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

[DooMAD]

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*).

Yes, and being pressured off-chain to transact because there's limited space in the blocks would be a rather big loss of value to most people.  There are some people who would gain an advantage from deliberately keeping a small blocksize for as long as possible.  They often express their fondness for a privileged and elitist chain where it's mostly just whales and large companies moving massive sums from time to time.  If that heinous vision ever comes to fruition then it will no longer be an open system.  Choose your bedfellows wisely, as you risk setting a dangerous precedent if you stifle every potential fork by dismissing it as a takeover attempt.  Denying the freedom to choose now could bite you in the arse later and limit your own freedoms.  Now is not the right time to "set things in stone", as some have argued for.

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

Core could end this right now if they had posted something akin to this as their scaling proposal.  But they didn't, so no deal.

[franky1]

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.

core group replaced themselves when they joined the "blockstream" group. and then set their own agenda..

and to be honest it doesnt matter what the politics of the groups are, i dont care about the politics of gavincoin or blockstream coin.. when looking at sourcecode.. as long as the code of their implementations are clean, and the implementation "does exactly whats said on the tin".. then the social drama is meaningless..

i would prefer an implementation where there is a selection box for the user to decide what settings to allow, what rules to increase. that way they dont have to argue about which brand or social group to trust.. the user can just change it himself without going two flying F*cks about who made it
EG

[Peter R]

@franky1:

I proposed something similar to your idea to the Core-Dev mailing list last night:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-266#post-9936

The email was rejected by the moderators and never went through.  Here's what it said:

PROBLEM:

Bitcoin Core has committed to NOT raise the block size limit in 2016; however, significant support exists for an increase to 2 MB via the new implementation called Bitcoin Classic.

If Core sticks to its scaling roadmap, all nodes running Core would be forked from the network should blocks greater than 1 MB be accepted into the longest chain.

If Core deviates from its scaling roadmap--for example by capitulating and mirroring Classic's 2 MB limit--it may be seen as weak-minded and less relevant.

SOLUTION:

Stick to Core's Scaling Roadmap HOWEVER add an advanced configuration window to allow node operators to increase their block size limits at their own risk. This would allow current Core customers to track the longest proof-of-work chain (regardless of the success of Bitcoin Classic), while simultaneously allowing Core developers to continue to work on the scaling roadmap that they’ve committed to.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

This would have been lovely!

[franky1]

SOLUTION:

Stick to Core's Scaling Roadmap HOWEVER add an advanced configuration window to allow node operators to increase their block size limits at their own risk. This would allow current Core customers to track the longest proof-of-work chain (regardless of the success of Bitcoin Classic), while simultaneously allowing Core developers to continue to work on the scaling roadmap that they’ve committed to.

and thats the solution i also thought of..
but funny that they rejected it to stick to their agenda

[disclaimer201]

No, we don't need to increase the block size overnight. But I'd rather have it done in the next three month than in one year. Bitcoin will get a lot of publicity this summer and it will not offer sufficient space for the next breakthrough.

What about these empty blocks that are mined all the time now from 'rogue' pools, if this phenomenon increases it means the remaining miners must pick up the transactions. So if BTC hits it off even remotely with the general public, the problem will only escalate.

Ridiculous to call Classic a takeover attempt. It offers a solution to prevent the next crisis. Unless you believe - or rather want- Bitcoin to stay in a niche, Classic is the minimal consensus. So, stop whining unless you want to use this price depression to push down the price further with your FUD so you can load up at $250.

[CIYAM]

Ridiculous to call Classic a takeover attempt. It offers a solution to prevent the next crisis. Unless you believe - or rather want- Bitcoin to stay in a niche, Classic is the minimal consensus. So, stop whining unless you want to use this price depression to push down the price further with your FUD so you can load up at $250.

If my intention was to FUD the price lower then 250 would not be nearly low enough.

[franky1]

This would have been lovely!

you gotta laugh though

Increasing the capacity of the bitcoin blockchain is critical. Bitcoin needs to grow and support more and more users, and each of these users needs to have access to relatively low transaction fees.

then tell luke JR and the other mining pools that are all friends with blockstream to stop being so greedy with 4cents a tx minimum.. bring it down to 0.4cents.. TODAY

Last, we need to be civil and respectful of one another and make sure we all come together to push Bitcoin forward

then come together and reduce the tx fee..

as for segwit.. there are easier ways to do this that by default sends out full tx data (including signatures).. without changing the merkle tree/blocks of that node.. but if lite versions want less bloat. they send a header command and the node sends out a truncated version purely for the benefit of that lite client. that way by default older non segwit clients get the same data as they always would with signatures.
because changing the merkle tree is just playing the 3shell game,, showing the ball is under one shell and trying to not let people see the bloat still exists if you look at all 3 as a whole.. which non-segwit implementations wont like

We want to roll this plan out slowly and carefully, and we believe the best course of action is to first roll out Segregated Witness so we can get a quick win on an approximately 2x data capacity increase. This would involve removing signatures from the main portion of blocks, which would double the number of transactions that can be fit into the current 1MB limit (this means the effective limit would be 2MB).

EG, imagine
TXDATABLAHBLAHANDSIGNATURES
TXDATABLAHBLAHANDSIGNATURES
TXDATABLAHBLAHANDSIGNATURES
TXDATABLAHBLAHANDSIGNATURES
=1mb data of: 4000 tx's with signatures

segwit hypothesises
TXDATABLAHBLAHANDSIGNATURES
TXDATABLAHBLAHANDSIGNATURES
TXDATABLAHBLAHANDSIGNATURES
TXDATABLAHBLAHANDSIGNATURES
TXDATABLAHBLAHANDSIGNATURES
TXDATABLAHBLAHANDSIGNATURES
SegwitLite receives 1mb data of: 6000tx's without signatures
segwit archival/non segwig receives 1.5mb data of 6000tx's with signatures..

[Quickseller]

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*).

I am not so sure about this.

At the end of the day, in order for the price of bitcoin to increase over the long term, it needs to be used by a larger user base, and each member of the user base needs to use it for a greater share of the total commerce they take part of. Both of these will require much larger block sizes.

I acknowledge this is not a statistically significant data sample, however as of block 393904, the smallest of the last 7 blocks was ~910 kb, and 3 were greater then 970kb. According to blockchain.info, there is roughly 8.8 MB worth of unconfirmed transactions (with total fees worth ~1.48 BTC) in it's mempool, and this is at a time when 3 blocks were found in the last 8 minutes.

When discussing the urgency of raising the block size, you need to remember that your "joe user" is not going to care about how long it takes on average to get a transaction confirmed, they are going to care about how long it takes their transaction confirmed. On the same subject, there will sometimes be "spikes" in the number of transactions per second, and if the maximum block size is not sufficient to get all of the transactions quickly confirmed during times of these "spikes" then it will create a negative user experience, and users may not wish to continue using Bitcoin.

I would also say, if, for arguments sake that the maximum block size does not need to be raised immediately, then is there any harm in raising it prior to it being necessary? I don't claim to be an expert, however I would think that the result of raising the max block size to 2MB prior to being necessary is that we would mostly see blocks that are under 1MB with an occasional ~1.95MB block that is the result of testing. 

[CIYAM]

At the end of the day, in order for the price of bitcoin to increase over the long term, it needs to be used by a larger user base, and each member of the user base needs to use it for a greater share of the total commerce they take part of. Both of these will require much larger block sizes.

This is not what I would agree with.

If I have 1 BTC then why do I need a bigger block size?

In time if my 1 BTC is going to buy me a house then the tx for buying that house will actually be tiny (it certainly won't require a bigger block size).

[becoin]

Bitcoin never set out to be an investment vehicle. It was created to be Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.

Ah, you're among those that think gold is not money but investment vehicle.

[mayax]

let's see what exchangers support this ALT coin...Coinbase, Bitstamp(Coinbase's twin brother, with the SAME investor behind) , BTC China...

[Quickseller]

At the end of the day, in order for the price of bitcoin to increase over the long term, it needs to be used by a larger user base, and each member of the user base needs to use it for a greater share of the total commerce they take part of. Both of these will require much larger block sizes.

This is not what I would agree with.

If I have 1 BTC then why do I need a bigger block size?

In time if my 1 BTC is going to buy me a house then the tx for buying that house will actually be tiny (it certainly won't require a bigger block size).

If your goal is for your 1 BTC to be able to buy a house in the future, then the price of 1 BTC needs to increase.

The reason why the US Dollar is worth so much is because the US Dollar is used (and accepted) all around the world (it is used as part of a very high percentage of worldwide transactions). Many other government fiat currencies have similar correlation. It has often been speculated that new merchants accepting bitcoin would be positive for bitcoin's price.

Why would someone buy 1 BTC for several hundred thousand dollars (or a fraction of 1 BTC that makes 1 BTC worth several hundred thousand dollars)? The answer ultimately needs to be because they can spend parts of that 1 BTC at a wide variety of merchants and have the total cost be less then using credit cards and physical cash. In order for the price to go from ~$385 to ~$300k, a very large number of people need to buy 1 BTC, and as stated above, they will want to spend that 1 BTC.

Granted some people may buy 1 BTC in order to speculate that the price of BTC will increase, however the price increases from speculators is limited and there needs to be reasons other then speculation that the price of BTC will rise in the future to buy BTC.

Your transaction to buy your house is going to be a very small one (in terms of blockchain size), however in order for your 1 BTC to be valuable enough to buy a house, then many other people need to be buying (and spending) BTC at the same time.

[franky1]

This is not what I would agree with.

If I have 1 BTC then why do I need a bigger block size?

In time if my 1 BTC is going to buy me a house then the tx for buying that house will actually be tiny (it certainly won't require a bigger block size).

but think outside of the box..

now imagine its 2016 and 3 million people who grew with bitcoin and loved it for fast transactions in 2009-2014... (not hard to imagine, as thats the reality)

but these 3million people are now noticing bottlenecks .. soo this 3 million people will get pissed off with delayed transactions and so they lose faith in it.. and cause a price crash..

they will tell their friends to ignore the "we use bitcoin" video as transactions are not instant. are not virtually free and all the other issues that are very relevant and apparent right now.. and so bitcoin adoption falls.. not rises, because the utopian dream of bitcoin has been lost, and replaced by greed of miners and politics of dev groups

and now your dream of buying a house for 1btc is laughed at because the world can see that bitcoin dev's refuse to adapt to demand, refuse to buffer a safety net, refuse to adapt before demand.. and your 1btc never reaches the price of a house..

[smoothie]

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

I'm not choosing sides. I'm completely neutral on the whole block size situation.

But how does your statement above hold true if Gavin willfully gave up the CORE dev position to someone else?

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

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".

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).

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?

I don't personally believe classic is the solution but a product I am working on involves using bitcoin for micro-payments, similar to the way nickel peep shows and newspaper stands and soda machine work - and those can make a lot of money but they can't make as much online because of credit card transaction fees and chargebacks.

Right now sometimes the way this is done is through the purchase of "tokens" to reduce the transaction costs - but with bitcoin that isn't necessary, the fee is paid by the buyer and is small.

With micro-payments for digital access, you do not even really need to wait for confirmations, just seeing the transaction on the P2P network is enough to know that you will probably be paid and if a double-spend is performed, you just ban the user from your service.

With that model, if it works, there will be increase in transactions many of which are very small in value.

So yes, the number of transactions is a problem that needs to be solved.

But no, I don't think classic is the solution we need.

[franky1]

im still wondering why are people fighting over only having 1 solution..

as long as lets say bitcoin unlimited allows a 2mb limit. bitcoin-core has a 2mb limit, bitcoinj has a 2mb limit, bitcoin classic has a 2mb limit and the other half a dozen popular implementations have a 2mb limit.. along with the dozen lesser known implementations having a 2mb limit..

then the world will continue and all 2 dozen implementations can co-exist all happily using the 2mb rule..

[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

[smoothie]

This is not what I would agree with.

If I have 1 BTC then why do I need a bigger block size?

In time if my 1 BTC is going to buy me a house then the tx for buying that house will actually be tiny (it certainly won't require a bigger block size).

but think outside of the box..

now imagine its 2016 and 3 million people who grew with bitcoin and loved it for fast transactions in 2009-2014... (not hard to imagine, as thats the reality)

but these 3million people are now noticing bottlenecks .. soo this 3 million people will get pissed off with delayed transactions and so they lose faith in it.. and cause a price crash..

they will tell their friends to ignore the "we use bitcoin" video as transactions are not instant. are not virtually free and all the other issues that are very relevant and apparent right now.. and so bitcoin adoption falls.. not rises, because the utopian dream of bitcoin has been lost, and replaced by greed of miners and politics of dev groups

and now your dream of buying a house for 1btc is laughed at because the world can see that bitcoin dev's refuse to adapt to demand, refuse to buffer a safety net, refuse to adapt before demand.. and your 1btc never reaches the price of a house..

This ^ all depends on what bitcoin is designed for (this is up for debate). The fact that bitcoin transacts faster and cheaper than the traditional banking system is still a good thing whether the TX cost is $0.04 or $0.004 and if the transaction gets 1 confirmation in 10 minutes or 1 hour is still better than wiring money internationally and possibly taking 3days to a week.

Disclosure: I am neutral in all of this debate. Just looking at both sides.

[Meuh6879]

Bitcoin Classic is a respond from (Chinese) mining industry against Bitcoin Core.
A good respond ... 2Mb is not bad and make room for developping others tools.

Bitcoin Core can stay ... but, at the end ... only evolving software win.
Like all P2P network from the year 2000.