"Bitcoin classic", brought up by literal crooks

[European Central Bank]

This'll never end while there's unrest. If the original team want to keep the peace then they need some ideas that satisfy most people. Evidently they are not supplying them right now.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Hell is truth seen too late.

[Lauda]

This'll never end while there's unrest. If the original team want to keep the peace then they need some ideas that satisfy most people. Evidently they are not supplying them right now.

I'd rather say that the 'most people' need to educate themselves better. We should not be implementing worse proposals just because people can't understand the better ones.

Rubbish its not about code its about taking control of Bitcoin. The change was minimal irrelevant in effect, change whos only purpose is to be different then core to get people to use different client. Coinbase said that it wants Bitcoin run by different team led by Gavin.

Exactly. Once we let a political fork succeed, then we might as well move onto some altcoin as Bitcoin's decentralization will start disappearing.

The people behind the fork don't matter at all, just like who satoshi is doesn't matter either.

Sure they don't, keep living in that delusion.  Who's to say that another fork won't take over from Classic? What about a fork lead by the banks, because the people behind the code don't matter right?
Update: Corrections.

[franky1]

This'll never end while there's unrest. If the original team want to keep the peace then they need some ideas that satisfy most people. Evidently they are not supplying them right now.

I'd rather say that the 'most people' need to educate themselves better. We should not be implementing worse proposals just because people can't understand the better ones.

Rubbish its not about code its about taking control of Bitcoin. The change was minimal irrelevant in effect, change whos only purpose is to be different then core to get people to use different client. Coinbase said that it wants Bitcoin run by different team led by Gavin.

Exactly. Once we let a political fork succeed, then we might as well move onto some altcoin as Bitcoin's decentralization will start disappearing.

The people behind the fork don't matter at all, just like who satoshi is doesn't matter either.

Sure they don't, keep living in that delusion.  Who's to say that another fork won't take over from Classic? A fork lead by the banks, because the people behind the code don't matter right?

lol if core thinks a fork is about losing control if not forking, how about core be the one that do the fork then!.. that way core take the control..win win for core
as for the doomsday scenario of alternate chains.. if consensus has not agreed to 2mb. then blocks larger then 1mb will get orphaned.. Lauda please learn about orphans.. as it will teach you that there wont be 2 chains
here is a bit of animation

A and B are 1mb miners. c is >1mb miner
scenario is that consensus has not been reached to be 2mb.

[European Central Bank]

I'd rather say that the 'most people' need to educate themselves better. We should not be implementing worse proposals just because people can't understand the better ones.

I can see the sense of that. In that case it's also the original team's job to put their point across in a better and more convincing way. If bitcoin has the possibility of spiraling off down a path they think will be disastrous then explain it in a way that regular guys can understand. If it's that cut and dried why is there so much noise about this?

[danielW]

This'll never end while there's unrest. If the original team want to keep the peace then they need some ideas that satisfy most people. Evidently they are not supplying them right now.

I'd rather say that the 'most people' need to educate themselves better. We should not be implementing worse proposals just because people can't understand the better ones.

Rubbish its not about code its about taking control of Bitcoin. The change was minimal irrelevant in effect, change whos only purpose is to be different then core to get people to use different client. Coinbase said that it wants Bitcoin run by different team led by Gavin.

Exactly. Once we let a political fork succeed, then we might as well move onto some altcoin as Bitcoin's decentralization will start disappearing.

The people behind the fork don't matter at all, just like who satoshi is doesn't matter either.

Sure they don't, keep living in that delusion.  Who's to say that another fork won't take over from Classic? A fork lead by the banks, because the people behind the code don't matter right?

lol if core thinks a fork is about losing control if not forking, how about core be the one that do the fork then!.. that way core take the control..win win for core
as for the doomsday scenario of alternate chains.. if consensus has not agreed to 2mb. then blocks larger then 1mb will get orphaned.. Lauda please learn about orphans.. as it will teach you that there wont be 2 chains
here is a bit of animation

A and B are 1mb miners. c is >1mb miner
scenario is that consensus has not been reached to be 2mb.

Its like trying to find the end of a rainbow, the closer you come the further it gets. Satisfying these demands is useless because they will always change as the fundamental idea is to gain power.

If core proposed 2mb hardfork in December, they probably would have said thats just not enough and we need 4mb hard fork.

[HostFat]

Classic has been losing reliability and credibility, as to my knowledge, the development has been quite stagnant

There may be more development in secret. Rather than having public activity on github they seem to have mostly done code dumps with their initial patches. It certainly seems more dead than even XT did.

The secret code

https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/tree/0.11.2

[thejaytiesto]

I still can't believe some people are supporting these guys with the risk to lose actual talented people like Greg Maxwell and Peter just for the stupid idea of a hard fork to have the blocksize doubled when we don't even necessarily need it now, this feels like a bad dream and I hope it's over soon and Core devs can continue working in a more relaxed environment but I guess it will only keep getting worse so we need to stay alert and remain strong.

[HostFat]

While I don't think that we will lose them so easily, I want to remember you that we have also lost Satoshi, and this doesn't seem that has stopped the developing of Bitcoin.

[pereira4]

While I don't think that we will lose them so easily, I want to remember you that we have also lost Satoshi, and this doesn't seem that has stopped the developing of Bitcoin.

If you told me that we are getting people that HAS demonstrated already something of remarkable value like the 2 devs the poster quoted (something like CT and segwit), maybe I would consider it in a serious way, but those guys are lightyears from the Core devs and are literally saying that they want to keep living off Core's github. Those guys have no foundation whatsoever to run the full node.

[HostFat]

Show me the code that Satoshi has wrote before making Bitcoin

Anyway, they are touching (mainly Gavin) very few parts of the code, and this doesn't stop other better devs to come and making other better changes.

[jonald_fyookball]

I still can't believe some people are supporting these guys with the risk to lose actual talented people like Greg Maxwell and Peter just for the stupid idea of a hard fork to have the blocksize doubled when we don't even necessarily need it now, this feels like a bad dream and I hope it's over soon and Core devs can continue working in a more relaxed environment but I guess it will only keep getting worse so we need to stay alert and remain strong.

Everything happens for a reason.

I'm not sure if you don't understand the arguments on the other side of the debate,
or if you simply disagree with them. 

[worhiper_-_]

Classic has been losing reliability and credibility, as to my knowledge, the development has been quite stagnant

There may be more development in secret. Rather than having public activity on github they seem to have mostly done code dumps with their initial patches. It certainly seems more dead than even XT did.

I agree that it's shady but I'm curious, would you change your mind if the code was released and it was good? Or does it come down to trust?

[Quantus]

As soon as I saw the name "bitcoin classic" I instantly identified it for what it is, the name itself is meant to trick people into thinking its the 'real' bitcoin.
Its just another in a long line of banker backed scummy GigaBloatCoin forks meant to appropriate full control of our network so they can run it into the ground ether intentionally or unintentionally.

[calkob]

Why does anything new have to have some other frikin stupid name behind it... why cant Bitcoin core just have 2mb blocks?  does it need to be called bitcoin classic,bitcoin new, bitcoin nextyear, bitcoin 2100.....

[calkob]

As soon as I saw the name "bitcoin classic" I instantly identified it for what it is, the name itself is meant to trick people into thinking its the 'real' bitcoin.
Its just another in a long line of banker backed scummy GigaBloatCoin forks meant to appropriate full control of our network so they can run it into the ground ether intentionally or unintentionally.

1st thing i thought of was coke classic, which was ment to do exactlly what you said "make people think it was the real coke" which it was after they made a balls up with the recipe....

[iCEBREAKER]

I still can't believe some people are supporting these guys with the risk to lose actual talented people like Greg Maxwell and Peter just for the stupid idea of a hard fork to have the blocksize doubled when we don't even necessarily need it now, this feels like a bad dream and I hope it's over soon and Core devs can continue working in a more relaxed environment but I guess it will only keep getting worse so we need to stay alert and remain strong.

You need to grow a thicker hide and accept these populist/demagogic attacks on Bitcoin governance will never end.

Then prepare to keep fighting the entropy, forever.

[iCEBREAKER]

Adam Back is telling a string of lies on Twitter as I type. Not sure which side has the most liars, Classic or Core?

https://twitter.com/adam3us

In each one of these cases of problematic devs, all you have to do is follow the money. Blockstream must exit core in order for bitcoin to survive.

Name just a single lie Dr. Back has told.  It should be easy to pick one, if he's "telling a string" of them.

Oh, that's right.  You're obviously very butthurt that @Dan_Pantera, the 500lb gorilla of BTC VCs, has come down squarely on the side of Team Core.

You're so fucking R3KT all the evidence-free hand-waving counter-accusations in the world won't change that hard fact.

https://medium.com/@PanteraCapital/the-governance-of-anarchists-blockchain-letter-january-2016-798842f468de?source=latest---------1

Bitcoin Classic: in theory, implementing an immediate 2MB change would immediately alleviate block congestion but would require a hard fork. Hard forking carries with it certain systemic risks:

    Bitcoins received from before the fork can be spent twice, once on both sides of the fork. This creates a high double-spend risk.
    Bitcoins received after the fork are only guaranteed to be spendable on the side of the fork they were received on. This means some
    users will have to lose money to restore Bitcoin to a single chain.

In essence, if a hard fork goes bad, it will likely cause large-scale confusion and make Bitcoin incredibly difficult to use until the situation is resolved. There’s also a very real chance of total system failure if a hard fork’s deployment is not well-coordinated across the entire network.

Dan Morehead
Chief Executive Officer
@Dan_Pantera

[franky1]

blockstream suggests they are all about the code and not the business/politics..

but, um:      PwC

(ill leave you to google it)

[iCEBREAKER]

blockstream suggests they are all about the code and not the business/politics..   

but, um:      PwC   

(ill leave you to google it)   

Most financially/economically literate adults don't need to "google" PwC.

We know who they are, we know what they do.

PwC knows which way the wind is blowing; it's blowing in the direction of davout's famous maxim.

The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".  -davout

Does it upset you that the teeming unbanked get to benefit from PwC like financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain?