Bitcoin Forum

By "Bitcoin Core" alternatives I mean full validating clients that follow consensus rules (do not fork the blockchain... because that would be an altcoin).

The ones I know are:

Bitcoin Knots: This is developed by Luke Dash Jr and has some experimental features that sometimes are added into the Core client: https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin
Libbitcoin: I think this one was founded by Amir Taaki: https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin
BTCD: This one doesn't have a wallet and is written in Go: https://github.com/btcsuite/btcd
BitcoinJ: Very old client from back in the day, I think it was started by Mike Hearn: https://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj (removed because not a full validating node)
Bitcore: Looks like Trezor uses this one, but also Bloq...: https://bitcore.io/
Bcoin: Some exchanges use this one like Bitwala: http://bcoin.io/
Gocoin: Written in Go: https://github.com/piotrnar/gocoin

Im sure there are more.. post yours. I think these efforts are good and positive for Bitcoin overall. As long as they follow consensus rules, it's good that several different teams are working on different clients.

Still has a team maintaining & updating it (driven by Andreas Schildbach's work on Bitcoin Wallet on the Android Operating system), but it shouldn't be on this list, because:

• Cannot be used for a full validating node (validates block headers only, then resolves transaction validity using BIP37 bloom filters)
• Is only a library; does not function as a standalone, executable Bitcoin client

Indeed, I thought it was abandoned.. and well it's just an SPV client, so I guess I will edit the list.


That website is pretty inaccurate. For instance, the TRB client, is listed as supporting "Emergent Consensus". As far as I remember, EC was some sort of Bitcoin Unlimited-Gavin trickery.
I forgot to add this one in the list.

But in any case, im sure there are other ones not listed there, maybe some obscure dev teams doing something under the radar, that is what I find most interesting.

This one, Gocoin (also written with Golang as BTCD above) is still listed on the Bitcoin wiki. Just checked and the last commit on Github was 9 days ago, so it looks like it's still being actively developed: https://github.com/piotrnar/gocoin

The  thread on BCT also seems to be relatively active (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=199306.160) as is the OP/developer replying on it since 2013.

Your list there covered pretty much all the ones I could think of off the top of my head.

But there's also another one if I remember correctly, which was Coinbase originally using their own implementation written in Ruby. Now this was a pretty long time ago, so it could be discontinued, but I do remember it existing. I'm not sure if it had a specific name or anything though either.

I would reconsider these two also.

• Bitcoin Knots is not a re-implementation AFAIA, just a forked version of the standard Bitcoin client with additional features (no consensus breaking features)
• Libbitcoin is supposedly just a library, if that's correct then it shouldn't be possible to execute libbitcoin as a client in it's own right

It depends on how specific you want your remit to be.

Yeah, it would seem the library extends the client with libbitcoin explorer and Bitcoin explorer, which are command line apps. Interesting to find out that it was previously called Obelisk... which is the name of an altcoin protocol (Skycoin) that claims to have developers formerly associated with early Bitcoin devs. I'd always wondered where that link came from, I suppose this is it, and the dev in question probably is Taaki himself.

Well bitcoind is a command line app, but it's still an app and still a client, as it's an executable. If libbitcoin is truly a library, it will be just a bunch of class & header files, with no executables. But I've never used libbitcoin to actually check whether or not it includes an executable.

According to current groupthink, perhaps.  After all the years of people claiming this, I'm still not convinced.  Surely by definition, it's not an altcoin until it's on a separate blockchain?  If no fork has occurred, it's simply an alternative client which follows the current rules but proposes a potential change to consensus rules if enough people run the code.

People might not like the proposed changes in the client, but it's still disingenuous to call them altcoins prior to any fork.  If or when a minority fork takes place, then you can call it an altcoin.

If the intention of the new client is to facilitate a consensus breaking fork, then it at least 'intends' to be an altcoin even if is still conforming to the current consensus rules.

Maybe something like proto-altcoin or something might be a more descriptive name. There's probably better names though.

"Consensus breaking" implies that consensus can never change.  It's fair to assume that no alternative clients have ever proposed a change with the ambition of becoming a minority chain that most users don't agree with.  But it's difficult to gauge support until users are actually running the code.  You can't put the cart before the horse and assume that every alternative client will be rejected by the majority just because it proposes a change to the current rules.

Otherwise, you play into the hands of BCH supporters who make claims that BTC development is centralised and that one dev team have total dominance over what the rules should be.  It's better if that decision is left to the users.  Which means allowing other clients to stand on equal ground and not sweeping them under the carpet as "altcoins", which smacks of social engineering.

Yeah, I see what you're saying.

It's probably better not to use the term at all in these cases. And just wait until the dust settles before labeling anything an altcoin. That was probably a mistake. Actually now that I think back on it I think I remember LukeJr being one of the first to start pushing that label, and I was annoyed that he and others were trying to expand the definition of an altcoin.

I tend not to even use the expression "altcoin" these days, it's not really meaningful now that there are at least some cryptocurrencies that do a different job to Bitcoin, have a following and are somewhat independent of Bitcoin's price dynamics. Whether those coins are doing their job well is another question, but it shouldn't be decided with perjorative language like "altcoin".

---

To say "something's called Bitcoin when x & y happen" is total nonsense. People can, and will, label any object or phenomenon with any name they like, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop that (especially not with childish rules, lol).

Bitcoin is a label, and labels can be either good or bad in connotation. I don't care if the current Bitcoin continues to be called Bitcoin, only that the tech improves to increase everyone's liberty. At some point, it might possibly be useful if Bitcoin became completely rebranded, as the majority of people have a negative impression of Bitcoin as a brand right now.

There are literally dozens of bitcoin core alts right now out there but it is very hard to weed out the definition of what an alt is

There have been hundreds of actual alts built off of the forked code of Bitcoin Core or BitcoinQT. But I don't think there are dozens of actual unique implementations of Bitcoin. I think most if not all have been named already in the thread here.

Nope. There are various Bitcoin forks. But Bitcoin Core is just a Bitcoin client. There is no currency called Bitcoin Core, so there is no fork of it.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Clients

A bitcoin client is the end-user software that facilitates private key generation and security, payment sending on behalf of a private key.

Actually, there is an altcoin called "Bitcoin Core" now:

https://thebitcoincore.org/

Of course, it's just another shitcoin, but this has a very special goal: To use Roger Ver's politician tactics against himself. The point is that Roger Ver usually uses his big megaphone in the form of Twitter, other social media, or live TV appearances, to call Bitcoin "Bitcoin Core", so now whenever he calls Bitcoin "Bitcoin Core", he will be talking about the altcoin called "Bitcoin Core". So the bigger this BTCC altcoin gets, the more exposed he will get for trying to mislead the public, as they will learn Bitcoin. It is pretty funny.

Remember when he used to call Bitcoin "Bitcoin Segwit"? Then he switched to "Bitcoin Core", and if this altcoin gets big enough, he would have to change it to something else. The guy is such a relentless scammer.


Good remarks, but a bit overkill maybe. In a way every existing client is a fork of the original client with changed/polished stuff, so I think Knots should know as its own client in this list. Im not sure how Libbitcoin works, never tried it, I just was told it was a proper client you can run, I will have to look into that.


Cool, I added this one, seems to meet the criteria but will need to read more later. I like that it has cold storage features. I would like to see cold storage features in Core to sign tx offline and so on, all nicely integrated in the GUI Armory style.

It's really funny, but do this altcoin have other goals ? any road map ?

Because since they want it to go big, peoples must invest on it for that, so it must worth it.

 There are various Bitcoin forks. But Bitcoin Core is just a Bitcoin client. There is no currency called Bitcoin Core, so there is no fork of it.in my opinion and as isee and read some of facts about bitcoin maybe it can be wrong but..