"Bitcoin Classic" is a classic attempt at a hostile takeover

[franky1]

Apologies in advance for the dumb questions...

If the fork takes place...if "Bitcoin Classic" does indeed materialize...does this mean that the original blockchain and the new chain with bigger blocks will both still function at the same time?  In this case, isn't "Bitcoin Classic" just another alt coin?  

lets say there are 6000 users who are dedicated and enthusiastic full node users

1 thousand chose bitcoin classic 2mb
1 thousand chose bitcoin unlimited 2mb
1 thousand chose bitcoin core 2mb
1 thousand chose bitcoin core 1mb SegWit
1 thousand chose bitcoinj 2mb
1 thousand chose other implementations all with 2mb rule..

then miners will see 83% consensus for 2mb and miners will hopefully choose to start mining 2mb blocks as the community is ready for it..
bitcoin continues and 83% are happy... but the downside is that 1mb segwit clients will throw away 2mb blocks, because even after cutting out signatures the data is still over 1mb.. making segwit left behind dropping blocks and not able to be part of the network.. as they "handshake" other nodes to say that they are several blocks behind everyone else and refusing to accept big blocks..
so its not really an altcoin.. is just being put into retirement with less data then the rest

now..
imagine
1 thousand chose bitcoin classic 2mb
1 thousand chose bitcoin unlimited 2mb
1 thousand chose bitcoin core 2mb
1 thousand chose bitcoin core 1mb SegWit
1 thousand chose bitcoinj 2mb
1 thousand chose other implementations all with 2mb rule..

same numbers..
but this time miners chose to do 1mbsegwit blocks (1.5mb reality archival blocks)..
everyone is happy as all 5000 fullnodes will receive full archival data(1.5mb) (aslong as segwit allows archival by default) as segwit is sending out 1mb non-witness blocks to the 1000segwits, which is below the 1mb segwit limit so they approve... and 1.5mb archival blocks to the 5000 full nodes, which is below the 2mb limit so all implementations approve.
but like i say, only if segwit mining by default sends full (archival(with sig) blocks in standard format all implementations can understand.. where truncated versions(no witness) is a non-default second option(for their own kind to experiment with).

now..
imagine
 same demograph of users.. but this time there are dissent in the mining ranks.. one miner stays at 1mb(but isnt segwit), another stays at 2mb
the 1mb miner would not have staled his attempt when he sees a 2mb block. because it will reject 2mb by default due to it not being 1mb.. and continue to solve a 1mb block..
5000 users will accept the 2mb as it solved first and ignore the 1mb block as it came second place (fastest solution wins)
but the 1000 segwit users will orphan off the 2mb mined blocks and accept only the 1mb mined block.

but now when the 1mb miner wants to send funds.. only 16% of users see's the coinbase(fresh coin) as valid to spend as only 16% chose to reject the 2mb block. which can cause the 1mb miners coinbase to be unspendable and piss the 1mb miner off..
eventually the 1mb miner agree's to be part of the 2mb community and know it has a chance to spend its coins as the majority of nodes will accept it.

now the segwit users are left limp because they reject blocks that cant truncate down to 1mb and as said in the first scenario.. they are left to retire as they cannot keep up with the block height of the 83% others..

again its not really an altcoin. but a fork that might take some time to get miners to realise what rule allows them to spend their coinbase without headache.

Also, unless BTCC plans to start the whole mining ecology from scratch, then the new blockchain would need to work correctly and seamlessly with the existing SHA256 mining hardware out in the world...yes? 

I cannot imagine BTCC being successful, if all the BTC miners and farms in the world must purchase new equipment before they can participate.  (Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe the bigger players would be delighted?)

-tfeagle

not sure. as i dont believe ive ever read plans for btcc to change the algorithm..

[tfeagle]

Apologies in advance for the dumb questions...

If the fork takes place...if "Bitcoin Classic" does indeed materialize...does this mean that the original blockchain and the new chain with bigger blocks will both still function at the same time?  In this case, isn't "Bitcoin Classic" just another alt coin?  

Also, unless BTCC plans to start the whole mining ecology from scratch, then the new blockchain would need to work correctly and seamlessly with the existing SHA256 mining hardware out in the world...yes?  

I cannot imagine BTCC being successful, if all the BTC miners and farms in the world must purchase new equipment before they can participate.  (Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe the bigger players would be delighted?)

-tfeagle

lets say there are 6000 users who are dedicated and enthusiastic full node users

1 thousand chose bitcoin classic 2mb
1 thousand chose bitcoin unlimited 2mb
1 thousand chose bitcoin core 2mb
1 thousand chose bitcoin core 1mb SegWit
1 thousand chose bitcoinj 2mb
1 thousand chose other implementations all with 2mb rule..

then miners will see 83% consensus for 2mb and miners will hopefully choose to start mining 2 mb blocks as the community is ready for it..
bitcoin continues and 83% are happy... but the downside is that 1mb segwit clients will throw away 2mb blocks, because even after cutting out signatures the data is still over 1mb.. making segwit left behind dropping blocks and not able to be part of the network.. as they are handshaking that they are several blocks behind everyone else and refusing to accept big blocks.. so its not really an altcoin.. is just being put into retirement with less data then the rest

now..
imagine
1 thousand chose bitcoin classic 2mb
1 thousand chose bitcoin unlimited 2mb
1 thousand chose bitcoin core 2mb
1 thousand chose bitcoin core 1mb SegWit
1 thousand chose bitcoinj 2mb
1 thousand chose other implementations all with 2mb rule..

same numbers..
but this time miners chose to do segwit blocks..
everyone is happy as all 5000 fullnodes will receive full archival data (aslong as segwit has this by default) as segwit is sending out 1mb non-witness blocks to the 1000segwits and 1.5mb archival blocks to the 5000 full nodes, which is below the 2mb limit so all implementations approve.
but like i say, only if segwit mining by default sends blocks in standard format all implementations can understand.. where truncated versions is a non-default second option(for their own kind to experiment with).

I'm a HW engineer.  So my grasp on the SW is a little infirm.  (Unfirm?)  I'll leave the SW comments to the SW weenies. 

It will take mining HW slightly longer to perform an SHA256 hash on 2MBytes of data, as opposed to 1MByte.  It is unlikely to require a full 2x of time...but it's likely to be greater than 1.25x.  (This is all "back of the napkin" estimation.)  If I'm paid the same for a 2MByte block as for a 1MByte block, then I'll go for the 1MByte block because I can produce more of them in a given amount of time.  This is particularly true if my HW is older (and thus slower) since I cannot compete as well at 2MBytes. 

If there is free choice, at my level, then to persuade me to crunch 2MByte blocks, there would need to be a pay increase per block.  The pay increase would need to meet or exceed the cost (to me) of the extra crunch time and extra electricity.  Otherwise...if I am still allowed to crunch 1MByte blocks...and there is no "shift differential"...then I would never crunch 2MByte blocks. 

[franky1]

I'm a HW engineer.  So my grasp on the SW is a little infirm.  (Unfirm?)  I'll leave the SW comments to the SW weenies.  

It will take mining HW slightly longer to perform an SHA256 hash on 2MBytes of data, as opposed to 1MByte.  It is unlikely to require a full 2x of time...but it's likely to be greater than 1.25x.  (This is all "back of the napkin" estimation.)  If I'm paid the same for a 2MByte block as for a 1MByte block, then I'll go for the 1MByte block because I can produce more of them in a given amount of time.  This is particularly true if my HW is older (and thus slower) since I cannot compete as well at 2MBytes.  

If there is free choice, at my level, then to persuade me to crunch 2MByte blocks, there would need to be a pay increase per block.  The pay increase would need to meet or exceed the cost (to me) of the extra crunch time and extra electricity.  Otherwise...if I am still allowed to crunch 1MByte blocks...and there is no "shift differential"...then I would never crunch 2MByte blocks.  

i agree.. miners wont jump to 2mb instantly.. the 2mb rule is not an "average" but a "maximum"
it would in reality look more like like a slow increase..  eg 1.025mb, 1.05mb, 1.1mb growing slowly..  all of which are acceptable as the 2mb is a "maximum" not an average, and not rejected because the 1mb maximum is no longer inforce.

one part is as i said only when there is a majority of users able to cope with it (consensus) and the other is where transactions are pouring in and causing bottlenecks (filling mempools and risking mempool crashes if not handled/flushed sooner)..
where miners know if they let in more tx per block... even just 100 extra tx's(1.025mb) at first they can get an extra 100 transactions which means 100x tx fee..

again wont be a jump to full bloat 2mb in days.... i just meant 2mb POTENTIAL, which will naturally grow with time and user demand to send transactions

worded differently:
so imagine 1mb is about 4000 tx's maximum potential
it wont jump to suddenly hash 8000 tx's tomorrow.. it just means moving the goal posts, miners can hash out 4001tx's, 4010, 4100, 5000. blah, etc.. basically any number between 0 and 7999.. without the community arguing..
and the more tx the miner allows the more tx fee's it can eat

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

It isn't the code that is the issue - it is the hostile takeover that is.

Yeah I have to agree with that. Even if classic is the right solution to the problem, the ends do not justify the means and the means being used are not something I can condone.

[franky1]

and blockstreams segwit isnt a hostile take over.?? by suggesting it wont send sigs to other clients, and only to segwit "archival" clients that ask for it using a special parameter will get it....

so
if blockstream instead didnt mess with the relay data for anyone by default. and then had a special option to truncate data for special nodes that request it (the reverse of the proposals so far).. then things would be better and segwit wont be a hostile takeover..

but calling bitcoin classic or BU or any implementation wanting to up the block potential to 2mb a hostile takeover.. is narrow minded as the users will still accept 1mb blocks.. and blocks over 1mb will only be mined once there is a high percentage of users capable of handling upto 2mb blocks..

which if 50% went with 2mb and 50% went with segwit1mb.. everyone will still relay data.. and even segwit can benefit if it defaults data to send witnesses to all nodes unless requested not to specially.. because then it can send out the 1.5mb of real data of 6000tx while also sending out 1mb of nonwitness 6000tx data to its special lite nodes..
win win.

but..
by simply not letting other implementations have 2mb max.. means that if segwit had 6000tx nonwitness blocks(1mb) and by default would send out witness(1.5mb) to other implementations.. then by not having a 2mb rule, the implementations would reject the 1.5mb as its bigger than 1mb..
screwing all other implementations out of not able to receive data to check signatures. but also rejecting blocks.. that had signatures..
lose lose

segwit on the other hands has previously proposed cutting off other non segwit clients.. on day one.. due to its 'dont send witness' default.

so as i said near the start.. let any/all implimentations have 2mb.. and then segwit1mb (1.5mb archival (with sig)) can play happily alongside other implementations.

and then its a patient wait for a consensus of atleast 90% before miners start pushing out blocks above 1mb.. not immediate and not definite as it needs consensus

[jonald_fyookball]

Again we have another "we must increase the block size ASAP" fork crap - under the most stupid name "Bitcoin Classic".

It's a "classic" alright - a "classic attempt to FUD people into letting a small bunch of wannabe Bitcoin overlords take over the project".

If some of the biggest pools and companies and developers like Gavin and Garzik is a "small bunch" , ok...
But I don't see it as FUD.  It's an option for those who are not happy with core's scalability roadmap.

The blocks are not even nearly full most of the time (apart from attacks which are just spam being used to fill up the mempool for FUD reasons).

Blocks are getting fuller all the time.  I know.  I've checked the charts.

The reason that people don't use Bitcoin for normal txs is "why the hell would they?".

Even if a vendor were to offer a cheaper price for paying in BTC you still have to change your fiat into BTC to purchase from them (and then most likely BitPay or another provider is going to take at least 1% commission).

If you don't purchase your BTC via an exchange (and no average person is going to do that to just buy something) then most likely you are going to pay at least 5% commission - so if you are ending up with 6% commission - did you save anything from using a credit card?

Also you can't get a refund if you pay with BTC - so the masses are not screaming to pay with BTC at all (far from it - if it cannot be reversed then I suspect 99% of people would not want to use it as certainly every person I have spoken to does not like the idea).

Can we stop with the FUD and let the project just continue to improve the tech?

Yes there are challenges with adoption.  Limiting the transaction capacity will not help.
If you don't think Bitcoin should be a widely adopted CURRENCY well, that's your
opinion and one I don't share.

[oblivi]

Excellent post, we need more like this, no such as enough threads like this, we much teach the noobs how to spot bullshit like XT and Classic. Can't believe so much people are drinking the koolaid. "Yeah lets centralize nodes just to pay a bit less fees". Fucking ridiculous.

[becoin]

Yes there are challenges with adoption.  Limiting the transaction capacity will not help.

It is a very stupid argument. Saying that current block size is limiting adoption is like saying a place is not attractive to people because it's overcrowded...

For minors is not important the number of people and entities that pay tx fees but the overall tx fees paid! Of course, the size of the adoption is important but even more important is the quality of the adoption. Increasing block size and giving free block space to even more spam will not help bitcoin adoption for sure!

[franky1]

Yes there are challenges with adoption.  Limiting the transaction capacity will not help.

It is a very stupid argument. Saying that current block size is limiting adoption is like saying a place is not attractive to people because it's overcrowded...

For minors is not important the number of people and entities that pay tx fees but the overall tx fees paid! Of course, the size of the adoption is important but even more important is the quality of the adoption. Increasing block size and giving free block space to even more spam will not help bitcoin adoption for sure!

people(general users) dont want 4cent tx fee's, they want 2cent tx fees(or less). they definitely wont accept 8cent fee's

at 4cent, 1mb blocks get $160(1mb=4000tx=$160 at 4cent each)

miners dont want $80(1mb=4000tx at 2cent=$80) they want $160(or more)

so miners have a choice..
stick to 1mb and take a cut to please customers.. ($80).. without being greedy!
or increase to 2mb and please customers aswell with lower fee's... yet keeping their stash of $160(2mb=8000tx=$160 at 2cent each)
or if greedy.. 2mb and 4cent fee at max = $320 fee total potential(greedy but acceptable)

but sticking to 1mb and jumping to 8cents a tx is totally going to ruin bitcoins usefulness. while revealing greed as the killer of all the positives of what made bitcoin better than fiat in the first place

[NAMBLA Scientist, the]

... For minors is not important the number of people and entities that pay ...

According to our research, that's exactly what minors crave. That, and bitcoins.  And also older men. Minors go totally gaga for older men.  And once they find out you got bitcoins, wehehehehell...

[Quickseller]

Yes there are challenges with adoption.  Limiting the transaction capacity will not help.

It is a very stupid argument. Saying that current block size is limiting adoption is like saying a place is not attractive to people because it's overcrowded...

If only 3 people can send a transaction per second, then how do you expect 50 people to send a transaction every second (this is roughly 2.5% of what Visa does)?

The current 1MB limit makes it so roughly only 3 people can send a transaction every second (it has a limit of 3 ~tps depending on what assumptions you make regarding average transaction size)

[CuntChocula]

Yes there are challenges with adoption.  Limiting the transaction capacity will not help.

It is a very stupid argument. Saying that current block size is limiting adoption is like saying a place is not attractive to people because it's overcrowded...

If only 3 people can send a transaction per second, then how do you expect 50 people to send a transaction every second (this is roughly 2.5% of what Visa does)?

To be fair, if Visa just throttled its throughput to 3tps, people would be forced to pay a hell of a lot more per tx, all the spam Visa transactions would disappear in the Free Market, and Visa would become the new gold standard.

[iCEBREAKER]

I remember clearly the whole BIP 16 vs BIP 17 thing where Gavin attacked Luke-Jr with this topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62037.0

This was the point that I lost respect for Gavin - attacking someone the way he did then just proved that he was not at all like Satoshi (show me any post where Satoshi behaved like that).

The idea of Gavin whining about "toxic" people is a howler, given his palling around with Mike "Yellow Peril" Hearn and their instigation of an ugly Grand Schism.

Luke-Jr (among other exemplary contributions) just gave us a slick soft-fork SegWit implementation that kills 10 birds with one stone, and obviates the need for a lousy, perfunctory jump to 2MB blocks.

What has Gavin done for us lately?  Besides hanging out in smoke-filled rooms in an attempt to subvert Bitcoin's diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient properties.

Luke-Jr >> Gavin

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I remember clearly the whole BIP 16 vs BIP 17 thing where Gavin attacked Luke-Jr with this topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62037.0

This was the point that I lost respect for Gavin - attacking someone the way he did then just proved that he was not at all like Satoshi (show me any post where Satoshi behaved like that).

I'm not wrong I'm just an asshole.

What's the harm in a jump to 2MB??

[iCEBREAKER]

It is a little premature to dismiss Bitcoin Classic, the client has not even been released.

Then it's also premature for Tooministas to declare victory over Core.

But they have been doing exactly that.

Did you likewise scold the TumorBlockers, or are your criticisms reserved for the small block militia?

[iCEBREAKER]

- -
On-topic: There's no neutral position here. Replace-by-fee Bitcoin isn't Bitcoin, either. The whole world is about to change!

In the light of a serious discussion, what exactly is not bitcoin about opt-in rbf?

What exactly isn't Bitcoin about 2MB blocks? RBF is an odd new feature nobody asked for. It changes Bitcoin a lot more than more transactions would.

RBF is crucial to recover funds stuck in tx with insufficient (ie uncompetitive) original fees.  It's needed for fee markets to mature and Because other Reasons, which you would have already looked up if you weren't just here to troll and FUD.

RBF is a soft fork, so there's nothing you Tooministas and Blockstream haters can do to stop it.

When you cry for your hopeless lost fantasy of 0-conf tx, it gives me great pleasure.

Do I need to post the nipple rubbing cable company guys again, or have you got the message?   

[Quickseller]

Yes there are challenges with adoption.  Limiting the transaction capacity will not help.

It is a very stupid argument. Saying that current block size is limiting adoption is like saying a place is not attractive to people because it's overcrowded...

If only 3 people can send a transaction per second, then how do you expect 50 people to send a transaction every second (this is roughly 2.5% of what Visa does)?

To be fair, if Visa just throttled its throughput to 3tps, people would be forced to pay a hell of a lot more per tx, all the spam Visa transactions would disappear in the Free Market, and Visa would become the new gold standard.

No. Because of how the Visa network is setup merchants would receive significantly less of each transaction to the point that the majority of merchants will no longer accept Visa. After the majority of merchants stop accepting Visa, consumers will have less of a reason to use a Visa branded card, so banks will stop issuing them. This would mean that the overall usage of Visa will decline significantly, as will the Revenue of Visa.

Those that are still accepting/using Visa will need to wait hours/days for their transaction to be processed and most of the time the merchant and customer will likely agree on another payment method while the transaction is still processing.

I cannot think of any logical reason why someone who wishes for Bitcoin to be successful would not want to allow more transactions to be processed via the Bitcoin network.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

- -
On-topic: There's no neutral position here. Replace-by-fee Bitcoin isn't Bitcoin, either. The whole world is about to change!

In the light of a serious discussion, what exactly is not bitcoin about opt-in rbf?

What exactly isn't Bitcoin about 2MB blocks? RBF is an odd new feature nobody asked for. It changes Bitcoin a lot more than more transactions would.

RBF is crucial to recover funds stuck in tx with insufficient (ie uncompetitive) original fees.  It's needed for fee markets to mature and Because other Reasons

Aren't these just flushed out of the mempool?

[jonald_fyookball]

Yes there are challenges with adoption.  Limiting the transaction capacity will not help.

It is a very stupid argument. Saying that current block size is limiting adoption is like saying a place is not attractive to people because it's overcrowded...

For minors is not important the number of people and entities that pay tx fees but the overall tx fees paid! Of course, the size of the adoption is important but even more important is the quality of the adoption. Increasing block size and giving free block space to even more spam will not help bitcoin adoption for sure!

"Quality of adoption" lol.

Miners are already free to include/exlcude whatever they want.

And a fee market exists without a blocksize cap.

Peter Rizun wrote a whitepaper proving it.
If you know any academic papers offering
a rebuttal, please link it.

[iCEBREAKER]

What's the harm in a jump to 2MB??

If you were here to converse in good faith, you would have already researched that exhaustively-debated topic.

I admire your 'energy vampire' attempt to wear us down by repeatedly asking already answered questions and attempting to restart the conversation back at square one.

I don't think you are actually a Toominista; you smell more like a Buttcoiner here to troll.