Bitcoin core value? - miners will switch to Bitcoin Classic

[Alley]

Nobody is mining with classic. And nobody is switching from core nodes to classic.  Core nodes still at 5k.  All the classic nodes are people bringing new nodes online.  Which isn't bad, but they will shut them down when they see classic isn't getting adopted.

[Laosai]

OP post gave me cancer, it does not matter if they hard fork for classic unlimtied or anything else, your coins will always be one, there is not "altcoin fork here"

besides they specifically said that they do not intend to switch but whatever...

I might not be the best or the most technical for this but it's what I understood. From what I know both classic and core are just the software behind it. The coins are still bitcoins!

It can't really affect the coins no?

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

OP post gave me cancer, it does not matter if they hard fork for classic unlimtied or anything else, your coins will always be one, there is not "altcoin fork here"

besides they specifically said that they do not intend to switch but whatever...

I might not be the best or the most technical for this but it's what I understood. From what I know both classic and core are just the software behind it. The coins are still bitcoins!

It can't really affect the coins no?

Yes because if there is a hard fork, coins mined on one branch will not exist on the other branch. That will create major problems when the block rewards enter circulation.

[russian_pete]

Well, actual BTC are not in risk of disappearing as they can fit in 2 MB blocks. Users are in a comfortable place IMO as they can choose whatever they like once it is developed, without risking their coins beforehand...

[bargainbin]

What I'm trying to say is if a large percentage of the miners switch to classic but we, the users, stick to core - then those miners will be mining block rewards they can't spend because they will be on a fork that we don't accept as valid.

Thus by running a full client, we get a say in how bitcoin progresses rather than leaving it up to the miners and commercial web wallet companies.

coinbase may like classic but coinbase will have to stick with core if the userbase sticks with core. That's the security we provide.

Right. By having *your* full node wallet verify the validity *your* transactions, your transactions don't get confirmed until *your* block (block valid for *your* fork) gets solved. Which is *never* (because the miners aren't solving it, they're solving *their* blocks, which adhere to *their* ruleset, and are acceptable to *their* full nodes wallets). That's if they don't allocate a fraction of their hashpower to mess with your fork.

In the meantime, those who have switched to the miners' fork are getting their transactions verified every 10 minutes.
And those who are using thin/web wallets (all but ~4,000 users) are getting their transactions verified every 10 minutes too, because relying on other nodes (most of which are miners' VM nodes, which the miners are running for roughly $7/mo each, or about $28k/mo for 4,000 of them (probably much less because bulk).

Now tell me about how your full node is more than a good wallet, how VM nodes do not matter & enjoy your worthless coins

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

What I'm trying to say is if a large percentage of the miners switch to classic but we, the users, stick to core - then those miners will be mining block rewards they can't spend because they will be on a fork that we don't accept as valid.

Thus by running a full client, we get a say in how bitcoin progresses rather than leaving it up to the miners and commercial web wallet companies.

coinbase may like classic but coinbase will have to stick with core if the userbase sticks with core. That's the security we provide.

Right. By having *your* full node wallet verify the validity *your* transactions, your transactions don't get confirmed until *your* block (block valid for *your* fork) gets solved. Which is *never* (because the miners aren't solving it, they're solving *their* blocks, which adhere to *their* ruleset, and are acceptable to *their* full nodes wallets). That's if they don't allocate a fraction of their hashpower to mess with your fork.

In the meantime, those who have switched to the miners' fork are getting their transactions verified every 10 minutes.
And those who are using thin/web wallets (all but ~4,000 users) are getting their transactions verified every 10 minutes too, because relying on other nodes (most of which are miners' VM nodes, which the miners are running for roughly $7/mo each, or about $28k/mo for 4,000 of them (probably much less because bulk).

Now tell me about how your full node is more than a good wallet, how VM nodes do not matter & enjoy your worthless coins

I don't give a rats ass about VMs or how many there are running whatever the hell they want to run.

By running a full node, I choose which branch my transactions happen on. You can call it a fancy wallet - but I don't really care for semantic games, those are usually played by arrogant people who know they don't have a point but are too prideful to admit it.

So by running my fancy wallet, I choose which fork I'm active on. When you or anyone sends me coins, it is valid on that fork or it isn't valid.

So when we, the users, run a full nodes - we, the users, decide which fork the block reward has value on - because if the miners decide they like classic (doubtful but hypothetical) and try to force us into it even though we, the users who buy coins, prefer core - then the coins those miners mine will be worthless because they can't sell them to us.

Thus they will mine what we, the people running full nodes, er, I mean fancy wallets continue to use - giving a balance of power because their block rewards are worthless if they can't sell the coins to us.

[jonald_fyookball]

What I'm trying to say is if a large percentage of the miners switch to classic but we, the users, stick to core - then those miners will be mining block rewards they can't spend because they will be on a fork that we don't accept as valid.

Thus by running a full client, we get a say in how bitcoin progresses rather than leaving it up to the miners and commercial web wallet companies.

coinbase may like classic but coinbase will have to stick with core if the userbase sticks with core. That's the security we provide.

Right. By having *your* full node wallet verify the validity *your* transactions, your transactions don't get confirmed until *your* block (block valid for *your* fork) gets solved. Which is *never* (because the miners aren't solving it, they're solving *their* blocks, which adhere to *their* ruleset, and are acceptable to *their* full nodes wallets). That's if they don't allocate a fraction of their hashpower to mess with your fork.

In the meantime, those who have switched to the miners' fork are getting their transactions verified every 10 minutes.
And those who are using thin/web wallets (all but ~4,000 users) are getting their transactions verified every 10 minutes too, because relying on other nodes (most of which are miners' VM nodes, which the miners are running for roughly $7/mo each, or about $28k/mo for 4,000 of them (probably much less because bulk).

Now tell me about how your full node is more than a good wallet, how VM nodes do not matter & enjoy your worthless coins

I don't give a rats ass about VMs or how many there are running whatever the hell they want to run.

By running a full node, I choose which branch my transactions happen on. You can call it a fancy wallet - but I don't really care for semantic games, those are usually played by arrogant people who know they don't have a point but are too prideful to admit it.

So by running my fancy wallet, I choose which fork I'm active on. When you or anyone sends me coins, it is valid on that fork or it isn't valid.

So when we, the users, run a full nodes - we, the users, decide which fork the block reward has value on - because if the miners decide they like classic (doubtful but hypothetical) and try to force us into it even though we, the users who buy coins, prefer core - then the coins those miners mine will be worthless because they can't sell them to us.

Thus they will mine what we, the people running full nodes, er, I mean fancy wallets continue to use - giving a balance of power because their block rewards are worthless if they can't sell the coins to us.

I agree, there is a balance of power.  Miners can't force users to use a coin they don't want.

But some people like Gregory Maxwell have recently argued the opposite -- that miners can try to coerce users into using a certain coin.

[rtyu]

Stop the FUD! Core wins or Classic, end users will remain unaffected. Because user's coins will be spendable on both chain. In fact, if both chain can hold the price for some time, users can get double value of their coins.

who said that? ) if would be so easy, the change would have been made by now. Stop the bullshit and go to Coindesk & Co to pay you the "salary" for spreading nonsenses

[bargainbin]

What I'm trying to say is if a large percentage of the miners switch to classic but we, the users, stick to core - then those miners will be mining block rewards they can't spend because they will be on a fork that we don't accept as valid.

Thus by running a full client, we get a say in how bitcoin progresses rather than leaving it up to the miners and commercial web wallet companies.

coinbase may like classic but coinbase will have to stick with core if the userbase sticks with core. That's the security we provide.

Right. By having *your* full node wallet verify the validity *your* transactions, your transactions don't get confirmed until *your* block (block valid for *your* fork) gets solved. Which is *never* (because the miners aren't solving it, they're solving *their* blocks, which adhere to *their* ruleset, and are acceptable to *their* full nodes wallets). That's if they don't allocate a fraction of their hashpower to mess with your fork.

In the meantime, those who have switched to the miners' fork are getting their transactions verified every 10 minutes.
And those who are using thin/web wallets (all but ~4,000 users) are getting their transactions verified every 10 minutes too, because relying on other nodes (most of which are miners' VM nodes, which the miners are running for roughly $7/mo each, or about $28k/mo for 4,000 of them (probably much less because bulk).

Now tell me about how your full node is more than a good wallet, how VM nodes do not matter & enjoy your worthless coins

I don't give a rats ass about VMs or how many there are running whatever the hell they want to run.

By running a full node, I choose which branch my transactions happen on. You can call it a fancy wallet - but I don't really care for semantic games, those are usually played by arrogant people who know they don't have a point but are too prideful to admit it.

So by running my fancy wallet, I choose which fork I'm active on. When you or anyone sends me coins, it is valid on that fork or it isn't valid.

So when we, the users, run a full nodes - we, the users, decide which fork the block reward has value on - because if the miners decide they like classic (doubtful but hypothetical) and try to force us into it even though we, the users who buy coins, prefer core - then the coins those miners mine will be worthless because they can't sell them to us.

Thus they will mine what we, the people running full nodes, er, I mean fancy wallets continue to use - giving a balance of power because their block rewards are worthless if they can't sell the coins to us.

>So by running my fancy wallet, I choose which fork I'm active on.
Sure, you do. Since a very small percentage of the miners will be mining your fork (and the difficulty will not be down-adjusted until [up to] 2016 blocks are solved, so hashpower/difficulty ratio ridiculous, so never), you can now:
1. Tell people how many worthless coins you own.
2. Cry.
3. Cry & tell people how many worthless coins you own.
4. Start telling people about the worthless coins you own, but break down in tears before you can get the words out.
Because one thing you won't be able to do with those coins is use them. Ever.

But yeah, you can chose. Suicidal choice, from a purely utilitarian perspective, but there's more to life than money I guess.
Anyhow I don't judge

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

What I'm trying to say is if a large percentage of the miners switch to classic but we, the users, stick to core - then those miners will be mining block rewards they can't spend because they will be on a fork that we don't accept as valid.

Thus by running a full client, we get a say in how bitcoin progresses rather than leaving it up to the miners and commercial web wallet companies.

coinbase may like classic but coinbase will have to stick with core if the userbase sticks with core. That's the security we provide.

Right. By having *your* full node wallet verify the validity *your* transactions, your transactions don't get confirmed until *your* block (block valid for *your* fork) gets solved. Which is *never* (because the miners aren't solving it, they're solving *their* blocks, which adhere to *their* ruleset, and are acceptable to *their* full nodes wallets). That's if they don't allocate a fraction of their hashpower to mess with your fork.

In the meantime, those who have switched to the miners' fork are getting their transactions verified every 10 minutes.
And those who are using thin/web wallets (all but ~4,000 users) are getting their transactions verified every 10 minutes too, because relying on other nodes (most of which are miners' VM nodes, which the miners are running for roughly $7/mo each, or about $28k/mo for 4,000 of them (probably much less because bulk).

Now tell me about how your full node is more than a good wallet, how VM nodes do not matter & enjoy your worthless coins

I don't give a rats ass about VMs or how many there are running whatever the hell they want to run.

By running a full node, I choose which branch my transactions happen on. You can call it a fancy wallet - but I don't really care for semantic games, those are usually played by arrogant people who know they don't have a point but are too prideful to admit it.

So by running my fancy wallet, I choose which fork I'm active on. When you or anyone sends me coins, it is valid on that fork or it isn't valid.

So when we, the users, run a full nodes - we, the users, decide which fork the block reward has value on - because if the miners decide they like classic (doubtful but hypothetical) and try to force us into it even though we, the users who buy coins, prefer core - then the coins those miners mine will be worthless because they can't sell them to us.

Thus they will mine what we, the people running full nodes, er, I mean fancy wallets continue to use - giving a balance of power because their block rewards are worthless if they can't sell the coins to us.

>So by running my fancy wallet, I choose which fork I'm active on.
Sure, you do. Since a very small percentage of the miners will be mining your fork (and the difficulty will not be down-adjusted until [up to] 2016 blocks are solved, so hashpower/difficulty ratio ridiculous, so never), you can now:
1. Tell people how many worthless coins you own.
2. Cry.
3. Cry & tell people how many worthless coins you own.
4. Start telling people about the worthless coins you own, but break down in tears before you can get the words out.
Because one thing you won't be able to do with those coins is use them. Ever.

But yeah, you can chose. Suicidal choice, from a purely utilitarian perspective, but there's more to life than money I guess.
Anyhow I don't judge

You don't get it.

I don't want the power to decide which fork wins. That's not security, that would be centralization.

This started because you wanted to know how people running full clients adds security.

It adds security because I don't get to choose, the miners don't get to choose, but a consensus of distributed users RUNNING FULL NODES FOR THEIR FANCY WALLETS gets to choose.

That's where the security from. Decentralization.

When we all use lite clients clients, it isn't decentralized consensus.

This isn't rocket science, it is ridiculous that you need this explained over and over and over again.

[bargainbin]

...It adds security because I don't get to choose, the miners don't get to choose, but a consensus of distributed users RUNNING FULL NODES FOR THEIR FANCY WALLETS gets to choose.

That's where the security from. Decentralization.

When we all use lite clients clients, it isn't decentralized consensus.

Look, Alice, don't get upset. I'm merely explaining to you how things are, not deriding you for wanting them to be different.

Sure, if everybody ran full node, and everyone wanted to stick with Core, Classic wouldn't fly. By definition. Unfortunately for you, at most 4,000 (four thousand) people run Core full nodes. And, even I will admit, Bitcoin has more than 4k users.

And somebody is *already* running 800 core nodes, so clearly not *everyone* supports core.

And, if the miner's do not support Core, you got yourself some dead, Memecoin-level worthless coins. If you want to be a man of principle, that is, and don't mind taking a little hit.
But I bet ya no one'd say nothin' bad 'bout you if you git a hankerin' to turn those worthless coins into money by spending them on a fork that ain't dead.
Heck, nobody even has to know

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

If the miners do not support core but the users do, there will be plenty of miners who do support core  - even if it means some of us break out our depricated USB hubs and USB miners.

What we have going on here is an attempted Coup d'état.

Even if Classic is the technically superior solution to the problem, if they are successful it will show the world that a small group of people with business interest can take over the bitcoin network and then I fear it is game over for bitcoin. That's the real reason I object to Classic.

If it is the technically correct solution, they should have convinced the core developers. If they couldn't convince the core developers, then maybe it isn't as sound as they think it is.

The reality though is I don't see support for Classic anyway. If the users don't want it, it will fail because the miners only care about money, they will mine where the block reward has user demand. Period. Demand is what drives the price.

[jonald_fyookball]

  a small group of people with business interest can take over the bitcoin network and then I fear it is game over for bitcoin. That's the real reason I object to Classic.
 

...and that is precisely why I object to Core!

[Yakamoto]

I don't want to hijack this topic so I'll try to keep my question short:

If there is a move to Classic that makes up a large majority of the userbase, what does that mean for the average man? Do we just have to transfer our private addresses to the Classic clients, or what?

Truly I do not care what client is used, as I am not really educated enough on this topic to give an informed opinion. I am more interested in spreading the information explaining for other people how they can save their money.

[xqus]

If there is a move to Classic that makes up a large majority of the userbase, what does that mean for the average man? Do we just have to transfer our private addresses to the Classic clients, or what?

You can do that, no problem. Hopefully you will also still be able to use Core.

[bargainbin]

...
If it is the technically correct solution, they should have convinced the core developers. If they couldn't convince the core developers, then maybe it isn't as sound as they think it is. ...

Sometimes words fail me. How can ... why do you think Classic... how do you even...



>What we have going on here is an attempted Coup d'état.
No Alice, what we have here is a bunch of entrenched, entitled bitches. Who not only failed to prevent this [100% predictable] fiasco, but have *driven out* the people who tried to keep shit from hitting the fan. The very bitches who are now raping Bitcoin for Blockstream's benefit.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

You are just an ass.

Have a nice life.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

I don't want to hijack this topic so I'll try to keep my question short:

If there is a move to Classic that makes up a large majority of the userbase, what does that mean for the average man? Do we just have to transfer our private addresses to the Classic clients, or what?

Truly I do not care what client is used, as I am not really educated enough on this topic to give an informed opinion. I am more interested in spreading the information explaining for other people how they can save their money.

If there is a hard fork there is big trouble.

User A is on Fork A
User B is on Fork B

User A sends coins to user B but one of the inputs is only valid on Fork A

User B can not retrieve the funds because the transaction is not valid on Fork B and user A can not retrieve the funds either because the transaction is valid on Fork A and user A doesn't have the private key to the address.

That is what will happen if there is a fork and all users don't use the same fork.

Classic is an all or nothing. Either everyone uses it or no one uses it. There is no in-between.

If they fork the blockchain without consensus from the users - it will be hell.

[jonald_fyookball]

I don't want to hijack this topic so I'll try to keep my question short:

If there is a move to Classic that makes up a large majority of the userbase, what does that mean for the average man? Do we just have to transfer our private addresses to the Classic clients, or what?

Truly I do not care what client is used, as I am not really educated enough on this topic to give an informed opinion. I am more interested in spreading the information explaining for other people how they can save their money.

If there is a hard fork there is big trouble.

User A is on Fork A
User B is on Fork B

User A sends coins to user B but one of the inputs is only valid on Fork A

User B can not retrieve the funds because the transaction is not valid on Fork B and user A can not retrieve the funds either because the transaction is valid on Fork A and user A doesn't have the private key to the address.

That is what will happen if there is a fork and all users don't use the same fork.

Classic is an all or nothing. Either everyone uses it or no one uses it. There is no in-between.

If they fork the blockchain without consensus from the users - it will be hell.

You can't have it both ways.

Based on the several posts you made in this thread, you seem to be arguing both that:

A) Miners won't be able to create a successful fork without consensus from the users.

B) Miners will be able to create a successful fork without consensus from the users (but it will be hell).

[Yakamoto]

I don't want to hijack this topic so I'll try to keep my question short:

If there is a move to Classic that makes up a large majority of the userbase, what does that mean for the average man? Do we just have to transfer our private addresses to the Classic clients, or what?

Truly I do not care what client is used, as I am not really educated enough on this topic to give an informed opinion. I am more interested in spreading the information explaining for other people how they can save their money.

If there is a hard fork there is big trouble.

User A is on Fork A
User B is on Fork B

User A sends coins to user B but one of the inputs is only valid on Fork A

User B can not retrieve the funds because the transaction is not valid on Fork B and user A can not retrieve the funds either because the transaction is valid on Fork A and user A doesn't have the private key to the address.

That is what will happen if there is a fork and all users don't use the same fork.

Classic is an all or nothing. Either everyone uses it or no one uses it. There is no in-between.

If they fork the blockchain without consensus from the users - it will be hell.

I am aware of the different forks and the implications of all the users not agreeing to use the same fork, but I am referring to existing coins right now, whether or not they can be "transferred", per say, to the other blockchain without having to go through a seperate program aside from the client itself.

I assume that classic is basically copying the blockchain in its current state, and thus the Bitcoin transfers are being synced as they occur in the Core blockchain? I can very well be wong, because again I have no idea how this works.