Bitcoin Forum

Why is this in the altcoin section?
Any fork proposal is arguably not bitcoin and therefore an altcoin, discussion is this forum is better suited here imo anyway.


Intro:
Gavin Andresen's latest attempt to promote a blocksize cap increase consists of a to-be-developed bitcoin Core fork (https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic) called Bitcoin Classic. According to the official website  (https://bitcoinclassic.com/)The software would increase the blocksize cap to 2Mb immediately and allow miners and users say they what they want.

Useful links:
Official Bitcoin Classic website (https://bitcoinclassic.com/)
Bitcoin Consensus graphs in consider.it (https://bitcoin.consider.it/)
Bitcoin Classic Consensus graphs in consider.it (https://bitcoinclassic.consider.it/)
Blocktrail bitcoin pool stats, including blocksize votes by miners (https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools)

Agreed, fork proposals are not Bitcoin.

I also find naming fork proposals like XT and Classic kind of ridiculous. There's no need to try to add flavors or plant flags like that. Bitcoin is Bitcoin and if it's not then that's an irrelevant altcoin.

Interesting.. i guess his foundation 800k a year salary was well earned.

The hashrate behind those said to be supporting "Bitcoin Classic"

https://i.imgur.com/dkbrjPx.gif

Source:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/418sza/promotion_of_client_software_which_attempts_to/

Yeah, don't waste your breath. I can't argue with those that think that a hard fork of bitcoin that gets an economic majority (miners/users/merchants) isn't bitcoin. I'm not going to participate in discussions of Bitcoin in the altcoin sections - just going to point my mining equipment at a pool that supports the consensus rules I agree with.

no complaints here  :-*

I agree both on the what people want and the authority of core devs part but a few vocal people foaming at the mouth trying to promote their fork (without even having a clue of the possible side effects of a hostile fork) is in now way representative of what most Bitcoin users want. I say a few vocal people because Bitcoin is way, way bigger than a bunch of people circlejerking on a couple of random forums.

I don't make the rules, a thread like this would probably end up being moved here if I didn't do it myself. That's also the reason why I believe this is better suited here, because I've seen threads about other fork attempts being moved in the altcoin section.

But anyways, aside of this disclaimer on top of the OP, I hope I'm doing a good job at keeping this thread informative and neutral.

Simple answer: Bitcoin Classic is an Altcoin (something other than Bitcoin).

"Altcoin" is a token of value based on an "alternative chain".

"Alternative chain" is a blockchain that stems from some other
genesis than that created by Satoshi.

So no, we can't really say Classic is an altcoin in the traditional
sense. Nomenclature needs an update.

Don't all these blockchains stem from Satoshi? I think an Altcoin is any coin other than Bitcoin.

Thus you need to define, what is Bitcoin? is it the git repo under the control of group A, B or C. Or is it the protocol?

I think we use the word Altcoin currently because it's convenient and a generally understood term.

It's not however, highly descriptive or completely accurate.

An altcoin by all standard definitions, is a currency which does not base itself off the bitcoin protocol. By MicroGuys definition, the bitcoin we all use today is not bitcoin. Why? because it has been changed through numerous forks (type irrelevant) which no longer make it the same bitcoin as it was when satoshi left it

Ahmed

No. Bitcoin is still bitcoin and core is still core. By my definition, anything outside of that is an altcoin.

FYI, here's the latest release candidate of "Bitcoin" >> https://bitcoin.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.12.0/test/

f2pool's CTO on thresholds.

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin_Classic/comments/41dwnw/f2pool_cto_discusses_thresholds_with_core_devs_75/

May I offer:

• The blockchain that you should trust is the valid blockhain that you can get that has the most proof of work.
• A blockchain is valid if and only if the software you are running says that it is valid.
• "The bitcoin blockchain" is the blockchain that you call "the bitcoin blockchain".

The question "in a persistent fork of the blockchain, which branch will be the real bitcoin?" is basically a religious question.  You should think about it as you would think of "in a schism of my Church, which side will be the True Church?".

The group/individual controlling reddit.com/r/bitcoin, bitcoin.org, bitcointalk.org, Github, and an alert key, has a strong leg up. :-X

You can think of that power as the mainstream media on steroids back when there were only 4 channels on Television. I don't think there's any question what bitcoin is and what bitcoin is not. Bitcoin XT only had a slim chance because Gavin (Satoshi's successor and alert key holder) had momentarily sided with the enemy, before coming back to his senses thanks to good doctors who were able to correct/prescribe him back into the right chemical balance.

I'd say that after hard fork the majority chain will be the
"real" bitcoin. I don't think a situation with conflicting chains will persist very long.

This brings up a noteworthy point: the "real bitcoin" is more related to the blockchain
than to any particular client or even the protocol rules that a client implements.

As for the ecclesiastical aspect, I grant to Core the position of primus inter pares
but not infallibility!
 

If the heart of a crypto currency is the chain of transactions and account balances, then it's only an "altcoin" if it disregards the current Bitcoin blockchain and starts over from the genesis block. Otherwise, it's merely a different version of Bitcoin.

Bitcoin classic has it's own bitcoin.com forum

https://forum.bitcoin.com/full-clients-bitcoin-classic/

1. the "bitcoin" blockchain works when I put in my private keys for coins I own (both classic and core would qualify)
2. I can mine on the bitcoin blockchain (both classic and core would qualify)
3. I can trade with newly mined coins and my old coins on the same exchange

Moral of the story, whoever wins exchanges wins the battle.

Yup. And miners won't mine blocks that exchanges won't buy, so it really only takes a bit of coordination between the largest miners (not necessarily pools) and the largest exchanges.

Consensus from the Chinese seems to be moving back and forth, don't know what to believe anymore...

https://redd.it/42fgiv

Keccak proposal for bitcoin core following the one of Luke Jr

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7410

consider.it under attack

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin_Classic/comments/42kbof/considerit_is_experiencing_an_attack/

Binaries are out

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/448wt3/classic_binaries_are_out_download_it_now_get_your/

not so ridiculous. 5% of network runs 'classic' nodes according to bitnodes.21.ca

I'm surprised "Satoshi:0.xx.x" clients don't refuse connections from nodes with non-bitcoin user agent strings.

It should be configurable option to list what node types (user agents, protocol numbers) are allowed to connect to your node.

If "Satoshi:0.12.1" had this feature, classic nodes will have to connect to themselves.

If Satoshi:0.12.1 clients rejected other user agents then all user agents would just report themselves as Satosh user agent. Core devs won't likely introduce a feature where end users could configure consensus changes like rejecting protocol blocks. If they did that then why wouldn't they offer the same feature for block size, similar to Bitcoin Unlimited?

Either the economic majority will produce blocks > 1MB in the near future or they won't. There's nothing that the economic minority can do to stop this.

Original Bitcoin Classic developer abandoned project, coin was taken over by investors community, I contacted exchange to reactivate coin, they ask for a secret word, who have developer contacts please