Bitcoin Forum

https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md

Note: This is our initial roadmap proposal. We will run this by miners, companies and users for feedback, before it is finalized.

Bitcoin Classic 2016 Roadmap

The Bitcoin Classic team will help realize Satoshi’s vision of making Bitcoin scale into a global peer to peer cash system, and not just a settlement network. We believe on-chain scaling is crucial for the long term health of Bitcoin. On-chain scaling maximizes transaction volume, whose fees are needed to replace miner rewards on the medium to long term scale.

Our preferred strategy for on-chain scaling, is to eliminate the need for blocks to be synced within seconds. We will implement solutions that make continuous block syncing possible. Instead of transmitting the data for a new block all at once when it is found, we can significantly optimize current bandwidth by sending data during the full ten-minute interval between blocks. This will enable the Bitcoin network to scale to significant new levels, without endangering decentralization. We will scale using a 3-pronged approach:

Phase 1 (Q1-Q2)

Urgently resolve issue of blocks being almost full

Implement BIP 109: Raise block size limit from 1MB to 2MB.
Hard fork with 75% activation threshold (750 of 1000 blocks), 28 day activation grace period.
Software based on Bitcoin Core implementation 0.11.2 and 0.12.0.
Note: 0.11.2 is already finished and available for download here.

Phase 2 (Q2-Q3)

Eliminate the need for blocks to be sent within seconds

Reduce the effect of block propagation times on orphan rates (lost miner income)
De-emphasize block size as an obstacle for scaling and open up potential for on-chain transaction throughput gains using several improvements (listed below).
Optimizations for bandwidth constrained nodes via improvements to the P2P layer
Note: We intend to discuss various solutions such as the ones listed below and pick the best ones.

Parallel validation of blocks (theoretically reduces the profitability of excessive-sized block attacks).
Headers-first mining (largely nullifies excessive-sized block attacks).
Thin blocks: Blocks refer to transactions that have been well propagated rather than including them, allowing for minimization of bandwidth use.
Weak blocks: allow miners to pre-announce the blocks they are working on, to minimize the data sent once a block is found.
Validate Once: Transactions that have been validated when entering a node’s memory pool do not need to be revalidated when included in a block (speeds up block validation).

Phase 3 (Q3-Q4)

Make the block size limit dynamic

Note: This phase will only happen when miners & companies confirm Phase 2 successfully addressed their blocksize concerns.

Use a variation of Steven Pair’s/BitPay proposal. Validation cost of a block must be less than a small multiple of the average cost over the last difficulty adjustment period
Simplified version of Segregated Witness from Core, when it is available

Technical details

A more technical version of the roadmap can be found here

Conference

We plan to hold an on-chain scaling conference soon, where these and future scaling solutions & concerns can be discussed among the community.

The result is going to be? Full 2MB blocks ;D



Cutting out absent miners and users, how kind.



;D is this a joke? ;D


A conference? Wouldn't a golf tourney be more appropriate, considering the fact there's 0 skilled developers on the Classic team?

-1

Sounds good on paper. Hopefully you guys succeed and everyone becomes rich.

Garbage product by inferior developers pushing an even more garbage agenda

Thank you Classic for providing us a road map that matches the vision we all originally bought into.   If the community can break through all the censorship and propaganda coming from Blockstream and their developers maybe Bitcoin can still have a future.

You've opened the thread in the wrong section. The roadmap is not really interesting. The absence of dates is not surprising.

This is what we need: alternatives. Discussion. Finally these guys have something to say about what they intend to deliver. They're not aiming low, that for sure... And that can be either good or bad. We'll see about that in the future.

Their roadmap seems interesting, but I don't think it is complete... Hope they start talking more about it in the next few days. The roadmap is also late. It's coming after a pretty solid roadmap from the Bitcoin Core team... But better late than never :)

First it was XT breaking through, now Classic. Let's see where this goes. I'm definitely curious.

Nope. This board is just right.

Have you not noticed that XT/Classic/BU threads get moved somewhere?

If by "intend to deliver" you mean wait for Core to do most of the work and copy-paste it, then I agree.

Nah, I've noticed plenty of "...Classic Rekt" etc hanging on this board without being moved anywhere.

Because Jeff and Gavin are inferior developers. Riiiiiiiight

Where do these morons keep coming from?

sharing is caring.

You need to take a look at their contributions in the past 12 months. Classic is a group of people who have lately done barely any work at all. If you exclude Jeff and Gavin you're left with mostly random people.

Claiming that you've developed something that you 'copy-pasted' is something else entirely.

Those are not exactly supportive of an secondary implementation 'altcoin', are they? [1]

---

---

[1] Elaboration (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1377070.msg14010136#msg14010136).

No, if they're delivering what they say they are, they're not simply copy+pasting. As things stand right now, I believe Core will succeed, and not Classic (at least in short-medium term), but none of us holds the truth, so what I'm saying might be wrong in a few months/years. As I said, we'll see what happens :) So far we only know XT failed in implementing some of its changes

read it again.
seems to me like Classic gives credit  where credit is due.
if there's anything else core would like to contribute, that would be gr8.

Schoolboy mistake. You, as a staff member, just openly admitted this forum is being censored.

If Classic is an altcoin, then it is an altcoin in both cases (positive or negative), therefore both kinds of threads should be moved or should stay.

So are you shilling openly now, or still pretending to be neutral and open-minded?

Here we go again, ad hominem as always. I don't move these threads, nor do I make the rules (nor does my opinion matter on whether Classic is an altcoin or not). I don't have an idea as to why any kind of Classic threads are left in B. Discussion. Maybe nobody bothered to report them. If you feel like they should be moved, then report them yourself. I only know of one that is there right now though. The thought behind that statement is that a 'positive altcoin Classic post/thread' will likely get reported a lot.

---

---

I've stumbled upon something interesting: How a floating blocksize limit inevitably leads towards centralization. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144895.0)

peter todd thinks there somthing wrong with everything, segwit included.

remember remember the 5th of november   :P

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1f72c3/asics_will_destroy_bitcoin_mining_within_the/

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90513.0

That's not ad-hominem, that's simple logic. Just minutes ago you tried to justify presence of anti-"altcoin" topics in Bitcoin Discussion board while removing pro-"altcoin" topics. Now you're saying you don't know why they're allowed. F**king please... You know exactly why, so do I and so everyone else who's active on the forum.

And yes, I did report one of such threads. Can you guess what happened?

No.

That's certainly not what I said. I've explained the reasoning. A lot of people dislike Classic, ergo a 'positive thread/post' will attract a lot of attention and reports.

You certainly do not know how the 'staff group' functions, nor does me being a staff member imply that I know why every single thread, that is not part of my 'jurisdiction', is located at a certain section.

Sometimes reports are not justified. This is becoming off-topic and we should not continue this further here (PM for additional questions/new thread). If you have a complaint/suggestion/opinion regarding the forums rules, then you're free to make a thread about it in meta.

---

---

You can't deny that his input is very valuable. It is not easy to create a proper implementation of dynamic blocks. Additionally we really don't have adequate data on them (I think; maybe I've missed something). Q3/Q4 seems too quick to push such a radical change.

with apologies to Chris Rea

The Roadmap to Hell (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jffsG0VR4Gw)

And common sense is ringing out the bells
This ain't no technological breakdown
Oh no, this is the roadmap to Hell

And all the roads jam up with credit
And there's nothing you can do
It's all just bits of paper
Flying away from you

Oh look out world
Take a good look what comes down here
You must learn this lesson fast and learn it well

This ain't no upwardly mobile freeway
Oh no, this is the roadmap, said this is the roadmap
This is the roadmap to Hell

 :-*

I still don't see why they aren't moved to the vastly better suited alternative clients (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=37.0) subforum.  Classic, XT and Unlimited are, after all, clients, not altcoins (at the risk of further discourse).

This discussion is the single most relevant discussion in bitcoinland ATM, let's keep it on the main board....

So any dates more specific than q1, q2, q3, and q4? Those are pretty vague and they encompass several months. How about actual months specified like Bitcoin Core did with their roadmap (because this is pretty clear to be fighting back against the Core roadmap).

And how about making the roadmap more specific than just the "2016 roadmap"? A lot of things will happen in 2016, but this discusses specifically just scalability.

these dates are goals not deadlines.

This was discussed in the past. This is not the right place do discuss this.

Yet Classic supporters complained about the 'lack of dates' on the Core Roadmap. ::)

i can't fucking believe it.

HELLO altcoins

have you heard about bitcoin, and the war going on with classic vs core??? O_o?

Yes, we are watching. 

Don't mind Adam. He seems to have just become politically active. I think it's a phase.
PS. OP can you please run some spell-check once in a while. This is embarrassing. ::)

What I find very, very, very exciting about this new coin is that you can mine Bitcoin blocks with it. Surely this is a world first? Maybe it should be moved from the altcoin section now this important news has been uncovered?

Interesting. I hadn't noticed any of this. In which discussion section do you think this might be more suitable? ???

Boy, that's a toughie. I'll let you know when it comes to me.

this is just altcoin ?
BItcoin Core, Bitcoin Clasic, Bitcoin XT  ???  :-[

I suggest we add two new sections to the forum:

1. Alternative Implementations (that don't threaten to break consensus rules)
2. Alternative Implementations (that do)

?

Did they move this from the bitcoin forum?  Hahaha

Bitcoin Core is not comparable to Bitcoin Clasic and XT. The other two are different implementations, or altcoins (depending on who you ask).

That's pretty redundant.

It was moved to the appropriate section.

42 million coins.

Looks good, BIP 109 promises something like 100 TX/s and we really need that, that gives us something like 60000 transactions per block, which, probably, almost pays for mining when full, at this point other layers can be implemented for off-chain payments with on-chain settlements.

So, when/if Bitcoin Classic is adopted by majority all Bitcoin Core discussions will be moved to Altcoins section?

This predefined majority as found in the older systems is not applicable here. You're asking very situation specific questions which can not be answered at this time. Only theymos could tell you that.

It doesn't. You don't have data to back this up. However, BIP109 does look good but I'd like to see an implementation of it as soon as possible.

Someone with more knowledge on BIP 109 could chip in, would be nice. Already on testnet? Results?


Oh, that would be something like 60000 tx per block with a minimum fee of 0,0001 BTC that's 6+ BTC, with increased bitcoin value that's probably enough.

Bear in mind, with the current situation 2000 tx give around 0,4 in mining fees, extrapolating that would be something like 12 bitcoins, which is what we are going to get in a few months.

Anyways, fees will probably go down with bitcoin price increasing, so we need even more on-chain transactions to finance mining.

so is this an example on how to ruin a forum?

Why would someone pay such a high fee when there is so much transaction space per block? That's not really how it is going to play out. If the blocks are mostly empty the average fee is going to go down.

Okay what you initially wrote is wrong. I've figured out where the confusion lies. There are currently two BIP109's (no idea why):
Gavin's BIP 109 - Two million byte size limit with sigop and sighash limits
John's BIP 109 -   Efficient block relay format and mempool synchronization
Classic will implement Gavin's BIP109 which means that the TPS is going to be around 6-7 (currently it is around 3).

---

---

As far as John's BIP109 is concerned:

Why do vast majority of txs include at least default fee of 0.0001 (for <1kb) since the blocks aren't full yet? Why would average user risk his tx being massively delayed just to save few cents worth? Why isn't this currently happening?

You need to gather more data on the current fees and talk in satoshi/byte in order to get a cleared picture. There's no need to discuss 100 TPS right now as that was false information.

Nah, you made a statement so show me the data. Can you show any evidence of massive number of 1sat/tx (because why would anyone pay more, right?) in any period over the last 2 years? Anything?

When did I say that people were using 1 satoshi per transaction? Again, this data is neither relevant nor an accurate way of displaying. If you want to continue, then please use satoshi per byte. This  (https://bitcoinfees.21.co/)shows you a more accurate picture of how fees are currently used. According to Blockchain.info (https://blockchain.info/charts/transaction-fees?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=) the total amount of fees is quite higher right now, however one would have to compare the number of transactions per day as well.

I could say the same. Do not waste time and fix your statement. Classic will not have 100 TPS.

You didn't. I did. Let me try again. According to your logic, if the blocks aren't full, why do people pay anything more than 1 sat/tx, or why do they pay anything really?

If you (or anyone else reading) go to https://blockchain.info/ and click on a random tx on the left, you'll see that pretty much every tx you click includes at least default fee of 0.0001. Again, why do people bother to pay that? Are they stupid and don't know any better? Or maybe, just maybe, triviality of the default fee amount has something to do with that?


21.co stats - only ~13% of txs are in 0-10 sat/byte brackets (note that larger sized txs with fee slightly below the default would also be included here). Again, why not 100%, or 90%, or at least 80%? There's still room in the blocks.
blockchain.info - tx fees on long-term uptrend. No comment here.


What are you on about? Where did I make any statement about 100 TPS? Or any other statement in this thread?

-------------------

I've noticed you have an ugly tendency of derailing subjects whenever you struggle with it (and then complaining about off-top replies you get). So just in case, we're talking about this statement of yours:

I personally think its a shame that every single one of these threads end up like this. I found it very interesting to read that classic and core essentially have the same goals (2MB + SegWit) just prefer a different order.

I also prefer a different order. 2MB first as that involves less work and could be done faster. SegWit is too new, too risky.

You're being hyperbolic. I never said it would go down a lot, quickly, nor something similar. The average fee will go down, however there is a limit for everything.

These days, not that much.

Mentioning something != derailing thread. I don't waste more time that necessary on people who are unable to do their own research.  :)

Zero evidence that backs up this "too risky".

Gavin and Toomin have something else in mind, else one would not want to fork Bitcoin with a small group of 'developers' that were mostly inactive in the recent times.

---

---

Update: Strange, my bad. Removed this part.

1. btcd, libbit
2. XT, Classic

How is that redundant?

It might sound a little more neutral to use the phrasing:

1. Alternative Implementations (that propose a change to the consensus rules)
2. Alternative Implementations (that maintain the current consensus)

Sounds good to me.

> "nobody will pay 0.0001 when blocks aren't full!"
> vast majority of txs with 0.0001 or higher, blocks not full.
> failing to answer simple question twice.
K


> quoting pedrog's statement, implying it's my own.
K

What was the last time you've been outside and breathed some fresh air?