 10, 2016, 03:07:57 PM So it will be automatically democratic? I don't think that "democratic" is the right word.On Bitcoin it isn't 1 opinion = 1 vote. The value of the opinions of some worth more than others, but anyway everything is market driven. Someone, even if he is someone with a huge following, he can't "force" other to follow his will if this is really against their interests. Moreover, if he tries that, users will just move on other currencies. Both nodes and miners (but nodes come first) should want this change. Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: canth on March 10, 2016, 03:18:12 PM So it will be automatically democratic? I don't think that "democratic" is the right word.On Bitcoin it isn't 1 opinion = 1 vote. The value of the opinions of some worth more than others, but anyway everything is market driven. Someone, even if he is someone with a huge following, he can't "force" other to follow his will if this is really against their interest. Moreover, if he tries that, users will just move on other currencies. Both nodes and miners (but nodes come first) should want this change. I would call Bitcoin largely meritocratic. Miners that produce valid blocks quickly have a larger vote on the system than those that produce invalid blocks or at a relatively slower rate. There isn't as direct of a metric as mining hashrate, but one could say the same meritocratic influence exists for large exchanges and their largest customers, etc. The largest traders will be able to influence exchanges more so than smaller traders. Large exchanges influence miners and other participants that they conduct on-chain transactions with, etc. Developers that write code that is accepted by other devs and ultimately users get a stronger 'vote' based on their work, etc. Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: HostFat on March 17, 2016, 11:01:07 AM Bitcoin Unlimited v0.12 "X-Relay"
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-unlimited-v0-12-x-relay-first-official-bu-release.992/ http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/download https://github.com/gandrewstone/BitcoinUnlimited/tree/0.12bu Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: HostFat on April 17, 2016, 02:27:32 PM Bitcoinj v0.13.6
https://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj/releases/tag/v0.13.6 https://bitcoinj.github.io/release-notes BitcoinCore v0.12.1 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases/tag/v0.12.1 https://bitcoin.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.12.1/ Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: HostFat on May 07, 2016, 01:45:36 AM Bitcoinj v0.14
https://bitcoinj.github.io/release-notes#version-014 https://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj/releases/tag/v0.14 Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: HostFat on June 02, 2016, 10:51:16 AM Bitcoinj v0.14.2
https://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj/releases/tag/v0.14.2 https://bitcoinj.github.io/release-notes#version-0142 Bitcoin Classic v0.12.1 https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/releases/tag/v0.12.1cl1 Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: HostFat on June 09, 2016, 06:54:43 PM Haskoin v0.3.1
https://github.com/haskoin/haskoin/releases/tag/v0.3.1 I've also added a new implementation: Bcoin (new implementation in Javascript) Site: http://bcoin.io - http://bcoin.io/browser.html Code: https://github.com/bcoin-org/bcoin Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: HostFat on June 22, 2016, 01:25:42 PM Bitcoin Classic v1.1.0
https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/releases/tag/v1.1.0 Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: HostFat on June 25, 2016, 10:05:15 AM Bitcoin XT v0.11F
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/releases/tag/v0.11F Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: HostFat on August 01, 2016, 04:56:41 PM Bitcoin Unlimited v0.12.1bu “Xpedited”
Changelog: https://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-unlimited-v0-12-1bu-%E2%80%9Cxpedited%E2%80%9D-official-bu-release.1350/ https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/tree/0.12.1bu Bitcoinj v0.14.3 https://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj/releases/tag/v0.14.3 https://bitcoinj.github.io/release-notes#version-0143 Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: HostFat on August 17, 2016, 12:40:51 AM Bitcoin Knots v0.13.0.knots20160814
https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/blob/0.13.x-knots/doc/release-notes.md https://bitcoinknots.org/files/0.13.x/0.13.0.knots20160814/ Also, a part of the market is proposing the idea of forking/forks without a voting/trigger system: http://bitcoinforks.org/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Btcfork The main rule of these possible future forks is that all of them will maintain the current blockchain until a block X, then they will fork. So holders will have the same amount of coins on all blockchains, at the time of the fork. (the current and the new one) These proposed forks will also maintain intact the main economic rules, as the 21M amount of bitcoin and the current inflation velocity. Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: HostFat on February 04, 2017, 02:46:36 PM Bitcoin Core v0.13.2
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases/tag/v0.13.2 Bitcoin Unlimited v1.0.0.1 https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/releases/tag/1.0.0.1 Bitcoin Classic v1.2.0 https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/releases/tag/v1.2.0 Title: Re: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain Post by: HostFat on March 10, 2017, 07:17:44 PM Bitcoin Core v0.14.0
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases/tag/v0.14.0 Bitcoin Unlimited v1.0.1.0 https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/releases/tag/1.0.1.0 Bitcoin Classic v1.2.1 https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/releases/tag/v1.2.1 Libbitcoin v3.0.0 https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/releases/tag/v3.0.0 Bitcoin Knots branch-0.14 https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin/releases/tag/branch-0.14 Bitcoinj v0.14.4 https://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj/releases/tag/v0.14.4 |
![http://[img]https://i.imgur.com/qaLBXnO.png](http://[img]https://i.imgur.com/qaLBXnO.png){kind=link}