Finally, Bitcoin Core = REKT

[chek2fire]

the most possible scenario is the rest 25% to keep running the old bitcoin system and to change the mining system and ban asic miners. And i am very sure that for many months we will have two crap coins with no value at all and with 21 supply coins each other.

Why would the remaining miners agree to make their equipment invalid?

Your right, changing the PoW algo would be BitcoinCore decission, not miners decission. So Instead of about 20% support it would be changed to only hardcore fans wanting to back old Bitcoin with GPUs. Then the 20% of ASIC miners eighter switch to new Bitcoin rules, start supporting other SHA2 coin or sell mining equipment.

And about "we will have two crap coins with no value at all and with 21 supply coins each other", I dont think there is much incentive for the 20% minority to continue with 1MB blocks after the 28 days grace period, but let see who is right (if there really become over 75% support for the 2MB modification)

not but they will continue to keep both of them. Is not problem at all for all of us to continue to have the same coins in both chains. This will confuse many and many will lost the trust in bitcoin system and that mean economical disaster for bitcoin ecosystem.
Is simple if a hard fork happen without consensus we will have.

1. Bank run from cloud wallets and exchanges
2. Collapse of bitcoin value
3. After that collapse of bitcoin mining
4 And at least to parallel bitcoin that all can trade for each other

[chek2fire]

anyway i dont think ever possible to a hard fork to happen in the next months.

[Lauda]

anyway i dont think ever possible to a hard fork to happen in the next months.

Apparently some of the Classic supporters seem to think that it is (safely) doable within a single month. This makes it obvious that the main idea behind the fork is a "upgrade" to the ecosystem. 

[chek2fire]

i dont think this is possible in the next months especially until sigwit patch. Imo i believe that we see an block increase after the summer and with a 100% consensus of all bitcoin ecosystem

[Cuidler]

the most possible scenario is the rest 25% to keep running the old bitcoin system and to change the mining system and ban asic miners. And i am very sure that for many months we will have two crap coins with no value at all and with 21 supply coins each other.

Why would the remaining miners agree to make their equipment invalid?

Your right, changing the PoW algo would be BitcoinCore decission, not miners decission. So Instead of about 20% support it would be changed to only hardcore fans wanting to back old Bitcoin with GPUs. Then the 20% of ASIC miners eighter switch to new Bitcoin rules, start supporting other SHA2 coin or sell mining equipment.

And about "we will have two crap coins with no value at all and with 21 supply coins each other", I dont think there is much incentive for the 20% minority to continue with 1MB blocks after the 28 days grace period, but let see who is right (if there really become over 75% support for the 2MB modification)

not but they will continue to keep both of them. Is not problem at all for all of us to continue to have the same coins in both chains. This will confuse many and many will lost the trust in bitcoin system and that mean economical disaster for bitcoin ecosystem.
Is simple if a hard fork happen without consensus we will have.

1. Bank run from cloud wallets and exchanges
2. Collapse of bitcoin value
3. After that collapse of bitcoin mining
4 And at least to parallel bitcoin that all can trade for each other

There is no possible 90%+ consensus with so many people and different interests here. The 10% could easily be altcoin lovers who dont mind hurting Bitcoin a bit or have different reasons for capping onchain useability. I dont know how you want solve this problem then...

anyway i dont think ever possible to a hard fork to happen in the next months.

Apparently some of the Classic supporters seem to think that it is (safely) doable within a single month. This makes it obvious that the main idea behind the fork is a "upgrade" to the ecosystem. 

Switch was doable in one day, one month is enought but more time wouldnt hurt either this I agree. Push Bitcoin Core to compromise with 3 or 6 months grace period then...

[knight22]

Mining pools finally gearing up to Bitcoin Classic.

https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/694080283407069184
https://twitter.com/slush_pool/status/694128642725679104

Core's days are numbered but that's not a big surprise. They don't give a damn about miners, businesses and users. 

[Lauda]

Switch was doable in one day, one month is enought but more time wouldnt hurt either this I agree. Push Bitcoin Core to compromise with 3 or 6 months grace period then...

It is not enough time. We can't even do a soft fork in that time frame. Segwit + 2 MB blocks are too much right now; it is either one of the two.

Classic doesn't give a damn about businesses and users. 

FTFY.

anyway i dont think ever possible to a hard fork to happen in the next months.

Technically you could do it pretty quickly if miners agree to it, but the question is how harmful this is.

[knight22]

Classic doesn't give a damn about businesses and users. 

FTFY.

  Are you running out of arguments that much? AFAIK Toomim is the ONLY one that cared enough to move his ass to China to ask miners themselves what they actually want.

Here which miners that does support Classic from the website:

Bitmain/Antpool
BitFury
BW.COM
HAOBTC.com
KnCMiner
Genesis Mining
Avalon Miner

Now businesses that does support Classic:

Coinbase
OKCoin
Bitstamp
Blockchain.info (Peter Smith)
Xapo
Bitcoin.com
Foldapp
Bread Wallet
Snapcard.io
Cubits
Vaultoro
Coinify
Bitso
Bitnet
BitOasis
Lamassu
BlockCypher
BitQuick.co
itBit
BitAccess
Coinfinity
Chronos Crypto

Can you come up with a list that shows support for Core from miners and businesses so we can objectively compare? Or do you have anything else to back up your claims?

[Lauda]

AFAIK Toomim is the ONLY one that cared enough to move his ass to China to ask miners themselves what they actually want.

When we mention Blockstream then the talk about hidden agendas comes into play, but when we mention Toomin then the forkers stay quiet. It is obvious why he did that. 

-snip-
Can you come up with a list that shows support for Core from miners and businesses so we can objectively compare? Or do you have anything else to back up your claims?

ATM (almost) everyone on that list in addition to the remaining industry.

Now businesses that does support Classic:
Bitcoin.com

I couldn't resist.

[knight22]

You have nothing. That's what I though.

[bargainbin]

...
ATM (almost) everyone on that list in addition to the remaining industry.

I couldn't resist. (let me get down on your level)

[jonald_fyookball]

...
ATM (almost) everyone on that list in addition to the remaining industry.

Not sure what he means "everyone on that list". 
The companies supporting Classic also support Core?
Cause that doesn't make much sense.

[Lauda]

Not sure what he means "everyone on that list". 
The companies supporting Classic also support Core?
Cause that doesn't make much sense.

You can either support 1 or the other,support both, or support none (as an individual and as a business). You can run both implementations so technically you support both with a node; there's no limit right? Example:

Antonopoulus: "I support both Core and Classic"

[jonald_fyookball]

Not sure what he means "everyone on that list". 
The companies supporting Classic also support Core?
Cause that doesn't make much sense.

You can either support 1 or the other,support both, or support none (as an individual and as a business). You can run both implementations so technically you support both with a node; there's no limit right? Example:

Antonopoulus: "I support both Core and Classic"

Well, true..but I don't think those companies expressed that as A.A. did.   If they made a statement supporting Classic specifically, then I think that's whatcha go by.

[iCEBREAKER]

[majoritarian moral hazard]

[pawel7777]

Came across this on reddit, is this true? That's pretty fucked up if it is.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/43tyfk/blockstream_is_selling_the_lightning_networking/

[Lauda]

Came across this on reddit, is this true? That's pretty fucked up if it is.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/43tyfk/blockstream_is_selling_the_lightning_networking/

It is not. The routing problem is not really a 'huge concern'; someone is going to figure out how to solve it in a decentralized way eventually. Someone who's familiar with programming or even better the process of engineering would know this. Depending on the work style, solution come while/after working (not before). He just fell for the usual Reddit troll (don't read it as a source of technical information). There's a specific kind of people in our community that will look very hard and very deep to find a flaw in anything that you do and try to use it against you.

<rusty> Correct. // Routing is not decentralized
<rusty> I have speculated on landmark selection algorithms using the blockchain as a random beacon, but it's hardwavy at best.
<aj> getting HTLCs working correctly is enough of a problem; once that's done decentralising routing is just the next thing to do. i haven't seen any reason to expect that totally redesigning the routing a few times will be difficult
<rusty2> I've proposed half-seriously that as an intermediary step everyone broadcasts their routes on an IRC channel.  Bitcoin started that way...

If the majority only understood the challenges, there would be less toxicity.

[knight22]

It is not. The routing problem is not really a 'huge concern'; someone is going to figure out how to solve it in a decentralized way eventually.

Maybe but maybe not. Relying on vaporware at this point is not a very smart approach.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

If the majority only understood the challenges, there would be less toxicity.

Agreed.

[Lauda]

Maybe but maybe not. Relying on vaporware at this point is not a very smart approach.

LN doesn't 'need' a decentralized routing solution to work. Someone is going to figure it out eventually, that's not the challange. LN is still a work in project. This is not what you'd call vaporware (if you weren't biased):
Lightning Network
Elements Project - Lightning

Two independent implementations (there are probably more, but these are the most advanced ones yet) of the same idea, but they're working together (plan to agree on protocol level). I've already stated this in the past: Anyone could code up LN if they had the skills to do so.

Agreed.

Their simplistic thinking and bias is what is causing problems these days (toxicity towards people trying to improve the infrastructure). They don't even know that the most simple concepts are quite hard in CS (I could give examples of cache/paging calculations). I can't find a good reason for which people would think that the development of previously undeveloped software/features is easy?