Finally, Bitcoin Core = REKT

[LFC_Bitcoin]

What's the latest in the Classic fight for supremacy? I haven't seen as many shills declaring victory for a while? Are we any closer to some kind of consensus or what?

Any noise from Core?

Is it safe to stick my head back in the sand & ignore all the FUD & trolling & assume there's still a long way to go until anything changes?

[Lauda]

Is it safe to stick my head back in the sand & ignore all the FUD & trolling & assume there's still a long way to go until anything changes?

Yes. Core is working on Segwit and preparing to release 0.12 version with libsecp256k1. Classic has created a BIP and set 75% as the consensus threshold. There has not been any 'real movement' at any side. You just have to wait longer and ignore FUD and shills from both sides. This is currently the best approach if you want to stay out of it.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Is it safe to stick my head back in the sand & ignore all the FUD & trolling & assume there's still a long way to go until anything changes?

Yes. Core is working on Segwit and preparing to release 0.12 version with libsecp256k1. Classic has created a BIP and set 75% as the consensus threshold. There has not been any 'real movement' at any side. You just have to wait longer and ignore FUD and shills from both sides. This is currently the best approach if you want to stay out of it.

Thanks Lauda. Good advice. My personal preference would be to continue with Core implementing Segwit.


Thanks again.

[Amph]

in the end no matter what they, do, because they are basically doing the same thing, as long as the capacity is increae every solution is fine, but it should not add uselesses crap like xt

still i'm more curious about what will happen for the next increase, principally for core, because you can not use the magical "segwit" two times

[RealBitcoin]

Guys stop with this DIVIDE & CONQUER crap, bitcoiners should stay united.

[sgbett]

in the end no matter what they, do, because they are basically doing the same thing, as long as the capacity is increae every solution is fine, but it should not add uselesses crap like xt

still i'm more curious about what will happen for the next increase, principally for core, because you can not use the magical "segwit" two times

some would argue you should not be using it (as a proxy for blocksize increase) 1 time

[n2004al]

Guys stop with this DIVIDE & CONQUER crap, bitcoiners should stay united.

Good advise but cannot be possible. If the team is divided it is inevitable that this division be reflected even at the followers of bitcoin. More the two teams will go on their already chosen way, more division will be and more hard is to be verified and see again together all the followers and supporters of bitcoin. These days are very bad days for this product which is unique and the firs of its kind. I don't think that this can and must be the destiny of it. The developers team must have been much more responsible and must have been way much less selfish. They was not at the level in which must be a person with this kind of responsibility. If they were not so what can be waited by the "people" who supposed to not have their level?

[Amph]

in the end no matter what they, do, because they are basically doing the same thing, as long as the capacity is increae every solution is fine, but it should not add uselesses crap like xt

still i'm more curious about what will happen for the next increase, principally for core, because you can not use the magical "segwit" two times

some would argue you should not be using it (as a proxy for blocksize increase) 1 time

yeah, as i see it seg wit, would be good when you actually can not increase anymore the capacity directly, so it is something that i would do at the end of the cycle(when you have near fully adoption and you need the final increase) not at the beginning

personally i would simply go with the 2mb change, if segwit add other interesting things, they can be simply added later or separately, so there is no excuse in saying "segwit it's not just the increase capacity but much more blabla", everything can be added as a stand alone if needed

[Lauda]

I believe that If non-Core hard fork wins, major holders will sell BTC, driving price into the ground
22741.64188936 Ƀ (81.99%) Believe

I believe that In the event of a fork, I will sell RBF BlockStream Core Coins and buy Classic Bitcoins
18279.94701557 Ƀ (61.83%) Doubt

Classic kool-aid. Veritas where is the majority that you keep talking about?

Guys stop with this DIVIDE & CONQUER crap, bitcoiners should stay united.

That was the point of XT, BU and now Classic. I wonder if we are going to see more forks one this one fails.

[klm bitcoin]

I believe that If non-Core hard fork wins, major holders will sell BTC, driving price into the ground
22741.64188936 Ƀ (81.99%) Believe

I believe that In the event of a fork, I will sell RBF BlockStream Core Coins and buy Classic Bitcoins
18279.94701557 Ƀ (61.83%) Doubt

Classic kool-aid. Veritas where is the majority that you keep talking about?

Guys stop with this DIVIDE & CONQUER crap, bitcoiners should stay united.

That was the point of XT, BU and now Classic. I wonder if we are going to see more forks one this one fails.

I wouldn't be so sure it's gonna fail this time. Past behavior of hardfork attemptives is not a secure way to predict future behavior. There are many factores and it could just be the right time for a fork now.

[iCEBREAKER]

I believe that If non-Core hard fork wins, major holders will sell BTC, driving price into the ground
22741.64188936 Ƀ (81.99%) Believe

I believe that In the event of a fork, I will sell RBF BlockStream Core Coins and buy Classic Bitcoins
18279.94701557 Ƀ (61.83%) Doubt

Classic kool-aid. Veritas where is the majority that you keep talking about?

Guys stop with this DIVIDE & CONQUER crap, bitcoiners should stay united.

That was the point of XT, BU and now Classic. I wonder if we are going to see more forks one this one fails.

I wouldn't be so sure it's gonna fail this time. Past behavior of hardfork attemptives is not a secure way to predict future behavior. There are many factores and it could just be the right time for a fork now.

You are confused about the timeline of and causality/inferential flow between the actual events.

We spent months telling the Gavinistas XT would get #rekt like Stannis on the Blackwater, and that's exactly what happened.

We correctly predicted the behavior of past hardfork attempts (ie their utter failure).  These failures confirmed our predictive power.

That analytical framework is still valid, thus we may safely predict future forks attempts will fail for (more or less) the same reasons past ones did.

[sgbett]

I believe that If non-Core hard fork wins, major holders will sell BTC, driving price into the ground
22741.64188936 Ƀ (81.99%) Believe

I believe that In the event of a fork, I will sell RBF BlockStream Core Coins and buy Classic Bitcoins
18279.94701557 Ƀ (61.83%) Doubt

Classic kool-aid. Veritas where is the majority that you keep talking about?

Guys stop with this DIVIDE & CONQUER crap, bitcoiners should stay united.

That was the point of XT, BU and now Classic. I wonder if we are going to see more forks one this one fails.

I wouldn't be so sure it's gonna fail this time. Past behavior of hardfork attemptives is not a secure way to predict future behavior. There are many factores and it could just be the right time for a fork now.

You are confused about the timeline of and causality/inferential flow between the actual events.

We spent months telling the Gavinistas XT would get #rekt like Stannis on the Blackwater, and that's exactly what happened.

We correctly predicted the behavior of past hardfork attempts (ie their utter failure).  These failures confirmed our predictive power.

That analytical framework is still valid, thus we may safely predict future forks attempts will fail for (more or less) the same reasons past ones did.

Your logic is 'floorless' (or rather, baseless)!

[bjbear123]

Bitcoin is still going strong and the DEVS will find a solution

[blunderer]

Bitcoin is still going strong and the DEVS will find a solution

where's dev? where roadmap? are we on fork?!

[steeev]

for anyone that likes a laugh - (dunno if i like the graphs or the pie charts more)...

http://xtnodes.com/

[sgbett]

for anyone that likes a laugh - (dunno if i like the graphs or the pie charts more)...

http://xtnodes.com/

That's mean picking on the little kids!

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Bitcoin is still going strong and the DEVS will find a solution

I agree. These different hard fork ideas keep coming though don't they. If Classic fails I'll feel quite embarrassed if Gavin etc try another strategy

[PakistanHockeyfan]

I do believe that sometimes it takes a while for certain businesses to get going. Who knows if they'll succeed? It's a tough call at the moment. I'm not saying I want them to succeed. I'm not saying I don't. I'm just saying we do not know what is to come.

[exstasie]

in the end no matter what they, do, because they are basically doing the same thing, as long as the capacity is increae every solution is fine, but it should not add uselesses crap like xt

still i'm more curious about what will happen for the next increase, principally for core, because you can not use the magical "segwit" two times

some would argue you should not be using it (as a proxy for blocksize increase) 1 time

Why? Segwit is what scalability is about -- optimization, making throughput more efficient so that increased capacity doesn't mean increased load on the system. Why do you have to make it so political, implying that it is a "proxy" for anything? Segwit is the best of both worlds. Buying time is the idea here....with weak blocks and IBLT down the road, block size will be less of an issue as bandwidth pressures taper off. You guys act like bitcoin has no limitations.

If we're achieving roughly the same capacity, what's the obsession with hard forking right now? What is the urgency -- particularly when most devs and much of the community doesn't support it?

We should be concerned first and foremost with retaining bitcoin's decentralized and therefore censorship-free qualities. That means that increased capacity requires optimization (like Segwit), as bandwidth is the primary pressure on node operators....not simply bloating blocks as large as adoption will allow.

[bargainbin]

...
If we're achieving roughly the same capacity, what's the obsession with hard forking right now? What is the urgency -- particularly when most devs and much of the community doesn't support it?
...

ELY5:
The "obsession" is because the blocks are hitting max_block_size. Similar to obsessing with not_dying when your car' careening towards a cliff.

All devs knew, for years, that this was going to happen; because obvious to a house cat. Some devs spoke of this problem and proposed solutions. These devs were driven out of core, no longer Core_devs.

Most of the community supports raising max_block_size.