Bitcoin Classic = a bunch of idiots running the full node

[thejaytiesto]

Greg and Peter will quit, and im sure others will follow, the Classic leeches will have nothing to keep copy-pasting onto their fork in order to progress, therefore you are left with a bunch of incompetent idiots running the full node, only in hopes of paying a little bit less fees for the fantastic tradeoff of increased node centralization and amateur developers with sneaky intentions (be ready for shit like this once the HF happens:

http://cointelegraph.com/news/115153/bitcoin-xt-fork-can-blacklist-tor-exits-may-reveal-users-ip-addresses
)

Good job R3CEV!!!!!! Classic right in time to save the day.

[fricircled]

If Bitcoin core implements the 2MB block size within two months, there is no need for bitcoinclassic. But will Core do that?

[thejaytiesto]

If Bitcoin core implements the 2MB block size within two months, there is no need for bitcoinclassic. But will Core do that?

There is no need to raise the block size to 2MB now thanks to segregated witness, try again. Bitcoin works perfectly ok, wtf are you implying, that Core wants to kill Bitcoin or something? get a grip man, just pay the recommended fees, surely it is better than risking an unnecessary hard fork and centralizing nodes? Don't you realize node count is already low as it is today? Hello? anyone here with common sense?

[calkob]

And bitcoin core just keeps chugging on doing what its ment to........... 

[Kakmakr]

The name calling and finger pointing are not necessary for Bitcoin to grow and develop. We have had enough of that already and it is time to stand together against a bigger problem in the form of R3 and other companies wanting to develop all these <private> Blockchains.

Let's just join together and look for ways to accept our differences and what we need from Bitcoin and then concentrate on that goal.   

[watashi-kokoto]

These classic teapots have no idea what they are doing.

[Zarathustra]

Greg and Peter will quit, and im sure others will follow, the Classic leeches will have nothing to keep copy-pasting onto their fork in order to progress, therefore you are left with a bunch of incompetent idiots running the full node,

LOL

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-273#post-10117

[topiOleg]

If Bitcoin core implements the 2MB block size within two months, there is no need for bitcoinclassic. But will Core do that?

There is no need to raise the block size to 2MB now thanks to segregated witness, try again. Bitcoin works perfectly ok, wtf are you implying, that Core wants to kill Bitcoin or something? get a grip man, just pay the recommended fees, surely it is better than risking an unnecessary hard fork and centralizing nodes? Don't you realize node count is already low as it is today? Hello? anyone here with common sense?

If the Core developers had common sence they would:

1) Include in Core only features where super majority support is for
2) Made proper fix of transaction mallebeality in hardfork together with blocksize limit increase

Neither of this happening, and all they can think of is just crappy workaround with SegWit. If they were working as employers of a company, responsible for this would be fired already. Because unrational and big eggo guys inside Core blocking the way how open decentralized development should be done, there is no other option than choose better repo representing Bitcoin.

[franky1]

If Bitcoin core implements the 2MB block size within two months, there is no need for bitcoinclassic. But will Core do that?

+1
needs to be answered..

as i think most users dont care about what band camp the devs belong to as long as CODE progresses and CODE has nothing nefarious.

i personally dont care about the emotions of the dev's.. as long as their emotions dont put anything bad into the code, bt do put positive features into the code. things that users want..

[watashi-kokoto]

What a shame to miss amazing post from franky1

[Amph]

If Bitcoin core implements the 2MB block size within two months, there is no need for bitcoinclassic. But will Core do that?

their target for segwit, which is basically the 2mb implementation for core, is around april, you can see the roadmap bitcoin.org

[lottery248]

If Bitcoin core implements the 2MB block size within two months, there is no need for bitcoinclassic. But will Core do that?

something you need to understand that the bitcoin core is not being changed just because of the biased factor, if bitcoin core just changed into XT one for biased reason, then bitcoin core would not likely be trusted by the users anymore.

[Lauda]

If Bitcoin core implements the 2MB block size within two months, there is no need for bitcoinclassic. But will Core do that?

Of course they won't do that. Why would they? SegWit is planned for April and it brings an adequate (possibly equal or greater to a 2 MB block size) increase.

If the Core developers had common sence they would:
-snip-

If you had real knowledge on the matter you would:
1) Stop talking nonsense.
2) Realize the pros and cons of a hard fork in comparison to a Soft work.
3) Stop complaining that SegWit is a 'crappy workaround', when it fact it is not.

something you need to understand that the bitcoin core is not being changed just because of the biased factor, if bitcoin core just changed into XT one for biased reason, then bitcoin core would not likely be trusted by the users anymore.

What are you talking about? This made no sense to me.

[watashi-kokoto]

If you had real knowledge on the matter you would:
1) Stop talking nonsense.
2) Realize the pros and cons of a hard fork in comparison to a Soft work.
3) Stop complaining that SegWit is a 'crappy workaround', when it fact it is not.

Well said.

[LiteCoinGuy]

maybe Core will add 2 MB and end this mess? that would be a cool story  

2MB  + SegWit + LN etc would be great.

[maokoto]

I agree that 2mb block would silence lots of criticism and probably would be good for community and all that. However, I think that Bitcoin is still working pretty well for now. Just wait a little longer and see what happens. I doubt core would harm bitcoin on purpose, too much at stake for developers.

[Lauda]

maybe Core will add 2 MB and end this mess? that would be a cool story  

2MB  + SegWit + LN etc would be great.

2 MB on its own is not deemed as really safe at the moment. A combination of 2 MB blocks and SegWit would be the same as an effective 4 MB block size which is worse. LN is not related to this and is slowing coming along.

I doubt core would harm bitcoin on purpose, too much at stake for developers.

I concur.

[topiOleg]

2MB  + SegWit + LN etc would be great.

2 MB on its own is not deemed as really safe at the moment. A combination of 2 MB blocks and SegWit would be the same as an effective 4 MB block size which is worse.

If the Core developers had common sence they would:
-snip-

If you had real knowledge on the matter you would:
1) Stop talking nonsense.
2) Realize the pros and cons of a hard fork in comparison to a Soft work.
3) Stop complaining that SegWit is a 'crappy workaround', when it fact it is not.

Seeing staff member doing ad homiem attacks is pretty disgusting, so I checked your post history and you had hard time understanding SegWit at first, and based on your comments I doubt you understand SegWit at all even now, and definitively your not a programmer so I dont understand how you can even comment my summary when you have so little knowledge on the topic.

Just to teach you a bit, if SegWit is implemented, the effective total blocksize depends how much people will be using special SegWit transactions instead of the normal ones. I dont expect within a year there will be more SegWit transactions than the normal ones, making the limit maybe like 1.33-1.5 MB at the end of the first year. Unless off course Bitcoin Core forces us to use just SegWig tansactions instead of possibility to choose normal ones, which would not surprise me given how the RBF features cant be turned off in Core 0.12.

And it is crappy workaround because it is much more complicated solution, which leads in my experience to more likely bugs and future increased development time because of the more complex code.

[brg444]

Just to teach you a bit, if SegWit is implemented, the effective total blocksize depends how much people will be using special SegWit transactions instead of the normal ones. I dont expect within a year there will be more SegWit transactions than the normal ones, making the limit maybe like 1.33-1.5 MB at the end of the first year. Unless off course Bitcoin Core forces us to use just SegWig tansactions instead of possibility to choose normal ones, which would not surprise me given how the RBF features cant be turned off in Core 0.12.

And it is crappy workaround because it is much more complicated solution, which leads in my experience to more likely bugs and future increased development time because of the more complex code.

You're talking out of your ass.

Return to your masters and have him review your homework.

You get a -F

[topiOleg]

Just to teach you a bit, if SegWit is implemented, the effective total blocksize depends how much people will be using special SegWit transactions instead of the normal ones. I dont expect within a year there will be more SegWit transactions than the normal ones, making the limit maybe like 1.33-1.5 MB at the end of the first year. Unless off course Bitcoin Core forces us to use just SegWig tansactions instead of possibility to choose normal ones, which would not surprise me given how the RBF features cant be turned off in Core 0.12.

And it is crappy workaround because it is much more complicated solution, which leads in my experience to more likely bugs and future increased development time because of the more complex code.

You're talking out of your ass.

Return to your masters and have him review your homework.

You get a -F

For your usual troll work, you get A for trolling. Congrat.