.

[howelzy]

.

[1715072147]

1715072147

[1715072147]

1715072147

[achow101]

Well if you know the in's and out's of the clients and SegWit and lightning, then you should know that we also need SegWit for its original purpose. We need SegWit to solve the transaction malleability problem, and I think that whatever scaling solution is settled upon, SegWit is something that Bitcoin needs to solve one of the biggest issues.

[ATguy]

Actually Classic is just Core with the 2 MB. If majority of miners dont vote for the 2 MB block limit, there is not functional difference between Classic and Core. If they do, your ready for the new block limit and you dont need to worry about upgrading in the 28 days grace period.

Seems like win situation to have Classic running instead of Core because your full node will be functioning normally no matter what happens, especially when you dont check the situation often.

[Lauda]

I'm aware of the in's and out of both clients including the proposed SegWit™™™ and Lightening Network™™™ solutions, and while these are great ideas, they just aren't bitcoin. To implement them would involve moving away from bitcoins original design, thus creating... dare i say it, an alt-coin.

So heres me jumping off the fence and going with Bitcoin 2mb or classic as its otherwise known.

Your post is full of nonsense and ignorance. Have you been hanging out at /r/btc lately? Let's start:
1. Segwit is not comparable to LN and does not symbolize something that "is not Bitcoin". Segwit in its essence is a change of the way that the data is being stored.
2. LN does not involve moving "away from Bitcoins original design" or whatever this means. It is certainly not an altcoin.
3. If anything, Classic is the altcoin here. Should I bring up the story of Clams? Clams forked away from Bitcoin without consensus and retained existing balances (they were redeemable). The difference between Classic and Clams is that it is not called "Bitcoin Clams".  

Seems like win situation to have Classic running instead of Core because your full node will be functioning normally no matter what happens, especially when you dont check the situation often.

Upgrade to Core 0.12 and you will be fine.

[southafricadude]

Actually Classic is just Core with the 2 MB. If majority of miners dont vote for the 2 MB block limit, there is not functional difference between Classic and Core. If they do, your ready for the new block limit and you dont need to worry about upgrading in the 28 days grace period.

Seems like win situation to have Classic running instead of Core because your full node will be functioning normally no matter what happens, especially when you dont check the situation often.

So is the real difference between classic and core literally just the block size? If thats all it is, why dont people just move to 2mb, whats the reason to stay at 1mb when that block size is a potential problem?

[Lauda]

So is the real difference between classic and core literally just the block size? If thats all it is, why dont people just move to 2mb, whats the reason to stay at 1mb when that block size is a potential problem?

There are many reasons for this even though your question might seem simple. This is a contentious HF; the main point behind it is taking control over the main implementation (currently Core). Why would people want 2 MB when there is a better proposed solution? These's also the problem (e.g.) of the non existing team of developers behind Classic.

[European Central Bank]

3. If anything, Classic is the altcoin here. Should I bring up the story of Clams? Clams forked away from Bitcoin without consensus and retained existing balances (they were redeemable). The difference between Classic and Clams is that it is not called "Bitcoin Clams".  

Why do you keep repeating this? Clams were a separate POS alt from minute one. All bitcoin was used for was as a fair way of air dropping it.

[ATguy]

Seems like win situation to have Classic running instead of Core because your full node will be functioning normally no matter what happens, especially when you dont check the situation often.

Upgrade to Core 0.12 and you will be fine.

Core 0.12 is in beta stage, not stable version. Also if 75% majority of miners choose increase the block limit, you will need wait for Core to add 2 MB patch, with Classic your ready already and Classic 0.12 beta as a copy of the Core is in the work as well.

3. If anything, Classic is the altcoin here. Should I bring up the story of Clams? Clams forked away from Bitcoin without consensus and retained existing balances (they were redeemable). The difference between Classic and Clams is that it is not called "Bitcoin Clams". 

I dont agree, Clams merged Bitcoin, Litecoin and Doge as a new PoS coin.

Classic is just another Bitcoin client fully compatible with all previous and future Bitcoin blocks. The only diference from Core is it allows miners to vote for new bigger block limit, but if no overwhelming majority of miners vote for new limit, we stay at the current one. Bitcoin limit was already changed in the past, and we still call it Bitcoin    The reason you dont agree 75% is enought is just your opinion, consensus, eg 100% cannot exist

[Lauda]

Why do you keep repeating this? Clams were a separate POS alt from minute one. All bitcoin was used for was as a fair way of air dropping it.

Your point being? They could have called it Bitcoin Clams. The point is: They forked with existing balances and without consensus.

Core 0.12 is in beta stage, not stable version. Also if 75% majority of miners choose increase the block limit, you will need wait for Core to add 2 MB patch, with Classic your ready already and Classic 0.12 beta as a copy of the Core is in the work as well.

It is stable enough; about to be released.

I dont agree, Clams merged Bitcoin, Litecoin and Doge as a new PoS coin.

That's not the point.

Classic is just another Bitcoin client fully compatible with all previous and future Bitcoin blocks. The only diference from Core is it allows miners to vote for new bigger block limit, but if no overwhelming majority of miners vote for new limit, we stay at the current one. Bitcoin limit was already changed in the past, and we still call it Bitcoin.

It is compatible because it is not activated. The moment that it gets activated with the set consensus threshold it will cause a network split, effectively splitting the current network into two pieces. The limit change in the past is not comparable to the situation that we have today. The change was within the same client.

The reason you dont agree 75% is enought is just your opinion, consensus, eg 100% cannot exist

No, 75% is not consensus and this has nothing to do with "my opinion". 90-95% (nobody ever talked about 100%) does not make sense only from a game theory perspective (most people here using this as an argument know nothing about it). Let's also not forget the double spend risks and whatnot when two chains co-exist (happened for a short period in 2013).

[jonald_fyookball]

No, 75% is not consensus and this has nothing to do with "my opinion". 90-95% (nobody ever talked about 100%) does not make sense only from a game theory perspective (most people here using this as an argument know nothing about it).

Well then enlighten us.  If 75% is not consensus, then what is? And why?

[achow101]

No, 75% is not consensus and this has nothing to do with "my opinion". 90-95% (nobody ever talked about 100%) does not make sense only from a game theory perspective (most people here using this as an argument know nothing about it).

Well then enlighten us.  If 75% is not consensus, then what is? And why?

By definition consensus is 100%. However, in practice that is not achievable, so we use supermajority. The current definition of supermajority which is used by soft forks in the IsSuperMajority function is 95%, which is what we should use for hard forks.

[ATguy]

This is a contentious HF; the main point behind it is taking control over the main implementation (currently Core).

This is not true, Bitcoin Classic simplifies the process of people/miners to use/vote on the 2 MB new limit. You can as well merge the 2 MB BIP to Bitcoin Core yourselves if you preffer.

Why would people want 2 MB when there is a better proposed solution?

Both can be added, and because 2 MB is easier we will be ready for more Bitcoin users sonner. Also 2 MB is in future Core plans anyway so having it ready sonner just in case wave of Bitcoin adoption come is highly beneficial for Bitcoin keeping its market share.

These's also the problem (e.g.) of the non existing team of developers behind Classic.

Gavin is no doubt one of the best Bitcoin Developers, Jeff one of the top as well. Few other as well. Also it is new team and more will come later, especially if the 2 MB is tiggered and Core refuses to change just to dont loose face like small kids and egoistic people do

[Bit_Happy]

Bitcoin 1mb or Bitcoin 2mb?
Don't care at all, really.
^^^
We need bigger blocks (for future growth), and people to find a way to agree and move on.
Let's get this settled before another several months fly by.

[ATguy]

Classic is just another Bitcoin client fully compatible with all previous and future Bitcoin blocks. The only diference from Core is it allows miners to vote for new bigger block limit, but if no overwhelming majority of miners vote for new limit, we stay at the current one. Bitcoin limit was already changed in the past, and we still call it Bitcoin.

It is compatible because it is not activated. The moment that it gets activated with the set consensus threshold it will cause a network split, effectively splitting the current network into two pieces. The limit change in the past is not comparable to the situation that we have today. The change was within the same client.

The client has nothing to do with it unless you believe Bitcoin is Bitcoin Core only, and who controls Bitcoin Core controls Bitcoin. Pretty disgusting considering Bitcoin Core leaders are full mouths of decentralization, but only when it fits their agenda, not decentralized development.

Even 95% could produce network split, this is not argument. Especially when you want give 5% vetto power to block futher Bitcoin improvements - good guide how to paralyze Bitcoin for minimal cost to anyone interested hurting Bitcoin.  

[rebuilder]

Why would people want 2 MB when there is a better proposed solution?

That would depend on what problem you see being addressed. To me, neither Classic nor Core are proposing the right solution, although Classic's direction seems better. This is because, IMO, deciding the amount and types of transactions to include in blocks should be left to the people bearing the costs of running the network: miners and nodes. Bitcoin was set up to be a free market experiment from the get go and the blocksize cap was, at best, a distasteful short-term compromise. Central planning doesn't fit here.

[European Central Bank]

Why do you keep repeating this? Clams were a separate POS alt from minute one. All bitcoin was used for was as a fair way of air dropping it.

Your point being? They could have called it Bitcoin Clams. The point is: They forked with existing balances and without consensus.

Try reading the sentence I wrote?

It was never anything to do with Bitcoin. It was POS and every btc, ltc and doge balance received the exact same amount. It was an attempt to improve distribution. Nothing more.

[Lauda]

This is not true, Bitcoin Classic simplifies the process of people/miners to use/vote on the 2 MB new limit. You can as well merge the 2 MB BIP to Bitcoin Core yourselves if you preffer.

This is true; it does not really simplify much. There is a lot of wrong with the HF, starting with the consensus threshold and grace period (even Garzik said it was wrong and suggested a minimum of 3 to 6 months). How can you not see the agenda behind all of this is beyond me.

Both can be added, and because 2 MB is easier we will be ready for more Bitcoin users sonner. Also 2 MB is in future Core plans anyway so having it ready sonner just in case wave of Bitcoin adoption come is highly beneficial for Bitcoin keeping its market share.

It won't be ready "sooner", neither can you can't know this. If the HF was set under proper rules and there was support behind it we would see it somewhere between June and September (3-6). That is plenty of time to roll out and adopt Segwit. Both in a combination are not safe enough at this moment.

Gavin is no doubt one of the best Bitcoin Developers, Jeff one of the top as well. Few other as well. Also it is new team and more will come later, especially if the 2 MB is tiggered and Core refuses to change just to dont loose face like small kids and egoistic people do

Neither have been actively contributing to Bitcoin in the recent times. Obviously your thinking pattern is wrong similarly to Gavin. Bitcoin should be prepared for the worst, not working towards best case scenarios. You're talking about effectively "firing" a lot of contributors. I would not continue working on it if the community "thanked me" in this way.

It was never anything to do with Bitcoin. It was POS and every btc, ltc and doge balance received the exact same amount. It was an attempt to improve distribution. Nothing more.

Existing Bitcoin balances; fork; no consensus. Discussing Clams solely is off-topic though.

[southafricadude]

So is the real difference between classic and core literally just the block size? If thats all it is, why dont people just move to 2mb, whats the reason to stay at 1mb when that block size is a potential problem?

There are many reasons for this even though your question might seem simple. This is a contentious HF; the main point behind it is taking control over the main implementation (currently Core). Why would people want 2 MB when there is a better proposed solution? These's also the problem (e.g.) of the non existing team of developers behind Classic.

If 2mb blocks take over, cant the people who are working on core just move over to start working on the version that the majority want, or are they that petty, that they will simply refuse?

[LiteCoinGuy]

maybe a flexcap is the better solution:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1365348.0

[Amph]

i think that they should simply go with the soft option and do 2mb on core, segwit as it was said it's not a solution, it's something that you use at the end near the adoption level to give a boost to the already big enough block limit

here an example, they said that segwit it's like reorganize your house to have more space(1mb + segwit), instead of buying a new bigger one(2mb), this is pointless in the long term

and in fact, instead, i think that is better to buy a bigger one first(2mb-4mb etc...) and then apply segwit to have even more space for the future