Classic or Core? Which one is better?

[shorena]

-snip-
I would like to view your opinion about this. 

Keep in mind that you will get no unbiased opinions here. Every single poster here gave you a suggestion based on their goals. If you made an informed decision, stick to it. If you decided to run a particular software because someone else told you its good, inform yourself. I think this[1] is a pretty good neutral article and as was suggested in it, so is this[2] person.

Whatever you decide, make sure its your decision and not the decision of someone else.

[1] https://medium.com/@slush/contentious-blocksize-wars-6fd7c07f9d90#.yef3d3ff3
[2] https://bitcoinmagazine.com/authors/aaron-van-wirdum

[johnyj]

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.  

How come should there be a power to grab in an open source project? Writing code is power? If no one use their code, programmers have no power over anyone. It is the crowd thinking that they must use so called "core" software give programmers power. But core is not a registered company, neither a trade mark, anyone can call themselves core. Architecture wise, any bitcoin software can be called a "core" software: Blockstream core, unlimited core, classic core, XT core etc... because their architecture is the same. However I don't see how segwit can be called "core" since it is totally another architecture

[Denker]

I prefer to stick with the guys how have deep knowledge, contributed the most the last years and which represent a majority of the developers.And that is definitely core.

[Lauda]

How come should there be a power to grab in an open source project? Writing code is power? If no one use their code, programmers have no power over anyone. It is the crowd thinking that they must use so called "core" software give programmers power. But core is not a registered company, neither a trade mark, anyone can call themselves core.

It is possible. You get to control the main implementation (currently Core); i.e. you try to make your own implementation the main one. There are only a handful of people who have Bitcoin Core commit keys right now.

Architecture wise, any bitcoin software can be called a "core" software: Blockstream core, unlimited core, classic core, XT core etc... because their architecture is the same.

As soon as you start writing nonsense such as "Blockstream core" you easily reveal just how biased and deluded your viewpoint is.

However I don't see how segwit can be called "core" since it is totally another architecture

This makes zero sense.

Keep in mind that you will get no unbiased opinions here. Every single poster here gave you a suggestion based on their goals.

Not necessarily, but yes.

[exstasie]

I prefer to stick with the guys how have deep knowledge, contributed the most the last years and which represent a majority of the developers.And that is definitely core.

Basically, this. Developers overwhelmingly support the Core roadmap. Wallet developers and library maintainers are overwhelmingly supportive of Segwit, despite this misinformation on this forum that "omg, too many lines of code, such complex!" Bitfury/Alex Petrov, who produce compelling whitepapers on the system from mathematical/statistical perspective and understand the limitations of p2p infrastructure, are highly supportive of Core.

I refuse to give in to this mob mentality that follows the likes of Coinbase and Bitpay -- who are concerned with shareholder profits only -- into the abyss.

Good tweet from Nick Szabo:

[thejaytiesto]

I prefer to stick with the guys how have deep knowledge, contributed the most the last years and which represent a majority of the developers.And that is definitely core.

Basically, this. Developers overwhelmingly support the Core roadmap. Wallet developers and library maintainers are overwhelmingly supportive of Segwit, despite this misinformation on this forum that "omg, too many lines of code, such complex!" Bitfury/Alex Petrov, who produce compelling whitepapers on the system from mathematical/statistical perspective and understand the limitations of p2p infrastructure, are highly supportive of Core.

I refuse to give in to this mob mentality that follows the likes of Coinbase and Bitpay -- who are concerned with shareholder profits only -- into the abyss.

Good tweet from Nick Szabo:

Indeed, no one would put their money into any team that isn't the most proved, timetested, most competent team, and that is without a doubt the Core Team.

Nick Szabo is always on point with the tweets, I also liked this one:

https://twitter.com/nickszabo4/status/692962583586947072

[johnyj]

It is better not do this kind of project because all the space project are very centralized, where programmers have no decision making right

[johnyj]

How come should there be a power to grab in an open source project? Writing code is power? If no one use their code, programmers have no power over anyone. It is the crowd thinking that they must use so called "core" software give programmers power. But core is not a registered company, neither a trade mark, anyone can call themselves core.

It is possible. You get to control the main implementation (currently Core); i.e. you try to make your own implementation the main one. There are only a handful of people who have Bitcoin Core commit keys right now.

Why should commit keys matter? Git is decentralized, any git clone is exactly the same as core, so the software build from any of its clones will be exactly the same too, it is up to each user to use an implementation he like

Of course majority of the users are IT illiterate, but that does not make them more easily accept one version over another

If the commit right to a specific repository matters, then I think who controls the Github controls bitcoin, Github admin can revoke anyone's access isn't it?

[exstasie]

It is better not do this kind of project because all the space project are very centralized, where programmers have no decision making right

Bitcoin -- like any engineering project -- requires very careful planning and execution.

[adamstgBit]

It is better not do this kind of project because all the space project are very centralized, where programmers have no decision making right

Bitcoin -- like any engineering project -- requires very careful planning and execution.

god forbid we K.I.S.S ( keep it simple stupid)

[adamstgBit]

Basically, this. Developers overwhelmingly support the Core roadmap. Wallet developers and library maintainers are overwhelmingly supportive of Segwit, despite this misinformation on this forum that "omg, too many lines of code, such complex!" Bitfury/Alex Petrov, who produce compelling whitepapers on the system from mathematical/statistical perspective and understand the limitations of p2p infrastructure, are highly supportive of Core.

its would be nice if this could be clear, i mean devs outside of blockstream coming out and saying they like segwit over 2MB.
I'm not sure there's as much support as you paint, but i really dont have much clue.
lets ask the guys that are building "iguana" https://bitco.in/forum/forums/iguana.23/
or maybe the programer of the bitfinex wallet. or idk everyone else outside of core, ofcourse core devs think core devs are right....
what does the Ether kid think?

[exstasie]

It is better not do this kind of project because all the space project are very centralized, where programmers have no decision making right

Bitcoin -- like any engineering project -- requires very careful planning and execution.

god forbid we K.I.S.S ( keep it simple stupid)

That doesn't address the issue. Less lines of code is not by definition a better solution, particularly when it does nothing to scale the protocol.

Basically, this. Developers overwhelmingly support the Core roadmap. Wallet developers and library maintainers are overwhelmingly supportive of Segwit, despite this misinformation on this forum that "omg, too many lines of code, such complex!" Bitfury/Alex Petrov, who produce compelling whitepapers on the system from mathematical/statistical perspective and understand the limitations of p2p infrastructure, are highly supportive of Core.

its would be nice if this could be clear, i mean devs outside of blockstream coming out and saying they like segwit over 2MB.
I'm not sure there's as much support as you paint, but i really dont have much clue.
lets ask the guys that are building "iguana" https://bitco.in/forum/forums/iguana.23/
or maybe the programer of the bitfinex wallet. or idk everyone else outside of core, ofcourse core devs think core devs are right....
what does the Ether kid think?

You mean jl777? He has some reputation as an altcoin scammer; not surprising he is pushing Classic. See here, here, here and here. Not to mention he made a fool of himself misunderstanding all the basics about Segwit in this thread, while trying to discredit it.

Phil Potter (CSO, BFX) signed the "A Call for Consensus" document, confirming their support for the Core roadmap.

And what do respected wallet developers/library maintainers have to say? Let's see:

Blocktrail CTO and BitcoinJS Co-Maintainer Ruben De Vries: Segregated Witness Not Very Complicated
Lawrence Nahum: Bitcoin Wallet GreenAddress Already Integrating Segregated Witness
Breadwallet CEO Aaron Voisine: SegWit Soft Fork First, Block Size Hard Fork Later
Mycelium's Leo Wandersleb: Segregated Witness a Technical Necessity
Electrum Developer Thomas Voegtlin: Soft Fork Preferable for Political Reasons; Segregated Witness Highly Supportable
Core Developer, libbtc Library Maintainer and digitalbitbox Developer Jonas Schnelli: Segregated Witness is Less Than a Week of Work to Test and Deploy

Ermagherd!!!! Segwit is just too complex!!!!

[adamstgBit]

It is better not do this kind of project because all the space project are very centralized, where programmers have no decision making right

Bitcoin -- like any engineering project -- requires very careful planning and execution.

god forbid we K.I.S.S ( keep it simple stupid)

That doesn't address the issue. Less lines of code is not by definition a better solution, particularly when it does nothing to scale the protocol.

Basically, this. Developers overwhelmingly support the Core roadmap. Wallet developers and library maintainers are overwhelmingly supportive of Segwit, despite this misinformation on this forum that "omg, too many lines of code, such complex!" Bitfury/Alex Petrov, who produce compelling whitepapers on the system from mathematical/statistical perspective and understand the limitations of p2p infrastructure, are highly supportive of Core.

its would be nice if this could be clear, i mean devs outside of blockstream coming out and saying they like segwit over 2MB.
I'm not sure there's as much support as you paint, but i really dont have much clue.
lets ask the guys that are building "iguana" https://bitco.in/forum/forums/iguana.23/
or maybe the programer of the bitfinex wallet. or idk everyone else outside of core, ofcourse core devs think core devs are right....
what does the Ether kid think?

You mean jl777? He has some reputation as an altcoin scammer; not surprising he is pushing Classic. See here, here, here and here. Not to mention he made a fool of himself misunderstanding all the basics about Segwit in this thread, while trying to discredit it.

Phil Potter (CSO, BFX) signed the "A Call for Consensus" document, confirming their support for the Core roadmap.

And what do respected wallet developers/library maintainers have to say? Let's see:

Blocktrail CTO and BitcoinJS Co-Maintainer Ruben De Vries: Segregated Witness Not Very Complicated
Lawrence Nahum: Bitcoin Wallet GreenAddress Already Integrating Segregated Witness
Breadwallet CEO Aaron Voisine: SegWit Soft Fork First, Block Size Hard Fork Later
Mycelium's Leo Wandersleb: Segregated Witness a Technical Necessity
Electrum Developer Thomas Voegtlin: Soft Fork Preferable for Political Reasons; Segregated Witness Highly Supportable
Core Developer, libbtc Library Maintainer and digitalbitbox Developer Jonas Schnelli: Segregated Witness is Less Than a Week of Work to Test and Deploy

Ermagherd!!!! Segwit is just too complex!!!!

why did it fork the test net? was it TOO simple?

re-read the links you post, some devs are quoted to be classic supports in there but they are willing to go along with segwit +2MB later, because it appears to be the faster option.
what does the ether kid think about this?
i feel your not being objective about this.

I too support segwit, but i would rather play it safe with 2MB, and have little interest in moving TX off chain prematurely

[exstasie]

You mean jl777? He has some reputation as an altcoin scammer; not surprising he is pushing Classic. See here, here, here and here. Not to mention he made a fool of himself misunderstanding all the basics about Segwit in this thread, while trying to discredit it.

Phil Potter (CSO, BFX) signed the "A Call for Consensus" document, confirming their support for the Core roadmap.

And what do respected wallet developers/library maintainers have to say? Let's see:

Blocktrail CTO and BitcoinJS Co-Maintainer Ruben De Vries: Segregated Witness Not Very Complicated
Lawrence Nahum: Bitcoin Wallet GreenAddress Already Integrating Segregated Witness
Breadwallet CEO Aaron Voisine: SegWit Soft Fork First, Block Size Hard Fork Later
Mycelium's Leo Wandersleb: Segregated Witness a Technical Necessity
Electrum Developer Thomas Voegtlin: Soft Fork Preferable for Political Reasons; Segregated Witness Highly Supportable
Core Developer, libbtc Library Maintainer and digitalbitbox Developer Jonas Schnelli: Segregated Witness is Less Than a Week of Work to Test and Deploy

Ermagherd!!!! Segwit is just too complex!!!!

why did it fork the test net? was it TOO simple?

Because someone on the testnet was running an old version. It was extremely easy to recognize and fix, and this is why we have a testnet.

re-read the links you post, some devs are quoted to be classic supports in there but they are willing to go along with segwit +2MB later, because it appears to be the faster option.
what does the ether kid think about this?
i feel your not being objective about this.

You're the one mischaracterizing all the evidence, and now I'm the one not being objective. Right.

I don't know what Vitalik thinks. You should know what many Core devs already think. And I've laid out for you what many other devs in the bitcoin space think.

I too support segwit, but i would rather play it safe with 2MB, and have little interest in moving TX off chain prematurely

Okay, well then your position is opposed to all the devs that think otherwise. Such is life.

[adamstgBit]

I too support segwit, but i would rather play it safe with 2MB, and have little interest in moving TX off chain prematurely

Okay, well then your position is opposed to all the devs that think otherwise. Such is life.

so its just me and Gavin then... everyone else rage-quit already?

[adamstgBit]

Core Developer, Jonas Schnelli: Segregated Witness is Less Than a Week of Work to Test and Deploy

posted nearly 2months ago.

what have they been doing all this time?

[johnyj]

Bitcoin -- like any engineering project -- requires very careful planning and execution.

You know that open source software is experimental, it does not guarantee anything, and it does not responsible for any financial loss caused by using it, so it does not necessary need careful planning and execution, just the community decide where it goes, called consensus, can lead to ruin any time, run it at your own risk

[exstasie]

I too support segwit, but i would rather play it safe with 2MB, and have little interest in moving TX off chain prematurely

Okay, well then your position is opposed to all the devs that think otherwise. Such is life.

so its just me and Gavin then... everyone else rage-quit already?

We're just patiently waiting for Gavin to rage quit.

[exstasie]

Core Developer, Jonas Schnelli: Segregated Witness is Less Than a Week of Work to Test and Deploy

posted nearly 2months ago.

what have they been doing all this time?

Coding and testing Segwit. Libsec, Core 0.12 optimizations. I'm not sure on the progress re IBLTs and weak blocks. Segwit was targeted for code ready in April....

[adamstgBit]

Bitcoin -- like any engineering project -- requires very careful planning and execution.

You know that open source software is experimental, it does not guarantee anything, and it does not responsible for any financial loss caused by using it, so it does not necessary need careful planning and execution, just the community decide where it goes, called consensus, can lead to ruin any time, run it at your own risk

i think we can all agree we should atleast TRY to processed carefully....

Core Developer, Jonas Schnelli: Segregated Witness is Less Than a Week of Work to Test and Deploy

posted nearly 2months ago.

what have they been doing all this time?

Coding and testing Segwit. Libsec, Core 0.12 optimizations. I'm not sure on the progress re IBLTs and weak blocks. Segwit was targeted for code ready in April....

so more then 2 weeks to Deploy

when programmers say "its relatively simple" i hear "very few human beings on earth understand this shit"
when programmers say "it shouldn't take more than 2 weeks"  i hear "We'll get beta running in 3 months and probably be working on this forever. "