Bitcoin Forum

Bitcoin Classic Nodes Surge Following Beta 2 Release: https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-classic-nodes-surge-following-beta-2-release/

https://news.bitcoin.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/classic.png

Are you going to switch? (or may already have)

Changelog? I don't see why their node count had a bump... Maybe nodes of their own? Just someone setting up many? Or maybe just lack of updates on XT and users switching from XT to Classic (seems to kind of be the case if we look at the charts)

I'll definitely switch if they can deploy and have their changes running in the network faster than Core :) They still say their releases are experimental and not suitable for mining...

Again, node numbers mean absolutely nothing. Here's a tutorial on how to run 3000 completely legitimate nodes simultaneously.  ::)

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3iao3i/how_to_run_3000_completely_legit_full_nodes_aka

haha, very interesting that there is a post on reddit for it

if i am not mistaken same thing happened with bitcoin xt too?

When software doesn't even allow creating blocks under their use, the only thing we can only rely in is node numbers... :D

core is still winning, by a lot

https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F8bQjdID.png&t=561&c=mW9LchrGQLDzfw

there is basically no competition

this site seems good to follow the development (no affiliation):

https://coin.dance/nodes

I am still with Core, assuming that this technology won't be replaced...
It's not yet decided by everyone to move with Classic, so I would still be going with Core as it's still the best...

Toomincoin is Classic?

Yes.
Two brothers and a bunch of shady guys like Marshall Long for instance are behind Classic.Furthermore the list of comeptent developers supporting it is small.

I will stay with Bitcoin core as they are having the most competence and understanding of Bitcoin plus the majority of developers backing it.
From a technical point of view there's no doubt imo why I should switch the client.
Regarding of what Bitcoin should be in the future I think so as well. A decentralized settlement layer where on top of that other layers and services (3rd party as well if wished and needed) can be build.But not the other way around.We already have a paypal out there.

So should Toomincoin win out what exactly is the fear, loss of direction, centralization and capitalistic goals?

If Toomincoin wins, the reasons for Bitcon's existence (precluding the moral hazards of majoritarianism) are extinguished (https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/688432297733787648).

Honey Badger cannot live as a slave.  If the Gavinistas put him in chains, he will simply die (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1330553.msg13577707#msg13577707).  They cannot force him to give a shit.

The large coin holders that support Bitcoin will dump like there is literally no tomorrow, because they didn't sign up for ToominCoin.

Here is the cryptographically assured proof: http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/decided.

Thanks for the link!

bitcoinocracy has been spammed between every blockstream fanboy and affiliate imaginable.. thus not a fair indicator.

even Hilary clinton can get 100 people on a bus and fill a room to appear there is lots of cheering voices when she talks.
think about her champagne events to garner donations for her campaign.. yea lots of deep pockets are VIP'd with direct mailshot invites, but that doesnt mean the whole country wants her

now, as for the node count websites.
a fairer display would be to separate out bitcoin-core 0.12 from the older versions. as the older versions would represent an "undecided vote" where they havnt upgraded to 0.12 or any other implementation.

trying to combine 7 years of implementations into the bitcoin-core band camp is misleading.

so whomever owns these peer-crawler websites. separate out versions that are not 0.12 and give them the name "undecided"

There is something I don't understand.

Bitcoin core is the name of the program used to validate transactions and mine coins no?
It means that if two programs like bitcoin core and bitcoin classic are launched, they're both creating coins and validating transactions no?

Doesn't it mean that each transaction is duplicated? And that we thus can spend each coin twice?

I probably misunderstood something though :/

if the majority of the nodes are not running classic, then clasic is simply an altcoin, that some miners are deciding to use

so no there is no double bitcoin ever

Ok. But what happens if majority of nodes run classic?
Will I just you know, lose my coins? If I don't expect the success of classic, bitcoin might just disappear and be replaced by... Bitcoin2?
And it may be an altcoin but it's an altcoin named bitcoin no? ^^

ill stay with core at the moment.

1) switch to other version of protocol (change limit created block for example, allow to create and store more than 1MB block for example).

2) no, because private key in the blockchain control coins.
you can not change blockchain ... even if majority of node use classic.

in the same time, the 0.12 RC3 of Bitcoin Core is hell good build ... rockstable !
and segwit is integrated ...

that is out of context.

remember bitcoin-core <0.12 (0.11 and below) should be considered as 'undecided' as they have not upgraded since last year. and so should be in its own category.
trying to put them into the blockstream friendly category is misleading

If the network splits you have coins on both networks. Depending on the split it might be possible that both networks survive in which case you would have the same amount of "classic btc" as you would have "core btc". This is only true if you actually hold the private keys. If you are using a service you will have whatever they decide you have.

Ok, thanks for your answers and your explanations.

I think I miss some technical/practical knowledge. I've the basics of "don't put money on online wallet" but I think I'm going to see how wallet like Electrum works. I've got absolutely no idea of what are the private keys ^^
Thanks again.

It might be a bit difficult for you in case of a split if you use electrum, because with electrum the question is which version the server you connect to runs. If you connect to a server runing core you have "core btc" if you connect to a server running classic you have "classic btc". Once you start moving the coins of each network around the balances for the same keys and wallet will be different for each network. You are however on the safe side even if no server has the version for the network you want as you can just export the private keys.

Goto the addresses tab, rightclick on an address and select "private key". It will ask for your password and show you the private key for that particular address. You could use that private key and import it into a wallet for your wanted network and you could use the coins. Be careful and dont show anyone the private key as it alone is enough to spend the coins on that address.

I'm afraid you're confused. Bitcoinocracy (http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground) is a cryptographic opinion site-- it has its limitations (terrible privacy, etc.) but at least it is resistant to sybils.  Due to the privacy issues, the only places I've ever posted it has been in response to people claiming that no one opposes these recent hardfork proposals. The reality is that much of the promotion of classic is powered by sockpuppets, when you go to more sockpuppet resistant venues (like in person meetings or bitcoinocracy) you see far less to none at all of it.

Wouldn't citing the results of votes from here require partial trust to the creator/maintainer? It wouldn't be hard for them to hide certain votes from the public to manipulate total results would it?

The point is, rigging the vote with multiple sock puppets is much easier when voting is done without any Proof-of-Stake. Bitcoinocracy attempts to use your BTC holdings as such proof of stake. I share privacy concerns about its use but I don't really see how it could be turned into a secret ballot. In any case, the voters voluntarily chose to express their opinions.

So far as I know, the source code for this site is on Github. Since it displays all signatures used to vote, anyone can see for himself that the opinions expressed are backed by real BTC that the voters have under their control. Yes, the owner of the site may choose to withhold some of the votes from showing up, but I don't see what could be possibly achieved by it? If I don't see my vote showing up, I'd immediately start complaining about it publicly, thus casting doubt on the site. No complaints like this appeared so far.

yeah that's correct, i was assuming that who was running core now would have switched to the new core in the future, but that's the point, it's not a given...

still not got it,what difference between bitcoin core and bitcoin classic?i think i gonna be switch,even i already have.

If you note, the way I always refer to it is to just point to the huge amount of economic opposition to a particular hard fork. That isn't something that is vulnerable to hiding signatures.

But if someone notices their opinion being censored, they could just post their signature anywhere-- here, on facebook, send it via email-- whatever.. and anyone/everyone could try adding it and prove to themselves that the site was hiding views.  So it would be effectively impossible for the site to secretly hide views on a sustained basis.

I know exactly how to turn it into one. But then we'd have the problem of institutions being able to secretly use customer funds with total impunity.

lol blockstream have sockpuppets too..
icebreaker, lauda, carlton. are not blockstream coders but obvious shills.

lol and i you say bitcoinocracy cannot be attacked by sybil?
so 1 person with 5 addresses cant sign 5 different keys.. riiiiiiiiiigggghhhhtttt..

also the link has been spammed to mainly the blockstream fanboys so lets say only 1% of the general population wants to reveal funding.. if the link has been passed to lets say 5000 blockstreamers but only 1000 non-blockstreamers.. then just by more people seeing the link would get a biased 50:10 result.
then we could have an exchange that has several large wallets sign several addresses.. thus causing a change in results.

the fnnier thing is that even though bitcoinocracy is not fool proof. even things like the peer node crawler websites are biased too.. claiming that even versions of under 0.12 (where people have not upgraded in months) are clumped together in the category that is supposedly in favour of blockstream.

what would be more sensible is to have v0.11 and below put into a separate category defined as "undecided"

But is this chart really representative? Say if you're in favour of increasing cap to 2mb, you could just change the code in your core client by replacing "1" with "2" in MAX_BLOCK_SIZE line and recompile. I reckon it would be still shown as Core client. Am I right?

It's no wonder (the very rare non-sockpuppet) bloatblockers are such blithering idiots that they don't even understand what is being discussed. I mean, they fell for such ridiculous propaganda as "OMG! The sky is falling Jan 2016, so we need to bloat blocks to 20MB right away!" And when the sky didn't fall as predicted, did they learn ANYTHING? No sir, they beelined for the next bait fed to them. Oh, humanity.

Can confirm ^^that's exactly what happened.

I was there.  I saw it all go down.

Should be an interesting event once the fork in the road presents itself... I still can't decide... Would like to see a poll of how many support moving to classic etc.
For those that are not in favor of block increase what is your plan for growth?

I already did switch, and am running Classic node. Simply because I dont like what Blockstream is doing, or even the possibility of them developing Core to satisfy their corporate investors.

i think only some of people from whole bitcoin users know sufficiently about the issue of block size and willing to study and decide upon it. Others, some new, some who dont care since they are doing the tx like usual, arent bothered. That is the reason for this right.. i mean the huge difference.

or maybe they just dont want to and keep pulling the rubber till it breaks

Corrected that for you  ;)

But those a few is enough to decide everything. Someone said, like FOMC meeting, basically 12 people in bitcoin ecosystem decide where it goes, sadly but true, at least for now

I think a lot of users (nodes) and miners do not talk on this forum or reddit, or venues like that. But they are aware of what is going on and know exactly what to do in the case of another contentious hard fork threat like XT. Nodes will be spoofed, pools will be DDOS'd, and Classic's incompetence will be showcased for the community.

Gavin/Classic's plan of depending on convincing centralized pool operators, while pretending that a majority of nodes would ever switch to Classic.... it's adorable, really. But Classic supporters will find, like XT supporters before them, that it's all for the LOLz. A bad joke, but a joke nonetheless.

That is some way you have put it -.- but like u say they are aware of these things then they should put up their views somewhere or other.. where are these people? go with the flow ?

yeah, but if it was that simple and thus not requiring an hard fork, why they are not following this way instead? there is somethign else behind

It would make no sense to just create a single person patch and hope it works.

The number of classic nodes seem to have hit their maximum for now.

https://i.imgur.com/YHEGj6a.png

I just wonder why Gavin is so sure that "thousands of Classic nodes will appear". They didn't appear for XT. Maybe, he knows that "a little help from unknown friends" is sure to come...

I thought the post was pretty clear, it was " People are committing to spinning up thousands" and 'not thousands of people are committed to spinning up a node'-- it's a planned sybil attack-- and that is also what I've seen from this rise of "classic" "nodes". There are several less obvious node count measures that don't show the growth.

AFAICT, the latest strategy is to fake out the node counts with large numbers of sybils and then try to use that to pressure miners into adopting classic; which would then pressure actual users to go along with it. This isn't going to work, and most charitable way I can explain the strategies used by the people frantically pushing for a controversial hardfork is that the people involved in these forks keep thinking that everyone else in Bitcoin is stupid.  How else can you explain the faux urgency-- that almost no one bought-- or the bait and switch policies for miners-- to the cheap characterization that Bitcoin Core is all blockstream and so on?

All these nonsense and attacks frustrate me-- they waste a tone of time and energy that could be used driving Bitcoin forward.

I guess it's just the taste of things to come. The more decentralized Bitcoin becomes pain in the ass for governments and their banker buddies, the more they try to employ above- and below-ground political methods, time-proven divide and conquer tactics and every dirty trick imaginable to subdue and castrate it into a PayPal-with-a-twist. This worked quite well with the original PayPal, you know. You need to be prepared for this.

to me it seems classic is just another attempt to take BTC off track and delay its growth,
i have read there is no real backlog of transactions as it has been steady for a while
same when i make transfer, only confirmations take time, transfer shows near instant

now to say more computing power is needed, then why change BTC
same with connections etc.
processors and connection speeds increase constantly,
so it seems like a problem is being created so it can be fixed now,
even though the so called problem will be not be a problem in the very near future

and an increase to 2mb, um...............
so that is the fix from now till forever ?
or in a few years will we need another fork increasing to 4mb and so on

processors being used today will be outdated tomorrow,
and replaced by others that process a hell of a lot faster,
especially as they will design chips for specific use

can someone explain to me what i am missing here ?

Yeah, I felt like spinning off some spoof nodes from my basement, seems to be working so far.

Why we cannot add code to filter non-core nodes from connecting to core nodes?  Classic would have to update their code to look like a core node and by doing so classic nodes will not be detectable.  It could be based on UA, version or protocol level, or set of other fields.  Nodes can be configured to accept connections above a certain set and refuse everything else.

The classic will try to piggyback on your releases.  So force them to adopt your code and they become invisible on the network.

Yeah! Lets go even further! Let's make bitcoin a closed-source project! Think about that, no more 'hostile takeovers' and threats to the 'consensus'.

I'd never support closed-source project.   I disagree with growing block size to accommodate growth in transaction volume.  Transaction volume growth should not change the original design.  I think growing it at hardware improvement rate creates a more stable, secure and decentralized system.  

The 1mb is not part of original design. Increasing the block-size is. You support Core's roadmap - fine, but you should be aware that it's them who are actually departing from the original plan. Again, that's not necessarily wrong on its own, but lets not twist the facts.

But the point is, why the hell would you support and suggest some authoritarian-like censorship stunts? Is that in line with your vision of open-source project? How far can you go with that?

If arbitrarily increasing the size without regard to external considerations was the "design" it would have been preprogramed to do it automatically, just as it decreases the subsidy automatically, or controls difficulty automatically. Try again.

Wasn't the 1MB cap just a quickie kludge at the time when blocks never got that big, sort of a "if it's 1Meg, 100% chance of it being spam," erring on the permissive/high side?

I like the look of 0.12 core, so my flag is nailed to their mast.

What's that about sig restrictions in classic? that looks like a backward step.

All Classic can do is spin up nodes and rent some hash power. The miners are not going to change over and activate it. I hope Classic just dies off sooner than later.  

What will be next? My vote for a cooler name is Bitcoin Reloaded.

Tottaly agree mate! Only thing Bitcoin Classic can do is slow down bitcoin movement. I really hope to see it disapper as soon as possible.

Satoshi proposed this (search his posts), core devs ignored him. 8)

Nice strawman Greg. Try again.

That will destroy the value of bitcoin. If the bitcoin announce it will become closed source, I will sell all my bitcoins.

I agree with your words.Let them have as much nodes as they want.Majority of them is probably spoofed.
Whatever.Let them do their parade while core is building out the network.
Good work takes some time, especially when scaling is not just done raising the blocksize, with a more and more loss of decentralization.
And imo it's not about a bigger blocksize, there are other reasons.Imo it's about the direction Bitcoin should be developed in the future.
Companies like Coinbase for instance might probably not like integration of Lightning Network and confidential transactions as this could threaten their business model.

However this is the roadmap we should go:

http://imgur.com/XAmGGr6 (http://imgur.com/XAmGGr6)

Bitcoin Classic nodes is simple from free time hosting. See the details here

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/461nvy/node_distributions_based_on_type_and_datacenters/#oo

http://imgur.com/a/jweYf

Lol no. It's you Core shills who run multiple nodes :)

The number of nodes is not a reliable metric. I've said this a number of times. This statement is especially valid when one is pulling up data from a very short period of time. If you look at a longer time period you would get the 'real' number of nodes which has been slowly declining.

I would not be surprised if it was something in the lines of 'Bitcoin Original'.

A bad workaround to the quadratic scaling problem. Segwit provides an actual solution to this.

So for those that believe in bitcoin to be a decentralized currency. And agree with the fundamental disruptive potential for bitcoin - what should we / can we/ do? I run a full node of bitcoin core. I do believe that the bankers and gov's will try to control this. What can I do?

Sig restrictions in Classic?   ???

But we were told the only change was a simple variable tweak of max_block_size, from 1MB to 2MB.   :-\

Sig restrictions sounds like something that needs more than "not much" testing.  Such a change is likely to become ossified and semi-permanent, so we have to get it right the first time.  I hope Toomin is (relatively) sober when he tests the sig restrictions!   :P

What else is Classic hiding and/or downplaying?  More XT-style Easter eggs, like Hearn's checkpoints and blacklists?

The best Easter egg ever: newfangled global currency couldn't handle the business end of a small US shopping mall.
Surprise!
And yet there's still an occasional casualty to be seen on these august fora, nursing the dream of "major investors" coming to sink perfectly good money into this flaming bag of shit Titanic.

Core or classic (or XT or unlimited, or for that matter .... )
They are all full of shlt conflict of interest, as you would expect when there is money involved.


They got their own agendas.

The big argument here, in bitcoin, seems to be about "who's side you on?",
not which "bits" of ideas work form each side and are right for Bitcoin. (how decentralisation should be)
I don't consider myself core or classic, I don't trust the personnel. Not now. (TBF i don't know enough about them, not slandering)

I now want 2mb blocks to cope with increased users. (i previously did NOT want a raise, not for the sake of it. I don't buy coffee)
(completely doable. implemented on it's own, "probably" easily achievable through concensus)

I do not want segwit sidechain BS. That is a manipulation by core. (?)
I do not want a further increased blocksize planned. That is classic manipulation. (?)
(the list of do not want goes on)

I don't want either group (or others) thinking they have vito over Bitcoin.
They don't.

I conclude, 2mb now (6 months ?). No segwit yet. Nothing else yet.
Couldn't be simpler.
Core could do this. Classic could do this. Anyone could do this?

Stop tampering with my Bitcoin.

"2MB right meow" isn't as simple as just turning a dial from 1 to 2.

Complex changes to the signature structure (IE restrictions) are also required, in order to put a (shitty) band-aid on a problem segwit actually fixes.

If you could learn the basic facts of the matter before spewing your wishful thinking all over the forum, that would be great.   ;)

Ok, sorry.

I try not to spew all over the forum. see my post count.  :)


edit, (to save posting again  ;D)  Yeah, right meow in 6 months, if the will was there. It's on every ones list anyway

The nodes are a red herring. What counts is the blocks hashed. Classic is actually doing better than XT was, in that Classic blocks are being mined frequently. We'll have to wait and see whether they build up momentum or not.

A date with Sybil

https://medium.com/@laurentmt/a-date-with-sybil-bdb33bd91ac3#.i64ieojet

Support Classic if you don't want to sell out bitcoin to a VC-funded corporation who's just in it for the money.

Money/Greed has always been the #1 corrupting force. It's no different here.

and who is this vc-funded corporation? Coinbase?

Support Classic so that we hopelessly rush mainstream adoption because of not greed? The main reason for which they'd want to rush it is an increase in the price per Bitcoin. Coinbase is one of those corporations.

The majority of Classic nodes are on Amazon. They're useless.

Great article. Maximum of 213 Classic supporters.

I am supporting Core at the moment. But if there is no SegWit implementation later this month, I will support Classic.

The code might be ready, but we can't know in which version of Core it is going to be released (right now; there might be some information that I'm unaware of). Additionally, it takes time to activate a soft fork. Just be patient.

Apparently April 2016
-> https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/
-> https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq

Its probably outdated though.

I saw the road map previously. I think it is the April 2016. I hope it will have been tested throughly later this month.

Yes, that is the initial estimate for the release of the code. That does not mean that it will be merged nor activated in April.

It is being developed and tested since the start of the year.