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

[Peter R]

CIYAM:

Do you think it is possible for Core, Classic and Unlimited to co-exist (image on right)?

[CIYAM]

@Peter R

You are always handy with pretty pictures - but pictures (and especially graphs) are what politicians use to trick people so please don't waste your time on creating pretty pictures for me.

Instead spend your time typing some text that actually means something.

(i.e. welcome to join in the debate but stop posting pictures and start typing text as I don't speak in pictures)

(if you are only good at communicating with pictures then maybe we need a translator to work between the two of us)

[BitcoinNewsMagazine]

It is a little premature to dismiss Bitcoin Classic, the client has not even been released. Miners make the decision in any event. Miners clearly did not care for XT but want 2 MB blocksize now rather than later. If Classic gives that to them with a clean patch to Core the results could be interesting. Will just have to wait and see. I follow all this crap because I find it fascinating and the latest word on Slack is that Classic client will be released end of this month (which usually means two weeks later:) Time to stock up on popcorn.

[thejaytiesto]

It's getting hilarious at this point to be honest. They will run out of names, it's so obvious they think of "cool, marketable" names like XT or Classic. Anyone that wants to risk a hard fork for 1 MB increase when we have segregated witness now has a brick for a brain.

[DooMAD]

If Bitcoin Classic wins then Gavin is going to be the "benevolent dictator" (which I think has always been his desire).

Do you want him as the overlord?

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

Gavin has cleverly now gone with something that only changes the one thing (but more importantly puts him back in charge - after they take over who knows what will happen).

I can tell you with absolute 100% certainty what will happen.  People will use the code they agree with.  If developers of any client add code that users disagree with, they won't update to the new code.  Ergo, there's no such thing as a dictator in Bitcoin, benevolent or otherwise.  There's also no such thing as a takeover, hostile or otherwise.  There is only code and users freely choosing what code to run. 

Bitcoin is and should be whatever its users define by the code they run.  If you don't want people to have a choice, a closed-source coin would be far better suited to your goals.

[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.

[CIYAM]

Bitcoin is and should be whatever its users define by the code they run.  If you don't want people to have a choice, a closed-source coin would be far better suited to your goals.

If it was decided by the users then you would not have miners - so oops - you have made a mistake (so maybe you should be using an alt?).

[AgentofCoin]

I think the real issue between the parties is that:

Has the experiment now ended, agreed to be a success, and now the current model is the perfected final form?
Is it impossible now that there will be a point in time, when the current model will be changed to create larger blocks?
Is it too late now, mostly because of security and the vast financial interest in BTC, to change the model?
Is it too late now and all that is left to do is optimizations, bug fixes, and bitcoin associated side projects?

I think the real issue is whether Bitcoin/bitcoin can still radically evolve or should only conservatively adapt.

Is there the possibility of a middle ground here? If so, what would it be and when would it be implemented?

I think this is one of the main issues, in regards to this blocksize civil war.

[DooMAD]

Bitcoin is and should be whatever its users define by the code they run.  If you don't want people to have a choice, a closed-source coin would be far better suited to your goals.

If it was decided by the users then you would not have miners - so oops - you have made a mistake (so maybe you should be using an alt).

Nodes are actually kind of important as well, to put it mildly.  Also, are miners somehow not users now?  Everyone running a full client, whether they're mining or not, has a role to play and a decision to make.  Those choices determine the rules that govern the network.

[CIYAM]

Those that are trying to make this out to be a "do or die now issue" are those that are trying to "take over the project".

Those that actually own Bitcoin don't really care about being able to buy coffee with it - they care about not losing the value of their investment (so they don't need to see the block size increase *next month*).

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Those that are trying to make this out to be a "do or die now issue" are those that are trying to "take over the project".

Those that actually own Bitcoin don't really care about being able to buy coffee with it - they care about not losing the value of their investment (so they don't need to see the block size increase *next month*).

Don't trivialize this with coffee. This isn't your party anymore.

[CIYAM]

Everyone running a full client, whether they're mining or not, has a role to play and a decision to make.  Those choices determine the rules that govern the network.

No so much - if you don't mine then you don't really decide much at all (and you can always more directly connect to a mining pool if you need to).

[CIYAM]

Don't trivialize this with coffee. This isn't your party anymore.

My party?
(it is my topic)

I don't get it. Perhaps you could just try and make a real point rather than some further jibe against me (not sure why you have something against me but I guess that's just how it goes).

If you don't like "my party" then you are welcome to go to another (am sure there are many others on this forum).

[Spamela Anderson]

I think this whole debate is a big problem and there's fud coming from both sides and I guess with bitcoin meaning to be decentralized but at the same time having a handful of devs in charge is where there's a paradox and also where the problem is. How can anyone ever agree to something like this? People are always going to be biased and have their own financial interests and that's the big issue. This is why I don't like the Foundation as well as it has been taken over by those with financial interest in trying to steer bitcoin in a direction they want it to go to try maximize profit. I just wish they would increase the blocksize so we can all just move on. It needs to happen sooner or later but when or whether everyone agrees to it is another matter.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Don't trivialize this with coffee. This isn't your party anymore.

My party?
(it is my topic)

I don't get it. Perhaps you could just try and make a real point rather than some further jibe against me (not sure why you have something against me but I guess that's just how it goes).

I have nothing against you. I have natural trollish tendencies. I'm working on that.  

I'm saying this isn't about Starbucks. It's about payments being instant, easy, and much cheaper than a credit card settlement. Our priorities are at odds.

[CuntChocula]

Those that are trying to make this out to be a "do or die now issue" are those that are trying to "take over the project".

Those that actually own Bitcoin don't really care about being able to buy coffee with it - they care about not losing the value of their investment.

Bitcoin never set out to be an investment vehicle. It was created to be Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.
Try to understand that by making Bitcoin useless as a currency (buying coffee), you also destroy its value.

[CIYAM]

Try to understand that by making Bitcoin useless as a currency (buying coffee), you also destroy its value.

It has never been useful for buying coffee - so how can I be destroying its value for something that it has never been able to do well?

(it has been very useful to move money from one country to another with almost zero fees - so that has been something that I have not been able to destroy)

[sadface]

who owns bitcoin? who are "they" gonna take something over from? instead of throwing around buzzwords like "hostile takeover", why don't you try to explain what exactly is so bad about the proposed changes?

[CIYAM]

who owns bitcoin? who are "they" gonna take something over from? instead of throwing around buzzwords like "hostile takeover", why don't you try to explain what exactly is so bad about the proposed changes?

I guess we are yet to see what will occur - but currently my concern is that the "Classic" group are trying to replace the "Core" group.

If a "merger" were to happen then maybe that would be the best outcome.

[CuntChocula]

Try to understand that by making Bitcoin useless as a currency (buying coffee), you also destroy its value.

It has never been useful for buying coffee - so how can I be destroying its value for something that it has never been able to do well?

(it has been very useful to move money from one country to another with almost zero fees - so that has been something that I have not been able to destroy)

Bitcoin's value is speculative: people speculate that, some day, it will be used as money. they invest (gamble) on that becoming a reality.
Like they invest in *any* startup. Like they invest in a car company which is yet to sell a single car.

Don't assume that people will line up to buy your car company shares, not once the possibility of making cars is off the table.