Classic or Core? Which one is better?

[johnyj]

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

It seems so.  Just check this lecture by Dr. Johnson Lau, supposed to be an segwit teacher and is giving lectures about it.
https://www.bitcoinhk.org/bitcoin-lecture-series/episode-1-upgrading-bitcoin-segregated-witness

In this lecture, his explanation of bitcoin transaction is plainly wrong. So even a person giving lectures about segwit (with a Dr. degree) don't understand  segwit, how could you expect others understand anything about segwit? Yes, you just click one button and it installed!

[exstasie]

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

LOL. "Open source" means throw all caution to the wind, eh? Fair enough--that's Gavin's position. "It's just an experiment, who cares if we break it?" Which works for Gavin because he said all along he thinks Bitcoin is a payment channel, not a store of value, so he doesn't hold much if any.

It's always obvious who has invested real money into Bitcoin, and who hasn't, in these conversations. Well don't expect the rest of us to agree with your reckless proposals on the basis that you don't care whether it survives.

[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

LOL. "Open source" means throw all caution to the wind, eh? Fair enough--that's Gavin's position. "It's just an experiment, who cares if we break it?" Which works for Gavin because he said all along he thinks Bitcoin is a payment channel, not a store of value, so he doesn't hold much if any.

It's always obvious who has invested real money into Bitcoin, and who hasn't, in these conversations. Well don't expect the rest of us to agree with your reckless proposals on the basis that you don't care whether it survives.

" Gavin is as recklessness johnyj "
come on stop this BS....

[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

LOL. "Open source" means throw all caution to the wind, eh? Fair enough--that's Gavin's position. "It's just an experiment, who cares if we break it?" Which works for Gavin because he said all along he thinks Bitcoin is a payment channel, not a store of value, so he doesn't hold much if any.

It's always obvious who has invested real money into Bitcoin, and who hasn't, in these conversations. Well don't expect the rest of us to agree with your reckless proposals on the basis that you don't care whether it survives.

It means you have to responsible for your own decision making. If you think you are right by selecting core, and you lose money, it is your fault. So please do your research instead of blindly trust authorities, since none of the core devs is going to compensate your loss when bitcoin price crashes and they comfortably receive large pay checks from web wallet providers

[exstasie]

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

It seems so.  Just check this lecture by Dr. Johnson Lau, supposed to be an segwit teacher and is giving lectures about it.
https://www.bitcoinhk.org/bitcoin-lecture-series/episode-1-upgrading-bitcoin-segregated-witness

In this lecture, his explanation of bitcoin transaction is plainly wrong. So even a person giving lectures about segwit (with a Dr. degree) don't understand  segwit, how could you expect others understand anything about segwit?

Cool story. So you ignored all the developers quoted above explaining how it is not overly complex, and how easy it is to implement, and respond with that? Why don't you begin by explaining how he is wrong rather than using your unfounded opinion to claim that Segwit is overly complex?

[exstasie]

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

LOL. "Open source" means throw all caution to the wind, eh? Fair enough--that's Gavin's position. "It's just an experiment, who cares if we break it?" Which works for Gavin because he said all along he thinks Bitcoin is a payment channel, not a store of value, so he doesn't hold much if any.

It's always obvious who has invested real money into Bitcoin, and who hasn't, in these conversations. Well don't expect the rest of us to agree with your reckless proposals on the basis that you don't care whether it survives.

It means you have to responsible for your own decision making. If you think you are right by selecting core, and you lose money, it is your fault. So please do your research instead of blindly trust authorities, since none of the core devs is going to compensate your loss when bitcoin price crashes and they comfortably receive large pay checks from web wallet providers

WTF are you babbling about? Name one thing I've said that suggest I am blindly trusting anyone.... I'm well aware no one will compensate losses; I'm a goddamn day trader.

[adamstgBit]

“We support Gavin's proposal as we think it is important for Bitcoin's growth and development to get ahead of this hard cap before it is a problem. Many of us are already circumventing this by processing as many transactions as possible off the blockchain which makes Bitcoin more centralized, not less.”

[adamstgBit]

“I'm glad that Gavin has raised this issue and offered a concrete proposal. However, as discussed on the developers’ mailing list, everyone else seems to want gradual growth and not a single large-size step-increase. Coinkite does support a block size increase, although I'm not sure how urgent an issue it is. I feel personally, that 20 megabytes is too big in the short term.”

[johnyj]

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

It seems so.  Just check this lecture by Dr. Johnson Lau, supposed to be an segwit teacher and is giving lectures about it.
https://www.bitcoinhk.org/bitcoin-lecture-series/episode-1-upgrading-bitcoin-segregated-witness

In this lecture, his explanation of bitcoin transaction is plainly wrong. So even a person giving lectures about segwit (with a Dr. degree) don't understand  segwit, how could you expect others understand anything about segwit?

Cool story. So you ignored all the developers quoted above explaining how it is not overly complex, and how easy it is to implement, and respond with that? Why don't you begin by explaining how he is wrong rather than using your unfounded opinion to claim that Segwit is overly complex?

I don't have time to go into details, but quote Pieter's own word: "It pretty much changes every piece of software that has ever written for bitcoin"

Just a comparison:
Classic only changes block size limit from 1 to 2MB, nothing else
Segwit changes transaction, each transaction now consists of two parts, while one part is hidden to old nodes. Segwit also changes block structure, each block now become two blocks while one block is hidden to old nodes

If you don't understand what this indicates in terms of complexity, then you don't need to look further into segwit, you will spend years without understanding it

[exstasie]

All you've done is parroted the "Segwit is more complex than 2mb" line. So what? Apparently most wallet devs and library maintainers don't see it as an issue at all. So, why is that an issue?

[adamstgBit]

the segwit pull request is bigger than all other pull request posted for the past 2 years combined

thats the word on the street anyway.

[exstasie]

the segwit pull request is bigger than all other pull request posted for the past 2 years combined

thats the word on the street anyway.

Oh no! Someone call Gavin! Lines of code too scary for the Bitco.in crowd! Must stick to "solutions" that don't even attempt to scale the network!

[jak1]

 Classic and Core, both of them are good. If you are using Core, you should stick to it. Thats what i recommend.
In the long Run, both will be equally better and important.

[johnyj]

the segwit pull request is bigger than all other pull request posted for the past 2 years combined

thats the word on the street anyway.

Oh no! Someone call Gavin! Lines of code too scary for the Bitco.in crowd! Must stick to "solutions" that don't even attempt to scale the network!

Just raise the block size to 32MB and stop all the future changes, bitcoin will be as good as platinum for at least a decade

I like Jeff's approach, at this stage, any large change to the protocol is extremely dangerous, should just switch the focus to how to build on it instead of changing the protocol

[adamstgBit]

Classic and Core, both of them are good. If you are using Core, you should stick to it. Thats what i recommend.
In the long Run, both will be equally better and important.

in the long run both will adhere to the same protocol (what ever that happens to be 2MB blocks or segwit-ed blocks).

there will be no forking off.

[adamstgBit]

the segwit pull request is bigger than all other pull request posted for the past 2 years combined

thats the word on the street anyway.

Oh no! Someone call Gavin! Lines of code too scary for the Bitco.in crowd! Must stick to "solutions" that don't even attempt to scale the network!

.... i find it silly to say that 2MB block aka doubling capacity has no scaling effect.

what you mean is it doesn't open the door for the Lighting network. ( another 5billion line scary monster of a system )

you can send to TX to the payment chancel and its good for ever or untill the time is up, once the time is up the chancel gets close and if you have R you can broadcast it to blueberry pie network which will relay that cmd to the 100000 PHs bitcoin miners, because the miners operate on 0 knowledge proofs they process the TX for a small fee.
hahaha sorry, ignore that last part.

[David Rabahy]

Perception is reality.  Bitcoin would do better to present a united and polished marketing message.  I see value in Segwit (for goodness sakes get it freakin' right; oh and hurry up).  I see value in a larger block size limit *before* it becomes a crisis.  It really isn't Core vs. Classic, etc., that matters.  Rather, what matters is creating a perception that Bitcoin is healthy and moving in a desirable direction.

I run a full node.  So far I have alternated between Core and Classic and am interested in running Unlimited at least for awhile.  Is there *any* sense in running more than one at the same time?

[Vod]

I support the Classic Bitcoin - Bitcoin Core.  (Who came up with these names??)

To me, the transaction block is like Uber Surge Pricing.  If you want to use Bitcoin when it's busy, prepare to pay a higher transaction fee to get inserted into the block.

"Eliminate bank fees!" is no longer a rallying cry for Bitcoin.  If the value and popularity continues to rise, soon it will cost considerably more to make a bitcoin transaction than an online money transfer.

[adamstgBit]

Perception is reality.  Bitcoin would do better to present a united and polished marketing message.  I see value in Segwit (for goodness sakes get it freakin' right; oh and hurry up).  I see value in a larger block size limit *before* it becomes a crisis.  It really isn't Core vs. Classic, etc., that matters.  Rather, what matters is creating a perception that Bitcoin is healthy and moving in a desirable direction.

I run a full node.  So far I have alternated between Core and Classic and am interested in running Unlimited at least for awhile.  Is there *any* sense in running more than one at the same time?

is it up to us users ( who feel strongly about 2MB or segwit or core or classic or offchain or onchain, without really knowing the code ) to deliver this united and polished marketing message?

[adamstgBit]

I support the Classic Bitcoin - Bitcoin Core.  (Who came up with these names??)

i think the idea of naming bitcoin classic  "classic" is because its more inline with what the creator envisioned as the scaling method ( bigger blocks leading to higher node costs )

so we could say this bigger block idea is the "classical method"

core's second layer is the modern method