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

[CIYAM]

"Core supporters" want development to be centralized in the hands of a few guys.

Everyone else wants decentralized development and multiple implementations.

I don't think that you "get it" - if we have multiple versions of Bitcoin then what are the exchanges supposed to do (they can only accept one if they don't want to lose money)?

So your idea is to decentralise something that basically cannot be (have you really thought this idea through?).

Forking is not the same as creating alts - so if Gavin and others want to create an alt then why don't they just do that?

[BitUsher]

This is really the crux of the matter.

"Core supporters" want development to be centralized in the hands of a few guys.

Everyone else wants decentralized development and multiple implementations.

Do you realize that the more your group insists on making false assumptions and misleading statements like above the less credibility you have.

We are quite capable of making logical and reasonable choices based upon the facts :

These are the two latest viable proposals ... both are fine IMHO, but I am slightly biased towards core because technically its better.

Classic - basically  BIP102 - Earliest March 1st ,16 but possibly in April /may to build up enough consensus (waiting for code and testnet)
Effective 2MB block capacity + possibly removing RBF + possibly versionbits
5 developers maintaining

Core + Segwit - Code completed, Been in testnet since Dec 31, expected april.
Effective 1.75-2MB Block capacity
Version bits , future fraud proofs, signature pruning, simpler script updates, fixing malleability allowing future payment channels.
45 developers maintaining

I have long advocated multiple implementations , especially ones like bitcore, libbitcoin. I also like and respect Garzik, Jeff, and Toomin, so it isn't political for me.... but comments like yours make me think that Bitcoin classic supporters are a bunch of dishonest and manipulative advocates trying to create wedges where none necessarily exist.

[JackH]

Since you don't oppose lifting 1mb (I made wrong assumption - my bad) then what's the problem with 'bitcoin classic'? Is it all about timing? You strongly oppose lifting it now, creating a topic about 'hostile attack' etc, but, if in couple of months blocks happen to be full - you will be all in favour of it? Am I getting this right?

I am not opposed to raising the block limit per se but what I am opposed to is the dumping of the Bitcoin Core development team in favour of another team when I don't see that the Bitcoin Core team deserve to be dumped (they have only done good things so far IMO).

The agenda of both XT and now Classic is to take control away from the current Bitcoin Core developers (I don't there is any doubt about that) and that is what I have a problem with.

If someone can convince me (without resorting to silly conspiracy theories or ridiculous needs for everyone to buy coffees with BTC) that the Bitcoin Core team is inferior to some new team then I would happily change my opinion (but so far I've seen nothing to persuade me that we are seeing anything more than politics hence why I created this topic).

This is really the crux of the matter.

"Core supporters" want development to be centralized in the hands of a few guys.

Everyone else wants decentralized development and multiple implementations.

You actaully dont get it, you really dont.

The so-called few guys represent 99% of the developers that have EVER build code for Bitcoin. Gavin is the ONLY one that wants a fork and can call himself a developer of the code that Satoshi started. Not even Mike has ever build code for Bitcoin directly, but only for projects like bitcoinj.

A fork is a very bad idea, and it is clearly an attempt by someone, to make stupid people (yes, stupidity is rampant in here as well) to make easy choices seem as the most obvious choices.

You are clearly one of those "everyone else" that believe that increasing the blocksize does absolutely nothing bad (hard forks are VERY BAD). It is truly a shame that a wide range of developers, coders and crypto contributors have to waste so much time with people like you. By people like you I mean, not developers, not coders and not crypto contributors.

[franky1]

"Core supporters" want development to be centralized in the hands of a few guys.

Everyone else wants decentralized development and multiple implementations.

I don't think that you "get it" - if we have multiple versions of Bitcoin then what are the exchanges supposed to do (they can only accept one if they don't want to lose money)?

So your idea is to decentralise something that basically cannot be (have you really thought this idea through?).

Forking is not the same as creating alts - so if Gavin and others want to create an alt then why don't they just do that?

for atleast 2 years there have been many different versions, all working side by side.. happily..

this is because the main rules are the same.. but who coded the version doesnt matter.. what language the version was wrote in, doesnt matter. as long as the basic rules of each version match, they all get to use, talk to and be involved with the same chain..

so here is blockstreams agenda
"lets discredit any programmer that is not in the blockstream roadmap"

heres R3
"lets destroy bitcoin and get people back into fiat2.0"

heres the community
"as long as my version can handshake with other versions and happily relay data that i can validate.. i dont care what band camp of programmers made it. as long as there is no dodgy code"

[CIYAM]

heres the community
"as long as my version can handshake with other versions and happily relay data that i can validate.. i dont care what band camp of programmers made it. as long as there is no dodgy code"

That is the community that doesn't *mine* (just propagates txs and perhaps verifies txs that they receive).

You can't have multiple implementations that mine or the blockchain will fork (e.g. no-one has created a block with BitcoinJ that is in the current blockchain).

Even Mike Hearn would agree with this (as I was chastised by him for criticising the fact that there wasn't a Bitcoin RFC back in 2012).

I think that your lack of understanding is what leads you to not realise why your proposals are unfeasible.

[BitUsher]

I don't think that you "get it" - if we have multiple versions of Bitcoin then what are the exchanges supposed to do (they can only accept one if they don't want to lose money)?

So your idea is to decentralise something that basically cannot be (have you really thought this idea through?).

Forking is not the same as creating alts - so if Gavin and others want to create an alt then why don't they just do that?

You are correct , insomuch as there cannot be multiple competing implementations that break consensus rules. There can cooperatively be multiple implementations that have different developers (as long as they coordinate with other implementations), and written in different code , different languages, and with different features that don't break consensus. This all ads a great amount of complexity and coordination effort, but it can and should be done for security and diversity of choice.

For hostile implementations attempting to break consensus rules , we should be wary of but not discourage their right to stage a takeover... as long as 95% consensus is met in the economic community we should even encourage this. If 95% of the economic majority decides on something dangerous or against bitcoins foundational principles , than so be it ,.... we should allow the project to run its course, and those who do care about something truly unique and different than paypal 2.0 can leave and create our own alt.

I certainly will sell my bitcoins and leave the project if it becomes centralized and controlled , regardless if its done By Blockstream or Coinbase and the blockchain alliance or breaks any of the foundational principles that make bitcoin unique (and lest more misleading statements are made , raising the block limit in a reasonable fashion is fine).

[CIYAM]

There can cooperatively be multiple implementations that have different developers (as long as they coordinate with other implementations), and written in different code , different languages, and with different features that don't break consensus.

Which won't happen if one group (such as Bitcoin Classic) decides that the other group (Bitcoin Core) are not the right people to be doing the job (which is exactly what is going on).

Gavin could fix all of this by simply making a statement that he won't disagree with the Bitcoin Core group (but of course he won't ever make such a statement so we have a stalemate).

[franky1]

That is the community that doesn't *mine* (just propagates txs and perhaps verifies txs that they receive).

You can't have multiple implementations that mine or the blockchain will fork (e.g. no-one has created a block with BitcoinJ that is in the current blockchain).

Even Mike Hearn would agree with this (as I was chastised by him for criticising the fact that there wasn't a Bitcoin RFC back in 2012).

I think that your lack of understanding is what leads you to not realise why your proposals are unfeasible.

you can

do you really think all miners are using the exact same software..
do you really think the pools havent done their own little tweaks.. not to break the fundamental rules.. but to do other feature benefits for them locally..

if you think that everyone in the world should use the exact same version of bitcoin-core, and no one should have their own implementations that still follow the main rules.. but have added features or cleaner code that doesnt affect the network.. then you really have got your self stuck in the blockstream mantra

[BitUsher]

There can cooperatively be multiple implementations that have different developers (as long as they coordinate with other implementations), and written in different code , different languages, and with different features that don't break consensus.

Which won't happen if one group (such as Bitcoin Classic) decides that the other group (Bitcoin Core) are not the right people to be doing the job (which is exactly what is going on).

Gavin could fix all of this by simply making a statement that he won't disagree with the Bitcoin Core group (but of course he won't ever make such a statement so we have a stalemate).

Yes, but to be fair to Gavin , he has expressed and is contributing, somewhat, across different implementations. Additionally, he is treading a grey line of simultaneously assisting a coup and not taking a leadership role. If anything he appears not to want control or the responsibility it demands , but wants to do whatever it takes to steer bitcoin for more capacity. I think, unlike Hearn(whose politics are antithetical to bitcoins principles) he is sincere and genuinely believe that bitcoin will be more decentralized and secure if it can grow rapidly and the best way to accomplish that is increase maxBlockSize. There is some validity to this line of reasoning but I still cannot find any reasonable benefit to choose Classic over Core+ Segwit when studying the facts.

[xyzzy099]

do you really think all miners are using the exact same software..

No, but they are all using the exact same protocol.  If you use a different protocol, you will fork.

[CIYAM]

if you think that everyone in the world should use the exact same version of bitcoin-core, and no one should have their own implementations that still follow the main rules.. but have added features or cleaner code that doesnt affect the network.. then you really have got your self stuck in the blockstream mantra

Actually it was Mike Hearn that started the discussion that we could not have more than one version of Bitcoin (I was actually on the opposing side) so you should probably do more research before making stupid posts.

If you look at "libconsensus" then you can see that the Bitcoin Core devs have been trying to make it possible for other implementations (strange for a group that you think is trying to prevent that).

[pawel7777]

I am not opposed to raising the block limit per se but what I am opposed to is the dumping of the Bitcoin Core development team in favour of another team when I don't see that the Bitcoin Core team deserve to be dumped (they have only done good things so far IMO).

The agenda of both XT and now Classic is to take control away from the current Bitcoin Core developers (I don't there is any doubt about that) and that is what I have a problem with.

If someone can convince me (without resorting to silly conspiracy theories or ridiculous needs for everyone to buy coffees with BTC) that the Bitcoin Core team is inferior to some new team then I would happily change my opinion (but so far I've seen nothing to persuade me that we are seeing anything more than politics hence why I created this topic).

OK, I see your point.

Personally I would prefer to see the core devs lifting the limit themselves, effectively ending all the shitstorm were seeing, restoring the confidence and pleasing the community, who (like it or not), in majority, want to see the limit lifted. Yet, despite most of them stating that modest increase is acceptable, this is not happening for some reason.

Maybe, just maybe it's got something to do with majority of them being on Blockstream's payroll, company funded by JV capital (imho, they're not likely to get the ROI). Maybe the devs are simply in fear that lifting the limit will (at least to some degree) reduce the potential demand for the service they're working on, which would mean that such action could be seen as acting against investors interest, which in turn could lead to unhappy investors starting a lawsuit against them (quite popular lately). But nah, that's just a crazy conspiracy theory.

ps. The 'coffee' argument is a bit irrelevant in Core vs. Gavin discussion, as both 'camps' seem to be in agreement (afaik) that people should be able to use BTC in daily transactions (either directly or through sidechains).

[jonald_fyookball]

I think wedges unfortunately do need to be created from time to time,
for example when development is centralized and those centralized
developers are not following the wishes of the community.
That is what is happening now.

Necessarily, any fork will be by economic majority.

You can debate whether 95% is more appropriate than 75%.
Obviously the higher the %, the better, but you
don't always get what you want.  95% may not be
possible.

I think what core supporters are forgetting or failing
to acknowledge is that the entrenchment of one group
calling the shots makes consensus changes more difficult.

 

[franky1]

do you really think all miners are using the exact same software..

No, but they are all using the exact same protocol.  If you use a different protocol, you will fork.

exactly.. protocol.. meaning the rules... not the GUI.EXE not the one sided group of programmers..

any one write the same rules(protocol) and be part of the network.. it doesnt have to be bitcoin-core or nothing
as long as the main rules are followed to allow handshaking between the nodes (no matter who programmed the node).. they can all work happily beside each other as they are all using the same rules..

some people really need to realise that bitcoin-core and the blockstream dev team are not unique. anyone can replicate the code and then change things that do not affect the main rules.. and it will still work

[BitUsher]

do you really think all miners are using the exact same software..
do you really think the pools havent done their own little tweaks.. not to break the fundamental rules.. but to do other feature benefits for them locally..

No, but the greater they diverge , the more dangerous and complex it can become ... Case in Point - SPV mining. I think you are talking past each other... we are specifically referring to multiple implementations that break the consensus rules.

Imagine what type of ecosystem we would have if were constantly in this state of mudslinging and infighting where at any given momment there were multiple implementations being lobbied that broke consensus rules on the brink of getting support.... some at 60% threshold to activate, some at 75% , some at 95% .... this would be disastrous.

Yes , to many different developer teams...
Yes, To at least 3-4+ different implementations written in different code
Yes to varying different features , choices, wallets , ... (as long as there isn't constant politicking between versions that break the consensus rules)

[QuestionAuthority]

Wow, old time Bitcoin hardliners are waking up. Well, that took long enough.

I've been saying for about four years that the Bitcoin economy only exists to give miners someplace to spend their mined coins. When that stops there won't be any economy unless something drastic happens. Before the government crackdown people would buy btc to spend on illegal onion network contraband. Now that's over. Does anyone really think people are wasting time buying Bitcoin to transfer a few bucks overseas or buy a gallon of milk? Surely no one here is really that naive.

If no place to spend their money, then in reality, there is no market.

There's no market, other than speculation and miners exchanging/buying, because there's nothing to buy that requires Bitcoin. When Silk Road was operating you absolutely had to buy Bitcoin to shop there. Young people were in love with the idea that they could fry their brains and do it in perfect anonymity. Except it wasn't really anonymous and it really failed in a hailstorm of arrests. It didn't matter how high the exchange fees were, how difficult it was to get Bitcoin or that you were taking a risk using a fly by night exchange because Bitcoin was required to shop there. Can you tell me of one other business that has the natural appeal of a dark market retailer that makes you buy Bitcoin? You can't, can you. That's because there isn't one. You don't need Bitcoin to do anything and for many things Bitcoin is clearly inferior.

So what are we left with? We have speculators and early miners sitting on a bunch of coin waiting for that miracle to happen when Bitcoin trades for $10,000 a coin so they can cash out for fiat and buy that island they've always wanted. You have traders manipulating the price and using Bitcoin as part of a currency pair so they can glean off a few dollars everytime Bitcoin price moves $0.50. Let's not forget that rare handful of antigovernment anti bank techno radicals that jump through enormous hoops and spend more than MasterCards fee to buy Bitcoin so they can shop online without fraud protection and stick it to "the man".

Clearly the largest group is miners exchanging their coins to pay for expenses and purchasing products directly. As the reward system profit fades away (happening again soon) and miners must live more and more on fees things will have to change. In order for miners to live off fees there needs to be a large enough economy for the fees to matter. You can't screw over a small community of Bitcoiners by making fees too high so fees need to remain competitive which demands a sizable number users. Either Bitcoin needs to be as simple to use as your employer dropping your paycheck into an account and you paying your bills with a plastic card or we need another "Bitcoin only" business to spring up.

[CIYAM]

some people really need to realise that bitcoin-core and the blockstream dev team are not unique. anyone can replicate the code and then change things that do not affect the main rules.. and it will still work

Again - you are clearly not a programmer as you simply don't understand that Bitcoin is *not a protocol* in the same sense the say SMTP is.

To try and explain it to you - if your SMTP software doesn't work so well then you just end up missing out on an email - but if your blockchain software doesn't work so well then you are on a fork.

No existing internet protocol has this problem - so stop comparing Bitcoin to existing internet protocols (it is just *stupid*).

[franky1]

I am not opposed to raising the block limit per se but what I am opposed to is the dumping of the Bitcoin Core development team in favour of another team when I don't see that the Bitcoin Core team deserve to be dumped (they have only done good things so far IMO).

The agenda of both XT and now Classic is to take control away from the current Bitcoin Core developers (I don't there is any doubt about that) and that is what I have a problem with.

If someone can convince me (without resorting to silly conspiracy theories or ridiculous needs for everyone to buy coffees with BTC) that the Bitcoin Core team is inferior to some new team then I would happily change my opinion (but so far I've seen nothing to persuade me that we are seeing anything more than politics hence why I created this topic).

i am not oppose to blockstream continuing to code.. as long as they dont expect 100% religious following.. and are ok with people making their own versions with nifty little userfriendly GUI's (THAT STILL FOLLOW THE NETWORK RULES)

but saying that blockstream doesnt want innovation and people making their own wallets (THAT STILL WORK WITH THE NETWORK!!!) makes them hypocritical to what they say about others..


blockstream dont have to have a binary choice of all or nothing.. they should be happy to have a following.. just dont expect 100% following

[jonald_fyookball]

do you really think all miners are using the exact same software..
do you really think the pools havent done their own little tweaks.. not to break the fundamental rules.. but to do other feature benefits for them locally..

No, but the greater they diverge , the more dangerous and complex it can become ... Case in Point - SPV mining. I think you are talking past each other... we are specifically referring to multiple implementations that break the consensus rules.

Imagine what type of ecosystem we would have if were constantly in this state of mudslinging and infighting where at any given momment there were multiple implementations being lobbied that broke consensus rules on the brink of getting support.... some at 60% threshold to activate, some at 75% , some at 95% .... this would be disastrous.

Yes , to many different developer teams...
Yes, To at least 3-4+ different implementations written in different code
Yes to varying different features , choices, wallets , ... (as long as there isn't constant politicking between versions that break the consensus rules)

I agree but occasionally the consensus rules may have to change.  How to handle that?

I think the answer is simple:  You try to get consensus through cooperation and communication,
but if you can't, one side will eventually win by force.

[Kprawn]

There can cooperatively be multiple implementations that have different developers (as long as they coordinate with other implementations), and written in different code , different languages, and with different features that don't break consensus.

Which won't happen if one group (such as Bitcoin Classic) decides that the other group (Bitcoin Core) are not the right people to be doing the job (which is exactly what is going on).

Gavin could fix all of this by simply making a statement that he won't disagree with the Bitcoin Core group (but of course he won't ever make such a statement so we have a stalemate).

Yes, but to be fair to Gavin , he has expressed and is contributing, somewhat, across different implementations. Additionally, he is treading a grey line of simultaneously assisting a coup and not taking a leadership role. If anything he appears not to want control or the responsibility it demands , but wants to do whatever it takes to steer bitcoin for more capacity. I think, unlike Hearn(whose politics are antithetical to bitcoins principles) he is sincere and genuinely believe that bitcoin will be more decentralized and secure if it can grow rapidly and the best way to accomplish that is increase maxBlockSize. There is some validity to this line of reasoning but I still cannot find any reasonable benefit to choose Classic over Core+ Segwit when studying the facts.

You will not find any reason to switch, because there are no real reason or added innovation in Bitcoin Classic to motivate it. Gavin took the approach of finding the middle

or neutral ground between the XT and Core implementations to please the average users and then finding a foothold and working from there. It is the populist angle and possibly

the best way to get back into the drivers seat. It is like voting time... Politicians say what people want to hear and then they forget about these things, when they are in power.