Core or Classic?

[Ashdad]

Beginners question....apologies if the answer is obvious to some. Who do I support? Classic or Core? I hold bitcoin in a wallet, use it, occasionally, for purchases, but mainly use mine as a savings account, while I go about learning more. I have started reading about coins being destroyed, and miners choosing the wrong fork? and losing all their money....So....

Does the wallet I choose represent a choice I have made? If I do nothing but wait and see, will that affect my bitcoin? I read that the reward halving will push the price up, but the Core/Classic debate will push prices down. I read that retailers are pulling out of bitcoin due to transaction times at the moment being too long, but no evidence to support that statement? Where is a good place to go to read facts, not stories or arguments?

Am I right in thinking this amazing technology is only as good as the people who decide what direction it goes in? I'm struggling to find
un-biased opinions, everyone, like politicians, can make their version of what would work, seem like the obvious choice, and the alternative seem ridiculous. Is it too simple to say with bitcoin, majority rules? And is this majority the people? The miners? The developers? It all makes my brain hurt. 

[1714656401]

1714656401

[1714656401]

1714656401

[1714656401]

1714656401

[1714656401]

1714656401

[1714656401]

1714656401

[.anto.]

When I asked my friends and families on their opinions about Bitcoin and why they don't want to use it, all of them answered that they don't trust Bitcoin. One of the contributors on why ordinary people do not trust Bitcoin is this kind of confusing issues.

And this confusing issue is mainly caused by the egos of the programmers who do not care whether ordinary people trust Bitcoin or not. Those programmers are definitely smart people. But they are so ignorant on the actual social and economical impacts of their egos. I hate this kind of people. So the only thing I can do in protesting their actions is by not supporting them. One way I do that is by blocking any nodes with the Classic user agent to connect to my node, so that my node will not propagate them further.

[DannyHamilton]

Beginners question....apologies if the answer is obvious to some.

Seems like a lot more than one question.  I'll do what I can to answer them all here, but this is going to be a long wordy post...

Who do I support?

Whomever you like.  As far as bitcoin is concerned, there is no authority in charge to tell you what to do.  You are required to gather your own knowledge and make your own decisions.

Classic or Core?

At the moment they are equivalent.  They both recognize all currently valid transactions and blocks.  Choosing one or the other expresses some amount of support for future possibilities, but regardless of which you choose today, you can always just switch to the other before, during, or immediately after any significant change in the network protocol. Choosing one or the other doesn't mean you are making a lifelong commitment today.

I hold bitcoin in a wallet, use it, occasionally, for purchases, but mainly use mine as a savings account, while I go about learning more.

Sounds like a good plan. Bitcoin is still an experimental technology. Don't store any value in bitcoin that you would be devastated to lose.

I have started reading about coins being destroyed, and miners choosing the wrong fork? and losing all their money....

Destruction of your coins doesn't happen from normal use of bitcoin.  You need to choose to send your bitcoins to a "burn address", or you need to use non-standard wallet software to create unspendable outputs, or you need to be a miner using mining software with a bug in it.  As long as you choose a well reviewed open-source wallet, store proper backups of your wallet, and avoid malware that can steal your wallet, you shouldn't lose your bitcoin.

So....

Does the wallet I choose represent a choice I have made?

In the same way that the car you choose represents a choice you've made, or the sandwich you eat represents a choice you've made.  Choose a wallet that has the ease of use, features, and security that you want.  You can use Electrum, MultiBit, Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin Classic, Armory, blockchain.info, Mycellium, etc.  There are also some businesses (such as Coinbase and Circle) that provide accounts to store your bitcoins if you trust their ability to secure the bitcoins more than you trust your own ability to keep malware and hackers off your computer.  These accounts carry their own risks though, since the business providing the account may have full access to your bitcoins and be able to run off with them (or lose them).

If I do nothing but wait and see, will that affect my bitcoin?

Not sure what you mean by "affect your bitcoin".  It is possible that your computer could get infected by a hacker or malware.  In that case you could lose all your bitcoins.  It is also possible that the exchange rate could be significantly different in the future, meaning that each of your bitcoins could be worth more than $10,000 or less than $10 (or anything in between).

I read that the reward halving will push the price up,

You are reading speculation and guesses by people who have a lot of faith and confidence in their own ability to predict the future. They could be right.  They could be wrong.  Only the future knows for sure.  Perhaps the reward halving will reduce the exchange rate instead of increasing it.

but the Core/Classic debate will push prices down.

You are reading speculation and guesses by people who have a lot of faith and confidence in their own ability to predict the future. They could be right.  They could be wrong.  Only the future knows for sure.  Perhaps the Core/Classic debate increases the exchange rate instead of reducing it.

I read that retailers are pulling out of bitcoin due to transaction times at the moment being too long,

You've read fact-checked articles written by reputable journalists listing specific retailers that have stated that they have stopped accepting bitcoin transactions and that long confirmation times are the reason?  Or you've read some random blog post by some random internet writer that is trying to push an agenda and making up things that support their argument without any proof of anything they've said?

but no evidence to support that statement? Where is a good place to go to read facts, not stories or arguments?

There is no specific source right now that reports regularly on the state of bitcoins and cryptocurrencies without propaganda, opinion presented as fact, and complete nonsense presented as truth.  It's up to you to read with a skeptical mind and filter through the nonsense to find the truth.  In general it's probably a good idea to assume that everything you read on the internet about bitcoin is either completely false, or carefully worded to push an agenda through partial truths and skewed representations.

Am I right in thinking this amazing technology is only as good as the people who decide what direction it goes in?

The technology is capable of a lot.  If people choose a poor direction for using it, then there may be a time in the future when a better use of the technology replaces it.  Since Bitcoin is a consensus protocol, it is very difficult to change the initial direction that was laid out for it when it was first created.  Any and all consensus changes require the support and agreement of an overwhelming majority of users.

I'm struggling to find un-biased opinions, everyone, like politicians, can make their version of what would work, seem like the obvious choice, and the alternative seem ridiculous.

Correct.  There is no official authority for bitcoin that can declare what is and what isn't. It is a decentralized open-source system that anyone can say anything about and do anything with that they like.  It is up to you to use your brain and analytical skills to decide what you believe and what is true.

Is it too simple to say with bitcoin, majority rules?

Bitcoin is a consensus system, not a democracy.  It requires an overwhelming majority to change a consensus rule.  A simple majority (51+%) will simply split the system into 2 separate incompatible currencies.  You'll have "old-bitcoin" and "new-bitcoin" each existing side-by-side and both trying to claim that they are the "real" bitcoin, and that the other is an "altcoin".  Any time you try to send (or receive) you'll need to make sure that the other party is using the same "bitcoin" as you are.

And is this majority the people? The miners? The developers? It all makes my brain hurt. 

It requires an overwhelming majority of peer nodes (including merchants, consumers, hoarders, miners, and developers).

[Ashdad]

Thanks guys, that helps a lot.

If I do nothing but wait and see, will that affect my bitcoin?

Not sure what you mean by "affect your bitcoin".  It is possible that your computer could get infected by a hacker or malware.  In that case you could lose all your bitcoins.  It is also possible that the exchange rate could be significantly different in the future, meaning that each of your bitcoins could be worth more than $10,000 or less than $10 (or anything in between).

By that I meant if I stay with the same wallet provider, i see you can have a Core or Classic wallet now, that I didn't know, but how do you know what the other wallets support? Mycelium or Hive for example?

I read that retailers are pulling out of bitcoin due to transaction times at the moment being too long,

You've read fact-checked articles written by reputable journalists listing specific retailers that have stated that they have stopped accepting bitcoin transactions and that long confirmation times are the reason?  Or you've read some random blog post by some random internet writer that is trying to push an agenda and making up things that support their argument without any proof of anything they've said?

And the answer to this may be in two parts! I thought it was a fact checked article, I think I read it on CCN? I wasn't being specific as I can't for sure remember and don't want to point a finger wrongly, however I know there wasn't a list of these retailers.

Thanks for taking the time to answer so comprehensibly though. It is very much appreciated. And I learnt a lot from it.

[Jet Cash]

I'd stay with core, because whatever happens, your coins will still be valid. If you go with classic, and they create larger blocks, then you are risking any new coins imho. If they don't start using the risky larger blocks, then there is no improvement, and you would have been better off with the changes implemented by core.

[Jet Cash]

I read that retailers are pulling out of bitcoin due to transaction times at the moment being too long,

Six month confirmation times haven't stopped retailers using PayPal. Credit card confirmations can be pretty long as well.

[DannyHamilton]

One potential issue is that if transactions didn't get confirmed in 2 to 3 days, it will be rejected/cancelled and returned to sender automatically.

That's absolute nonsense (which is to be expected since you're probably only posting to increase your post count for your sig ad campaign).

Valid bitcoin transactions are never rejected, cancelled, or returned anywhere.

If they are not confirmed and they are not re-broadcast by anyone, then they may become forgotten.  If a competing transaction (spending the same inputs) confirms then they can become invalid.

To avoid this, all the merchant has to do is verify that the transaction they receive:

• Pays a reasonable fee
• Spends only confirmed inputs
• Contains no dust outputs
• Has no competing transaction spending the same inputs

As long as the transaction meets that criteria, they can feel pretty safe sending the merchandise or providing the service.  If the transaction does not meet all those criteria, then the merchant should inform the customer that the customer's wallet sent a high-risk transaction and that the merchant will not provide anything of value until the transaction confirms (unless the merchant has established a trust relationship with the customer).

[rizzlarolla]

This thread shouldn't be in the tech section, it should be in general discussion bs, where there is a thread with the same title. 

[alani123]

Some prominent figures in the bitcoin space (namely Theymos and Luke Jr) have argued that anything else other than bitcoin Core isn't actually bitcoin and therefore an altcoin. Of course both those people have sided with Core so it'd be safe to assume that their argument isn't impartial. If you think that bitcoin has a better future with certain developers/features go ahead and support whatever you want. However, one of the reasons that consensus is hard to be reached with bitcoin is that interests of many people are involved and for bitcoin to be strong there's need to be an absolute majority agreeing with change. In other words, the issues that are supposedly addressed by Classic could remain unchanged unless it's absolutely urgent to address them.

[anon_giraffe]

Classic vs Core.

at some point, they may become different forks.
A fork indicates where the database or record of all transactions no longer agree.

So, any transactions before that fork are still agreed by both forks.

... I have started reading about coins being destroyed, and miners choosing the wrong fork? and losing all their money....So....

Does the wallet I choose represent a choice I have made? If I do nothing but wait and see, will that affect my bitcoin?
...

If you have some BitCoin in an address, and there becomes a fork after, your transaction is still valid on both forks.

But, the two forks are no longer compatible. So if you spend coins on one fork, they still exist on the other fork. lol
But only one chain of that fork will become official. 

Core vs Classic represents a dilemma, when they fork, which one will be the official fork?? That is why value down etc. People are scared.

But your coins will still be in your address.

[thejaytiesto]

It's a very simple decision. Look at what both teams have done on their own. Core has done all the great stuff you see nowadays, (SegWit, Libsecp256k1, op_hold, soon sidechain and so on....)

Classic.. what the hell has Classic done?

This is why im not putting my money on developers that have nothing of value to show, so stick to Core.

[LiquidGamerX]

I was already skeptical day one, when I watched a hardfork creating a new cryptocurrency coin, changing a number from 1 == 2 for the blocksize.  Then calling it Bitcoin "Classic" <-- Just screams hostile takeover.  Same nefarious tactics used on other industries such as Inciting fear, uncertainty, doubt, deception, diversion, "Problem-Reaction-Solution", divide and conquer, etc. Hardforking changing just one thing, then releasing it as if it's new software that's going to save everyone? Wouldn't it be better to fix/add/maintain  many big things during the fork, negating future problematic issues?

Well, classic already has forked from core on github. They are running Classic0.12.0 nodes against the core /Satoshi:0.12.0/.  One problem is you can't get a straight answer out of anyone who seems to support Classic.  When you make an attempt to gain understanding, by asking questions/debate, they downvote , divert , swear, and ridicule you.  Even when presented direct with actual information on the bitcoin protocols.    When you check out  https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/?q=/Classic:0.12.0/ browse through the pages you will see more than half the nodes are non-economic groups of them on the same network, under the domain of amazonaws.com. (Witnessed a group of 1000 nodes turned on at the same time, as well as 500 from a guy who admitted to it)  I would have to run through all the nodes again but the last time I checked they were holding well over 60% on one domain.

Try to talk to anyone on reddit about this and you get blasted.  It looks like a Sybil attack by definition.  Throw the fact that people constantly have had to correct so many people who are "classic" only supporters, giving out false information to others... Sik /..Corrected same person twice now within a day of each other, the guy is still up posting the same incorrect assertions as before. In one other discussion I watched a guy tell people that china won't accept "classic" because their ASICS couldn't handle the 2MB upgrade.  Then try to say something about china being centralized with more than 51% of the hashing power.  Chinas mining pools have stratums in many countries. Miners jump from pool to pool at times seeking a greater reward.  In some cases mining a different coin with the same SHA-256 algorithm like digitalcoin  ... I tried to ask where they get their information from, and they won't ever say anything. After I explained that the mining hardware will work just fine, 2mb will effect the full nodes that don't have a lot of ram to spare. Miners would possibly do better considering by theory 2mb was supposed to allow more transactions.  Inherently adding more fees to the reward when a block is found.  Yet, you haven't seen many miners move over to classic (Think around 20-35 PH/s.  Miners hashing "classic". Where the core is at 1.2 EH/s Or 1,200 PH/s)

Also would notice that "classic" absolutists/extremists go on some kind of weird smear campaign on Adam, an intelligent long-time cryptocurrency contributor/developer, and President of Blockstream. (ask them why and they slander you, or just throws like 5 links to other discussion channels that still don't answer anything.  I can't say I have seen the cryptocurrency space get that ugly ever before.  Seemed to pick up a great deal when those deceptive Bitcoin Unlimited, XT, and Classic started seeing the light.  Same with the slow transactions.  Blocks didn't reach the full blocksize and were doing fine, untill the every block filled to near 1mb, seemed to me that the inputs were being "padded" with NULL info just to add space.  (Problem, reaction, solutions).  Then add those silly pranksterz who were flooding nodes with itty bitty transactions( Some with a tiny fee, others with none).  Think that's when the slowdown happened for anyone who didn't increase the trans fee when sending from their wallet providers.

Then I could never get past the fact that when you hard fork from bitcoin it becomes an altcoin. Their are only a few altcoins that seem to want to add the name Bitcoin in it, they are Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin XT, and now Bitcoin "Classic".  Now Bitcoin has competition of well over 150 different crypocurrencies, all with amazing innovative options that separate from bitcoins blockchain.  These altcoins that change one thing and claim to be the next bitcoin, appear to me as a hostile takeover from opensource volunteered, labor of love developers.  Brian Armstrong CEO of Coinbase had been making what I would interpret as a call to be leader of bitcoin.  Yet he didn't seem to have the technical knowledge( same with classic supporters, diversion from technical debate... because they hate it or something)... Brian is great at Marketing no doubt about that.  However their has been a huge influx of venture capital funds that have flooded into many different blockchain/cryptocurrency related entity's.  Guessing shareholders are getting very twitchy, they want to see an ROI NOW!%!$@#! Coinbase being one of those companies that received a good portion of that capital has me feeling uneasy.  Along with shouts to whatever news organization willing to spew such unproductive, uninformed, hate crying out to others that Bitcoin needs new developers.  He(Brian) just incites division in an already fragile atmosphere.  I don't trust coinbase, or Brian Armstrong at all really.  I have no problem trusting the current developers and contributors.

It may have been due to ego in a couple situations.  I believe it's a little more complex then that.  The supporters exclusively supporting classic don't give me the impression that they even want to try and understand.  They are doing a job it would seem.

The choice is yours, Classic - Core.. 

Sorry for the disorientating rant, but I had to kinda vent.. This community, and others like it has been increasing my level of insanity breaking the bar....! Personal Bests! Plus sleep deprived,.

[Kakmakr]

Try to talk to anyone on reddit about this and you get blasted. 
It may have been due to ego in a couple situations.  I believe it's a little more complex then that.  The supporters exclusively supporting classic don't give me the impression that they even want to try and understand.  They are doing a job it would seem.

The choice is yours, Classic - Core.. 

The kids on Reddit will blast you for almost anything you say on there, so this is not something strange. Just ignore all the BS and smack talk being dished out on public forums and you will be fine. Most of the stuff posted is from shill accounts any way, so you will rarely find a valid argument reflecting the truth. If you want reputable information, go to the developers circle and find the only information that counts for anything. As you said, the choice is yours to make. If you believe in any of the two submissions, run their code to support them.

[KenR]

This is the never ending discussion.Danny Hamilton's post sufficed all your questions.The block debate or the core/classic war is restricted to only people's opinions.The outcome is just speculated.One shouldn't be making any real assumptions based on other's views.Its subjective to choose,core/classic.I support core,have faith in core developers.

[Pkzone]

Some prominent figures in the bitcoin space (namely Theymos and Luke Jr) have argued that anything else other than bitcoin Core isn't actually bitcoin and therefore an altcoin. Of course both those people have sided with Core so it'd be safe to assume that their argument isn't impartial. If you think that bitcoin has a better future with certain developers/features go ahead and support whatever you want. However, one of the reasons that consensus is hard to be reached with bitcoin is that interests of many people are involved and for bitcoin to be strong there's need to be an absolute majority agreeing with change. In other words, the issues that are supposedly addressed by Classic could remain unchanged unless it's absolutely urgent to address them.

Yes, yes, Bitcoin XT are also altcoin but they advertise the thing as Bitcoin, which it is not.
Core was the first bitcoin wallet (and node) and the users (NOT MINERS decide what should be done with it)
As you see, most side with Bitcoin Core but if you go on reddit and ask the same questions, those sybils will hammer you for just supporting Core, people will call Core devs. "fools" and tell everyone to support "Classic"
Brian has also called Bitcoin Core devs. "a systematic threat to bitcoin". What they want to do is suit Bitcoin to their needs NOT THE USERS' and make profit from it.

I was already skeptical day one, when I watched a hardfork creating a new cryptocurrency coin, changing a number from 1 == 2 for the blocksize.  Then calling it Bitcoin "Classic" <-- Just screams hostile takeover.  Same nefarious tactics used on other industries such as Inciting fear, uncertainty, doubt, deception, diversion, "Problem-Reaction-Solution", divide and conquer, etc. Hardforking changing just one thing, then releasing it as if it's new software that's going to save everyone? Wouldn't it be better to fix/add/maintain  many big things during the fork, negating future problematic issues?

Well, classic already has forked from core on github. They are running Classic0.12.0 nodes against the core /Satoshi:0.12.0/.  One problem is you can't get a straight answer out of anyone who seems to support Classic.  When you make an attempt to gain understanding, by asking questions/debate, they downvote , divert , swear, and ridicule you.  Even when presented direct with actual information on the bitcoin protocols.    When you check out  https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/?q=/Classic:0.12.0/ browse through the pages you will see more than half the nodes are non-economic groups of them on the same network, under the domain of amazonaws.com. (Witnessed a group of 1000 nodes turned on at the same time, as well as 500 from a guy who admitted to it)  I would have to run through all the nodes again but the last time I checked they were holding well over 60% on one domain.

Try to talk to anyone on reddit about this and you get blasted.  It looks like a Sybil attack by definition.  Throw the fact that people constantly have had to correct so many people who are "classic" only supporters, giving out false information to others... Sik /..Corrected same person twice now within a day of each other, the guy is still up posting the same incorrect assertions as before. In one other discussion I watched a guy tell people that china won't accept "classic" because their ASICS couldn't handle the 2MB upgrade.  Then try to say something about china being centralized with more than 51% of the hashing power.  Chinas mining pools have stratums in many countries. Miners jump from pool to pool at times seeking a greater reward.  In some cases mining a different coin with the same SHA-256 algorithm like digitalcoin  ... I tried to ask where they get their information from, and they won't ever say anything. After I explained that the mining hardware will work just fine, 2mb will effect the full nodes that don't have a lot of ram to spare. Miners would possibly do better considering by theory 2mb was supposed to allow more transactions.  Inherently adding more fees to the reward when a block is found.  Yet, you haven't seen many miners move over to classic (Think around 20-35 PH/s.  Miners hashing "classic". Where the core is at 1.2 EH/s Or 1,200 PH/s)

Also would notice that "classic" absolutists/extremists go on some kind of weird smear campaign on Adam, an intelligent long-time cryptocurrency contributor/developer, and President of Blockstream. (ask them why and they slander you, or just throws like 5 links to other discussion channels that still don't answer anything.  I can't say I have seen the cryptocurrency space get that ugly ever before.  Seemed to pick up a great deal when those deceptive Bitcoin Unlimited, XT, and Classic started seeing the light.  Same with the slow transactions.  Blocks didn't reach the full blocksize and were doing fine, untill the every block filled to near 1mb, seemed to me that the inputs were being "padded" with NULL info just to add space.  (Problem, reaction, solutions).  Then add those silly pranksterz who were flooding nodes with itty bitty transactions( Some with a tiny fee, others with none).  Think that's when the slowdown happened for anyone who didn't increase the trans fee when sending from their wallet providers.

Then I could never get past the fact that when you hard fork from bitcoin it becomes an altcoin. Their are only a few altcoins that seem to want to add the name Bitcoin in it, they are Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin XT, and now Bitcoin "Classic".  Now Bitcoin has competition of well over 150 different crypocurrencies, all with amazing innovative options that separate from bitcoins blockchain.  These altcoins that change one thing and claim to be the next bitcoin, appear to me as a hostile takeover from opensource volunteered, labor of love developers.  Brian Armstrong CEO of Coinbase had been making what I would interpret as a call to be leader of bitcoin.  Yet he didn't seem to have the technical knowledge( same with classic supporters, diversion from technical debate... because they hate it or something)... Brian is great at Marketing no doubt about that.  However their has been a huge influx of venture capital funds that have flooded into many different blockchain/cryptocurrency related entity's.  Guessing shareholders are getting very twitchy, they want to see an ROI NOW!%!$@#! Coinbase being one of those companies that received a good portion of that capital has me feeling uneasy.  Along with shouts to whatever news organization willing to spew such unproductive, uninformed, hate crying out to others that Bitcoin needs new developers.  He(Brian) just incites division in an already fragile atmosphere.  I don't trust coinbase, or Brian Armstrong at all really.  I have no problem trusting the current developers and contributors.

It may have been due to ego in a couple situations.  I believe it's a little more complex then that.  The supporters exclusively supporting classic don't give me the impression that they even want to try and understand.  They are doing a job it would seem.

The choice is yours, Classic - Core..  

Sorry for the disorientating rant, but I had to kinda vent.. This community, and others like it has been increasing my level of insanity breaking the bar....! Personal Bests! Plus sleep deprived,.

You are right but look, Coinbase is the all-same-centralized-exchange-that-everyone-uses.... Yes, they have a awesome UI for noobs. Yes they have awesome services for exchanges, but look, if you do this, you are destroying what Satoshi wanted us to do.
The majority will not be decided by a single guy running 500 nodes and other people running 1 node and somehow, with huge funding from Coinbase, they get over majority and people start to mine on Classic, even then, the users, the minority, has to use Classic or be in a network which no one cares about.
This is not certainly right.

[calkob]

There is billions of $ in bitcoin and alot of smart people trying to resolve the issues, in the end it will be sorted so just sit back and relax.  I have a core nodes running just because it was what i started with and has been around longest.  but i have no problems switching to classic the moment i know that it has the consensus of the community.....

[l8orre]

It's a very simple decision. Look at what both teams have done on their own. Core has done all the great stuff you see nowadays, (SegWit, Libsecp256k1, op_hold, soon sidechain and so on....)

Classic.. what the hell has Classic done?

This is why im not putting my money on developers that have nothing of value to show, so stick to Core.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1398994.0

turns out segwit may not be so great after all...

[hv_]

To me is not the question of 'OR' :

If core just move a small bit / reschedule slightly  & classic forks into than we might have a nice compromis and all are back & unifyied in freedom.

All politics here is just getting people out of BTC  = anti marketing!

[alani123]

Slush wrote an interesting piece on the topic:
https://medium.com/@slush/contentious-blocksize-wars-6fd7c07f9d90

Here's the most cited quote from there, worth the read to see what he means.

I’m for raising blocksize limit (maybe even removing it completely). Still, at this moment, I’m with Core Devs.

[Monnt]

With SegWit being a totally plausible solution (a temporary solution, mind you), I think sticking with core will be the best.

Slush wrote an interesting piece on the topic:
https://medium.com/@slush/contentious-blocksize-wars-6fd7c07f9d90

Here's the most cited quote from there, worth the read to see what he means.

I’m for raising blocksize limit (maybe even removing it completely). Still, at this moment, I’m with Core Devs.

If only the Core devs implemented SegWit and a blocksize increase together...