Classic or Core? Which one is better?

[Abiky]

I have seen a recent spike in the number of nodes that support bigger blocks (2mb) with Bitcoin Classic. However, Bitcoin Core is still in the lead. I was wondering which would be better to support, since I have doubts on whenever bigger blocks could cause an issue to BTC's decentralization.

If it were me, I think I would go with Classic, since bigger blocks means more capacity for transactions. I would like to view your opinion about this. 

[1714677818]

1714677818

[1714677818]

1714677818

[1714677818]

1714677818

[adamstgBit]

your opinion is perfectly valid.

let it be known by running a classic node.

also consider buying some classic hashing power if you feel strongly about your opinion  http://nodecounter.com/mining_donation_fund.php

[Abiky]

your opinion is perfectly valid.

let it be known by running a classic node.

also consider buying some classic hashing power if you feel strongly about your opinion  http://nodecounter.com/mining_donation_fund.php

Thanks for your reply. I was only asking which of the protocols would be better to run, in which I think that it might be Classic but I am not sure if it will be supported for long term. But other than that, I should choose whichever I'd prefer to support the Bitcoin network I guess. 

[adamstgBit]

your opinion is perfectly valid.

let it be known by running a classic node.

also consider buying some classic hashing power if you feel strongly about your opinion  http://nodecounter.com/mining_donation_fund.php

Thanks for your reply. I was only asking which of the protocols would be better to run, in which I think that it might be Classic but I am not sure if it will be supported for long term. But other than that, I should choose whichever I'd prefer to support the Bitcoin network I guess. 

long term core and classic will continue to operate on the same protocol.
regardless of if segwit or 2MB "win".
so dont worry about having to switch back to core anytime soon.
it is important to understand that by running one client over another you are endorsing there roadmap, choose whichever you feel is best for YOU not what you think is best for the network or what you think will win long term.

[7788bitcoin]

Both nodes have their pros and cons; benefit and risks (I shall not discuss and argue here). Although I incline to support Classic, I still think the core is doing well to fulfill the current functioning of bitcoin.

[franky1]

prepare for the delirious Lauda to spout his classic doomsdays to try defending why blockstream should win peoples blind faith.

hint. if he tells you classic data bloat of 2mb(4000tx potential) will be too much for the network, tell him his dream of 1mbmaxblocksize+segwit+confidential payment codes = 2.85mb for 3800 transaction potential.

hint. if he tells you it will reduce full node count. tell him his dream of people who usually download core are now prefering pruned mode, and soon no witness mode, will be by far more of a risk to the dilution of true full nodes

hint. if he tells you onchain transactions cannot compete against visa's authorization network. tell him bitcoin has 2.5mill users not 900mill(visa quotes). so does not need to be exactly like visa in the next couple years. also the stats about visa's tx/s is based on a lab test of selective 'authorization' equipment in a mock lab test. and then the results multiplied in a flawed manner to the amount of systems they have dotted around the world. also worth highlighting i said it a few times.. the stats are on the AUTHORIZATION network. not the settlement network. so it should not be used in relation to blocks.

hint if he tells you that classic is headed up by a corporations. tell him that core is too (blockstream, ergo PwC, ergo many financial firms, banks)

hint if he tells you that only a couple people are employed by blockstream. tell him to explain the finances of how the $55million is to be spend by supposedly only 2-3 people

hint. if he tells you that its just a shill game and he tries to speak latin. tell him he fails latin. jst like he fails C++, by thinking bitcoin core writes its code in java if he read the code he would know its not java. he is simply guessing and needing to be spoonfed info

[Abiky]

Thanks for your replies everyone.

your opinion is perfectly valid.

let it be known by running a classic node.

also consider buying some classic hashing power if you feel strongly about your opinion  http://nodecounter.com/mining_donation_fund.php

Thanks for your reply. I was only asking which of the protocols would be better to run, in which I think that it might be Classic but I am not sure if it will be supported for long term. But other than that, I should choose whichever I'd prefer to support the Bitcoin network I guess. 

long term core and classic will continue to operate on the same protocol.
regardless of if segwit or 2MB "win".
so dont worry about having to switch back to core anytime soon.
it is important to understand that by running one client over another you are endorsing there roadmap, choose whichever you feel is best for YOU not what you think is best for the network or what you think will win long term.

In that case, then I will stay with Classic and support 2MB blocks. I think it would be the ideal choice (for me) to support these nodes and contribute to better scallability. 

[exstasie]

In that case, then I will stay with Classic and support 2MB blocks. I think it would be the ideal choice (for me) to support these nodes and contribute to better scallability. 

Curious: have you ever looked up what "scalability" means? How does increasing block size contribute to it?

[Abiky]

In that case, then I will stay with Classic and support 2MB blocks. I think it would be the ideal choice (for me) to support these nodes and contribute to better scallability. 

Curious: have you ever looked up what "scalability" means? How does increasing block size contribute to it?

I guess that it would allow for Bitcoin to handle more TPS (transactions per second) faster than what it is right now once the block size is increased. Since with 1MB blocks, confirmations takes 15 to 30 mins (and even more) I think increasing the block size might prevent this but at a cost of Bitcoin to become more centralized (based on what I have read here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy

Damage to decentralization

Larger blocks make full nodes more expensive to operate.

Therefore, larger blocks lead to less hashers running full nodes, which leads to centralized entities having more power, which makes Bitcoin require more trust, which weakens Bitcoins value proposition.

Bitcoin is only useful if it is decentralized because centralization requires trust. Bitcoins value proposition is trustlessness.

The larger the hash-rate a single miner controls, the more centralized Bitcoin becomes and the more trust using Bitcoin requires.

Running your own full node while mining rather than giving another entity the right to your hash-power decreases the hash-rate of large miners.

Those who have hash-power are able to control their own hash power if and only if they run a full node.

Less individuals who control hash-power will run full nodes if running one becomes more expensive

Please correct me if I am wrong. I am here to learn everyday about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. 

[exstasie]

In that case, then I will stay with Classic and support 2MB blocks. I think it would be the ideal choice (for me) to support these nodes and contribute to better scallability.  

Curious: have you ever looked up what "scalability" means? How does increasing block size contribute to it?

I guess that it would allow for Bitcoin to handle more TPS (transactions per second) faster than what it is right now once the block size is increased. Since with 1MB blocks, confirmations takes 15 to 30 mins (and even more) I think increasing the block size might prevent this but at a cost of Bitcoin to become more centralized (based on what I have read here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy

Scalability =

the capability of a system, network, or process to handle a growing amount of work, or its potential to be enlarged in order to accommodate that growth

So it means more than adding throughput. It means building the system to accommodate that throughput. Even XT/Classic people admit that endlessly adding throughput on mainchain will make it harder and harder to run a node (i.e. be a "peer" on the p2p network). They just don't care and think that decentralization should be ignored if it means we can have cheap transactions. Because they think cheap transactions guarantees bitcoin adoption. It doesn't.

You are correct that increasing block size adds centralization pressure. The ideal would be to reduce those pressures by improving relay, reducing required bandwidth, lowering validation times to make a block size increase less detrimental to the network.

[adamstgBit]

In that case, then I will stay with Classic and support 2MB blocks. I think it would be the ideal choice (for me) to support these nodes and contribute to better scallability.  

Curious: have you ever looked up what "scalability" means? How does increasing block size contribute to it?

I guess that it would allow for Bitcoin to handle more TPS (transactions per second) faster than what it is right now once the block size is increased. Since with 1MB blocks, confirmations takes 15 to 30 mins (and even more) I think increasing the block size might prevent this but at a cost of Bitcoin to become more centralized (based on what I have read here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy

Damage to decentralization

Larger blocks make full nodes more expensive to operate.

Therefore, larger blocks lead to less hashers running full nodes, which leads to centralized entities having more power, which makes Bitcoin require more trust, which weakens Bitcoins value proposition.

Bitcoin is only useful if it is decentralized because centralization requires trust. Bitcoins value proposition is trustlessness.

The larger the hash-rate a single miner controls, the more centralized Bitcoin becomes and the more trust using Bitcoin requires.

Running your own full node while mining rather than giving another entity the right to your hash-power decreases the hash-rate of large miners.

Those who have hash-power are able to control their own hash power if and only if they run a full node.

Less individuals who control hash-power will run full nodes if running one becomes more expensive

Please correct me if I am wrong. I am here to learn everyday about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies.  

the effects of 2MB seem totally overstated

segwit is the other option and it actually increases requirements to nodes by the same amount. expect maybe TX validation times but thats not much of an issue... IMO.

the very high level view of this classic Vs Core thing is that

Classic is a simple change with a vision that the cost to operate a node will increase in the future and thats OK

Core is a complex change with a vision that the cost to operate a node should be kept low, and if fees rise thats OK everyone can use the second layer solution.

[adamstgBit]

In that case, then I will stay with Classic and support 2MB blocks. I think it would be the ideal choice (for me) to support these nodes and contribute to better scallability.  

Curious: have you ever looked up what "scalability" means? How does increasing block size contribute to it?

I guess that it would allow for Bitcoin to handle more TPS (transactions per second) faster than what it is right now once the block size is increased. Since with 1MB blocks, confirmations takes 15 to 30 mins (and even more) I think increasing the block size might prevent this but at a cost of Bitcoin to become more centralized (based on what I have read here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy

Scalability =

the capability of a system, network, or process to handle a growing amount of work, or its potential to be enlarged in order to accommodate that growth

So it means more than adding throughput. It means building the system to accommodate that throughput. Even XT/Classic people admit that endlessly adding throughput on mainchain will make it harder and harder to run a node (i.e. be a "peer" on the p2p network). They just don't care and think that decentralization should be ignored if it means we can have cheap transactions. Because they think cheap transactions guarantees bitcoin adoption. It doesn't.

You are correct that increasing block size adds centralization pressure. The ideal would be to reduce those pressures by improving relay, reducing required bandwidth, lowering validation times to make a block size increase less detrimental to the network.

funny how bitcoin Unlimited was the first to implement thinblocks

[adamstgBit]

i'm not a classic or core supporter anymore i support Unlimited. 

[Lauda]

I have seen a recent spike in the number of nodes that support bigger blocks (2mb) with Bitcoin Classic.

So? It is relatively easy to jump-start a high number of nodes, especially if you have capital. There was even a recent analysis that shows that a maximum of 213 people are behind 800 nodes. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that they're promoting their Sybil attack by stacking datacenter nodes.

I was wondering which would be better to support, since I have doubts on whenever bigger blocks could cause an issue to BTC's decentralization.

They will have an effect on it as it will increase the requirements for node operators. The question is whether the loss in decentralization is going to be negligible or it is going to be a bit more significant.

If it were me, I think I would go with Classic, since bigger blocks means more capacity for transactions. I would like to view your opinion about this.  

The main reason for someone to rush for more transactions is greed (i.e. hoping that: more people -> higher price). When scaling Bitcoin one has to be pretty conservative or else it might run into huge problems. Additionally, Core is coming up with Segwit which will also increase the capacity.

i'm not a classic or core supporter anymore i support Unlimited.  

That's even worse.

[johnyj]

prepare for the delirious Lauda to spout his classic doomsdays to try defending why blockstream should win peoples blind faith.

hint. if he tells you classic data bloat of 2mb(4000tx potential) will be too much for the network, tell him his dream of 1mbmaxblocksize+segwit+confidential payment codes = 2.85mb for 3800 transaction potential.

hint. if he tells you it will reduce full node count. tell him his dream of people who usually download core are now prefering pruned mode, and soon no witness mode, will be by far more of a risk to the dilution of true full nodes

hint. if he tells you onchain transactions cannot compete against visa's authorization network. tell him bitcoin has 2.5mill users not 900mill(visa quotes). so does not need to be exactly like visa in the next couple years. also the stats about visa's tx/s is based on a lab test of selective 'authorization' equipment in a mock lab test. and then the results multiplied in a flawed manner to the amount of systems they have dotted around the world. also worth highlighting i said it a few times.. the stats are on the AUTHORIZATION network. not the settlement network. so it should not be used in relation to blocks.

hint if he tells you that classic is headed up by a corporations. tell him that core is too (blockstream, ergo PwC, ergo many financial firms, banks)

hint if he tells you that only a couple people are employed by blockstream. tell him to explain the finances of how the $55million is to be spend by supposedly only 2-3 people

hint. if he tells you that its just a shill game and he tries to speak latin. tell him he fails latin. jst like he fails C++, by thinking bitcoin core writes its code in java if he read the code he would know its not java. he is simply guessing and needing to be spoonfed info

I'm surprised that you still have energy arguing these, I have mostly given up posting here and made some fork test at mean time while reading other forums 

[Amph]

afaik core has everything that classic want to do, core has the 2mb increase planned within one year plus seg wit and some other features(malleability issue etc...)

so my question is why i should choose classic?

[Kprawn]

For me it comes down to trust in this regard and not to the technical advantage both of these implementations have. Less than a year ago, Gavin and Mike Hearn pitched up here and dropped XT on us.

They had ulterior motives then, and it was quickly picked up by the more technically incline people here... Mike threw a temper tantrum and left to go work for the competition and Gavin were left with a

empty bag. His only option was to distance himself from XT and to submit a new implementation that would get better support. So he quickly put 2 and 2 together and saw a lot of people were asking

for bigger block sizes. He then jumped in with a implementation to address that. {Because he knew a lot more people will support that} ... On the other hand... The Core developers had a full deck of

cards from the start, and came in with a whole set of solutions for a lot of our problems. { SegWit / Side chains ..... } I will go with the people with a long term vision.... not just a short term solution to

regain control over the development.. a so called power grab. 

[1Referee]

i'm not a classic or core supporter anymore i support Unlimited.  

Congratulations, what will you support next, Bitcoin DaRealDeal?

[Risackwpsp]

I support to increase the size of the block. We have to do this.

[Lauda]

I'm surprised that you still have energy arguing these, I have mostly given up posting here and made some fork test at mean time while reading other forums  

Nice story about "tests".

For me it comes down to trust in this regard and not to the technical advantage both of these implementations have. Less than a year ago, Gavin and Mike Hearn pitched up here and dropped XT on us.
I will go with the people with a long term vision.... not just a short term solution to regain control over the development.. a so called power grab.  

It is worth adding that both Gavin and Garzik have not had any significant contributions to Bitcoin lately. Aside from them, Classic does not have anyone that one could even label as 'decent'. His BIP goes against everything that was learned over the years. Even Garzik strongly disagrees with the proposed grace period.

Congratulations, what will you support next, Bitcoin DaRealDeal?

Maybe Bitcoin Original or Bitcoin Reloaded.  

I support to increase the size of the block. We have to do this.

Not really, no.