Bitcoin Core vs. Bitcoin Classic

[shorena]

core is still winning, by a lot



there is basically no competition

But is this chart really representative? Say if you're in favour of increasing cap to 2mb, you could just change the code in your core client by replacing "1" with "2" in MAX_BLOCK_SIZE line and recompile. I reckon it would be still shown as Core client. Am I right?

It would make no sense to just create a single person patch and hope it works.

The number of classic nodes seem to have hit their maximum for now.

[gijoes]

The number of classic nodes seem to have hit their maximum for now.

I just wonder why Gavin is so sure that "thousands of Classic nodes will appear". They didn't appear for XT. Maybe, he knows that "a little help from unknown friends" is sure to come...

[gmaxwell]

I just wonder why Gavin is so sure that "thousands of Classic nodes will appear". They didn't appear for XT. Maybe, he knows that "a little help from unknown friends" is sure to come...

I thought the post was pretty clear, it was " People are committing to spinning up thousands" and 'not thousands of people are committed to spinning up a node'-- it's a planned sybil attack-- and that is also what I've seen from this rise of "classic" "nodes". There are several less obvious node count measures that don't show the growth.

AFAICT, the latest strategy is to fake out the node counts with large numbers of sybils and then try to use that to pressure miners into adopting classic; which would then pressure actual users to go along with it. This isn't going to work, and most charitable way I can explain the strategies used by the people frantically pushing for a controversial hardfork is that the people involved in these forks keep thinking that everyone else in Bitcoin is stupid.  How else can you explain the faux urgency-- that almost no one bought-- or the bait and switch policies for miners-- to the cheap characterization that Bitcoin Core is all blockstream and so on?

All these nonsense and attacks frustrate me-- they waste a tone of time and energy that could be used driving Bitcoin forward.

[gijoes]

All these nonsense and attacks frustrate me-- they waste a tone of time and energy that could be used driving Bitcoin forward.

I guess it's just the taste of things to come. The more decentralized Bitcoin becomes pain in the ass for governments and their banker buddies, the more they try to employ above- and below-ground political methods, time-proven divide and conquer tactics and every dirty trick imaginable to subdue and castrate it into a PayPal-with-a-twist. This worked quite well with the original PayPal, you know. You need to be prepared for this.

[pinkslink]

to me it seems classic is just another attempt to take BTC off track and delay its growth,
i have read there is no real backlog of transactions as it has been steady for a while
same when i make transfer, only confirmations take time, transfer shows near instant

now to say more computing power is needed, then why change BTC
same with connections etc.
processors and connection speeds increase constantly,
so it seems like a problem is being created so it can be fixed now,
even though the so called problem will be not be a problem in the very near future

and an increase to 2mb, um...............
so that is the fix from now till forever ?
or in a few years will we need another fork increasing to 4mb and so on

processors being used today will be outdated tomorrow,
and replaced by others that process a hell of a lot faster,
especially as they will design chips for specific use

can someone explain to me what i am missing here ?

[alani123]

core is still winning, by a lot



there is basically no competition

But is this chart really representative? Say if you're in favour of increasing cap to 2mb, you could just change the code in your core client by replacing "1" with "2" in MAX_BLOCK_SIZE line and recompile. I reckon it would be still shown as Core client. Am I right?

It would make no sense to just create a single person patch and hope it works.

The number of classic nodes seem to have hit their maximum for now.

Yeah, I felt like spinning off some spoof nodes from my basement, seems to be working so far.

[af_newbie]

I just wonder why Gavin is so sure that "thousands of Classic nodes will appear". They didn't appear for XT. Maybe, he knows that "a little help from unknown friends" is sure to come...

I thought the post was pretty clear, it was " People are committing to spinning up thousands" and 'not thousands of people are committed to spinning up a node'-- it's a planned sybil attack-- and that is also what I've seen from this rise of "classic" "nodes". There are several less obvious node count measures that don't show the growth.

AFAICT, the latest strategy is to fake out the node counts with large numbers of sybils and then try to use that to pressure miners into adopting classic; which would then pressure actual users to go along with it. This isn't going to work, and most charitable way I can explain the strategies used by the people frantically pushing for a controversial hardfork is that the people involved in these forks keep thinking that everyone else in Bitcoin is stupid.  How else can you explain the faux urgency-- that almost no one bought-- or the bait and switch policies for miners-- to the cheap characterization that Bitcoin Core is all blockstream and so on?

All these nonsense and attacks frustrate me-- they waste a tone of time and energy that could be used driving Bitcoin forward.

Why we cannot add code to filter non-core nodes from connecting to core nodes?  Classic would have to update their code to look like a core node and by doing so classic nodes will not be detectable.  It could be based on UA, version or protocol level, or set of other fields.  Nodes can be configured to accept connections above a certain set and refuse everything else.

The classic will try to piggyback on your releases.  So force them to adopt your code and they become invisible on the network.

[pawel7777]

Why we cannot add code to filter non-core nodes from connecting to core nodes?  Classic would have to update their code to look like a core node and by doing so classic nodes will not be detectable.  It could be based on UA, version or protocol level, or set of other fields.  Nodes can be configured to accept connections above a certain set and refuse everything else.

The classic will try to piggyback on your releases.  So force them to adopt your code and they become invisible on the network.

Yeah! Lets go even further! Let's make bitcoin a closed-source project! Think about that, no more 'hostile takeovers' and threats to the 'consensus'.

[af_newbie]

Why we cannot add code to filter non-core nodes from connecting to core nodes?  Classic would have to update their code to look like a core node and by doing so classic nodes will not be detectable.  It could be based on UA, version or protocol level, or set of other fields.  Nodes can be configured to accept connections above a certain set and refuse everything else.

The classic will try to piggyback on your releases.  So force them to adopt your code and they become invisible on the network.

Yeah! Lets go even further! Let's make bitcoin a closed-source project! Think about that, no more 'hostile takeovers' and threats to the 'consensus'.

I'd never support closed-source project.   I disagree with growing block size to accommodate growth in transaction volume.  Transaction volume growth should not change the original design.  I think growing it at hardware improvement rate creates a more stable, secure and decentralized system.  

[pawel7777]

Why we cannot add code to filter non-core nodes from connecting to core nodes?  Classic would have to update their code to look like a core node and by doing so classic nodes will not be detectable.  It could be based on UA, version or protocol level, or set of other fields.  Nodes can be configured to accept connections above a certain set and refuse everything else.

The classic will try to piggyback on your releases.  So force them to adopt your code and they become invisible on the network.

Yeah! Lets go even further! Let's make bitcoin a closed-source project! Think about that, no more 'hostile takeovers' and threats to the 'consensus'.

I'd never support closed-source project.   I disagree with growing block size to accommodate growth in transaction volume.  Transaction volume growth should not change the original design.  I think growing it at hardware improvement rate creates a more stable, secure and decentralized system.  

The 1mb is not part of original design. Increasing the block-size is. You support Core's roadmap - fine, but you should be aware that it's them who are actually departing from the original plan. Again, that's not necessarily wrong on its own, but lets not twist the facts.

But the point is, why the hell would you support and suggest some authoritarian-like censorship stunts? Is that in line with your vision of open-source project? How far can you go with that?

[gmaxwell]

The 1mb is not part of original design. Increasing the block-size is.

If arbitrarily increasing the size without regard to external considerations was the "design" it would have been preprogramed to do it automatically, just as it decreases the subsidy automatically, or controls difficulty automatically. Try again.

[bargainbin]

The 1mb is not part of original design. Increasing the block-size is.

If arbitrarily increasing the size without regard to external considerations was the "design" it would have been preprogramed to do it automatically, just as it decreases the subsidy automatically, or controls difficulty automatically. Try again.

Wasn't the 1MB cap just a quickie kludge at the time when blocks never got that big, sort of a "if it's 1Meg, 100% chance of it being spam," erring on the permissive/high side?

[Jet Cash]

I like the look of 0.12 core, so my flag is nailed to their mast.

What's that about sig restrictions in classic? that looks like a backward step.

[Blazed]

All Classic can do is spin up nodes and rent some hash power. The miners are not going to change over and activate it. I hope Classic just dies off sooner than later.  

What will be next? My vote for a cooler name is Bitcoin Reloaded.

[Nomad88]

All Classic can do is spin up nodes and rent some hash power. The miners are not going to change over and activate it. I hope Classic just dies off sooner than later.  

What will be next? My vote for a cooler name is Bitcoin Reloaded.

Tottaly agree mate! Only thing Bitcoin Classic can do is slow down bitcoin movement. I really hope to see it disapper as soon as possible.

[john-connor]

The 1mb is not part of original design. Increasing the block-size is.

If arbitrarily increasing the size without regard to external considerations was the "design" it would have been preprogramed to do it automatically, just as it decreases the subsidy automatically, or controls difficulty automatically. Try again.

Satoshi proposed this (search his posts), core devs ignored him.

[pawel7777]

The 1mb is not part of original design. Increasing the block-size is.

If arbitrarily increasing the size without regard to external considerations was the "design" it would have been preprogramed to do it automatically, just as it decreases the subsidy automatically, or controls difficulty automatically. Try again.

Nice strawman Greg. Try again.

[Piladeer]

Why we cannot add code to filter non-core nodes from connecting to core nodes?  Classic would have to update their code to look like a core node and by doing so classic nodes will not be detectable.  It could be based on UA, version or protocol level, or set of other fields.  Nodes can be configured to accept connections above a certain set and refuse everything else.

The classic will try to piggyback on your releases.  So force them to adopt your code and they become invisible on the network.

Yeah! Lets go even further! Let's make bitcoin a closed-source project! Think about that, no more 'hostile takeovers' and threats to the 'consensus'.

That will destroy the value of bitcoin. If the bitcoin announce it will become closed source, I will sell all my bitcoins.

[Denker]

All Classic can do is spin up nodes and rent some hash power. The miners are not going to change over and activate it. I hope Classic just dies off sooner than later.  

What will be next? My vote for a cooler name is Bitcoin Reloaded.

I agree with your words.Let them have as much nodes as they want.Majority of them is probably spoofed.
Whatever.Let them do their parade while core is building out the network.
Good work takes some time, especially when scaling is not just done raising the blocksize, with a more and more loss of decentralization.
And imo it's not about a bigger blocksize, there are other reasons.Imo it's about the direction Bitcoin should be developed in the future.
Companies like Coinbase for instance might probably not like integration of Lightning Network and confidential transactions as this could threaten their business model.

However this is the roadmap we should go:

http://imgur.com/XAmGGr6

[chek2fire]

Bitcoin Classic nodes is simple from free time hosting. See the details here

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/461nvy/node_distributions_based_on_type_and_datacenters/#oo

http://imgur.com/a/jweYf