Bitcoin Classic discussion

[worhiper_-_]

Bitcoin classic has it's own bitcoin.com forum

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

[DieJohnny]

Nomenclature needs an update.

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?".

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.

[canth]

Nomenclature needs an update.

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?".

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.

[worhiper_-_]

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

https://redd.it/42fgiv

[worhiper_-_]

Keccak proposal for bitcoin core following the one of Luke Jr

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

[worhiper_-_]

consider.it under attack

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

[worhiper_-_]

Binaries are out

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

[af_newbie]

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.

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.

[canth]

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.

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.

[alecfisker]

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