Classic or Core? Which one is better?

[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?

is it up to us users ( how 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?

If not us then who?

[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 ( how 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?

If not us then who?

ya i get that...

but we are hardly in a posisiton to come up with a united and polished marketing message.
we all have such different views.
and poeple are rage quitting left and right.

i mean look at this.

[David Rabahy]

Many of the postings here and elsewhere are viewed by folks trying to take the pulse of Bitcoin.  They turn around and write blogs or articles for various news outlets.  They can't always tell (or don't care to) which postings represent the real action.  Controversy makes for exciting news.  If they see calm thoughtful debate then they will get the sense that Bitcoin is moving in a good direction.  Compromise, collaboration; these are the tools we can use to forge a positive attitude toward Bitcoin.

[adamstgBit]

Many of the postings here and elsewhere are viewed by folks trying to take the pulse of Bitcoin.  They turn around and write blogs or articles for various news outlets.  They can't always tell (or don't care to) which postings represent the real action.  Controversy makes for exciting news.  If they see calm thoughtful debate then they will get the sense that Bitcoin is moving in a good direction.  Compromise, collaboration; these are the tools we can use to forge a positive attitude toward Bitcoin.

i like Controversy.

i put forth wild ideas  ( MEGA BLOCKS ) so we can have a crazy discussion .

should i stop and try and be more sensible / agreeable ?

[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!

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

Look up the word "scalability" and explain how adding throughout with no scaling mechanism scales anything.

[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!

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

Only if the network is reduced to your 100-economically important node model. I.e. Complete centralization

[David Rabahy]

Would it kill us to just *announce* an intent to release a version with 2MB (or even just 1.1MB) block size limit?

Would it kill us to reveal some of the development and testing details showing the readiness of Segwit for primetime?  What is our contingency plan if the deployment is less than perfect?

Rage quitting is a clear sign of people not being heard/appreciated.  Passion is undeniable/desirable but *before* it comes to a boil, everyone should take a moment to argue the other side to demonstrate we all want Bitcoin to succeed.  Hmm, unless that isn't true; who in here wants Bitcoin to fail?  Disruptors.  Those unwilling to compromise for the greater good.  Those who argue/believe they are right and anyone not agreeing/adhering can't possibly have understood.

I, for one, will try my very best to understand.  I will not stick to one and only one approach to the exclusion of all others.  I will do what I can to help the Bitcoin marketing messages be effective.

[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.

Look up the word "scalability" and explain how adding throughout with no scaling mechanism scales anything.

"Scalability is the capability of a system, network, or process to handle a growing amount of work"

ok so right now we can handle ~3TPS ( about the same as TX demand  today)
with 2MB blocks we can handle ~6TPS ( about twice the TX demand today )

I sorta get what you mean

i guess thin blocks would be an example of adding "scalability" in your very strict terms

[David Rabahy]

Many of the postings here and elsewhere are viewed by folks trying to take the pulse of Bitcoin.  They turn around and write blogs or articles for various news outlets.  They can't always tell (or don't care to) which postings represent the real action.  Controversy makes for exciting news.  If they see calm thoughtful debate then they will get the sense that Bitcoin is moving in a good direction.  Compromise, collaboration; these are the tools we can use to forge a positive attitude toward Bitcoin.

i like Controversy.

i put forth wild ideas  ( MEGA BLOCKS ) so we can have a crazy discussion .

should i stop and try and be more sensible / agreeable ?

Keep those ideas flowing.  There could be a winner in it.  Be prepared to be dismissed/ignored but if you see potential value then for goodness sakes get it out.  Take each protest to your ideas seriously; argue *for* that protest as if it were yours; own it.  If you are seen as the strongest debater against your idea and still it comes out on top then you will be respected.

It is much less about being agreeable and more about being collaborative.

[adamstgBit]

Many of the postings here and elsewhere are viewed by folks trying to take the pulse of Bitcoin.  They turn around and write blogs or articles for various news outlets.  They can't always tell (or don't care to) which postings represent the real action.  Controversy makes for exciting news.  If they see calm thoughtful debate then they will get the sense that Bitcoin is moving in a good direction.  Compromise, collaboration; these are the tools we can use to forge a positive attitude toward Bitcoin.

i like Controversy.

i put forth wild ideas  ( MEGA BLOCKS ) so we can have a crazy discussion .

should i stop and try and be more sensible / agreeable ?

Keep those ideas flowing.  There could be a winner in it.  Be prepared to be dismissed/ignored but if you see potential value then for goodness sakes get it out.  Take each protest to your ideas seriously; argue *for* that protest as if it were yours; own it.  If you are seen as the strongest debater against your idea and still it comes out on top then you will be respected.

It is much less about being agreeable and more about being collaborative.

once they realize your argument is strong, they start to ridicule you by twisting your words, semantics....

i like what your saying

you'd probaly find that https://bitco.in/forum is a much more hosiptiable place.

[David Rabahy]

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.

Look up the word "scalability" and explain how adding throughout with no scaling mechanism scales anything.

"Scalability is the capability of a system, network, or process to handle a growing amount of work"

ok so right now we can handle ~3TPS ( about the same as TX demand  today)
with 2MB blocks we can handle ~6TPS ( about twice the TX demand today )

I sorta get what you mean

i guess thin blocks would be an example of adding "scalability" in your very strict terms

If only all transactions were the same.  One transaction might be small, another huge.  The 1MB block size limit acts to constrain huge transactions.  Increasing the block size limit let's larger transactions through.  That might be ok *if* the huge transactions scaled.

Suppose a small transaction has 2 inputs and takes only a microsecond to verify.  Put 2000 of these into a block.  2000 * 1us = 2000us = 2ms.  Easy.  No problem.  Double the block size limit and we can jam 4000 of these bad boys into a block and still the processing time is only 4000 * 1us = 4000us = 4ms.  Heck, my smart phone could do that.

Now suppose a large transaction has 4000 inputs (just right to fill the original block).  How long will it take to verify?  4000/2 * 1us = 2000us = 2ms, right?  Wrong.  For some reason I don't understand yet, apparently it takes (4000/2)² * 1us = 4000000us = 4000ms = 4s.  Ok, yuk, but that's still doable.  Oh yeah, we want to double the block size.  Great, we are given an 8000 input transaction beast.  What's it take to verify it?  (8000/2)² * 1us = 16000000us = 16000ms = 16s.  Ouchie.

We must give up on simple views of "scaling".  1MB gives us 3TPS (maybe).  2MB will give us 6TPS (maybe).  It might if all we ever pack in there are small 2 input transactions.

[adamstgBit]

my final thought on the matter of Core or classic is that, they are BOTH right!

and we should let the free market find the perfect equilibrium between the two schools of thought.

like so:

miners have incentives to keep blocks small
users have incentives to go offchain ( once such a solution is available )
why not remove block limit altogether, code the second layer, and watch the free market come to its own preferred equilibrium!

[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.

Look up the word "scalability" and explain how adding throughout with no scaling mechanism scales anything.

"Scalability is the capability of a system, network, or process to handle a growing amount of work"

ok so right now we can handle ~3TPS ( about the same as TX demand  today)
with 2MB blocks we can handle ~6TPS ( about twice the TX demand today )

I sorta get what you mean

i guess thin blocks would be an example of adding "scalability" in your very strict terms

If only all transactions were the same.  One transaction might be small, another huge.  The 1MB block size limit acts to constrain huge transactions.  Increasing the block size limit let's larger transactions through.  That might be ok *if* the huge transactions scaled.

Suppose a small transaction has 2 inputs and takes only a microsecond to verify.  Put 2000 of these into a block.  2000 * 1us = 2000us = 2ms.  Easy.  No problem.  Double the block size limit and we can jam 4000 of these bad boys into a block and still the processing time is only 4000 * 1us = 4000us = 4ms.  Heck, my smart phone could do that.

Now suppose a large transaction has 4000 inputs (just right to fill the original block).  How long will it take to verify?  4000/2 * 1us = 2000us = 2ms, right?  Wrong.  For some reason I don't understand yet, apparently it takes (4000/2)² * 1us = 4000000us = 4000ms = 4s.  Ok, yuk, but that's still doable.  Oh yeah, we want to double the block size.  Great, we are given an 8000 input transaction beast.  What's it take to verify it?  (8000/2)² * 1us = 16000000us = 16000ms = 16s.  Ouchie.

We must give up on simple views of "scaling".  1MB gives us 3TPS (maybe).  2MB will give us 6TPS (maybe).  It might if all we ever pack in there are small 2 input transactions.

segwit solves this very neatly. it removes the quadratic effect, idk how it does but it makes it linear

a short term solution to this is simply not allow a TX with 5000inputs until segwit is ready.

segwit is cool, i like it, i just dont like how its rushed, and how its passed off as the be all end all for blocklimit debate, i still think we need to bump the limit.

[David Rabahy]

my final thought on the matter of Core or classic is that, they are BOTH right!

and we should let the free market find the perfect equilibrium between the two schools of thought.

like so:

miners have incentives to keep blocks small
users have incentives to go offchain ( once such a solution is available )
why not remove block limit altogether, code the second layer, and watch the free market come to its own preferred equilibrium!

Some miners *might* want to keep blocks small but I just bet they mostly want to make money.  Can they make more money with small blocks and higher fees *or* bigger blocks and smaller fees?  My gut tells me the more people in Bitcoin the better.  One of the original selling points of Bitcoin was low/zero fees.  Are those days truly gone now forever?  If so then we need to reset expectations to avoid disappointment.  If low/zero fees are so compelling then some folks might gravitate to altcoins.

I am a user and do use existing offchain solutions already.  My brain (or sometimes a piece of paper).  My son and I just keep track (roughly) in our heads how much we owe each other; I buy the ski lift tickets; he buys lunch; ...; eventually we settle on chain.

I, for one, wouldn't mind removing the block size limit (well, there will certainly be some practical limit) *but* we absolutely have to address the quadratic scaling topic first.

[David Rabahy]

segwit solves this very neatly. it removes the quadratic effect, idk how it does but it makes it linear

a short term solution to this is simply not allow a TX with 5000inputs until segwit is ready.

segwit is cool, i like it, i just dont like how its rushed, and how its passed off as the be all end all for blocklimit debate, i still think we need to bump the limit.

I do wish I could get a handle on how Segwit pulls this off.

I *really* like limiting inputs.  It is very easy to defragment your wallet in small steps to avoid needing a ton of inputs.

[adamstgBit]

my final thought on the matter of Core or classic is that, they are BOTH right!

and we should let the free market find the perfect equilibrium between the two schools of thought.

like so:

miners have incentives to keep blocks small
users have incentives to go offchain ( once such a solution is available )
why not remove block limit altogether, code the second layer, and watch the free market come to its own preferred equilibrium!

Some miners *might* want to keep blocks small but I just bet they mostly want to make money.  Can they make more money with small blocks and higher fees *or* bigger blocks and smaller fees?  My gut tells me the more people in Bitcoin the better.  One of the original selling points of Bitcoin was low/zero fees.  Are those days truly gone now forever?  If so then we need to reset expectations to avoid disappointment.  If low/zero fees are so compelling then some folks might gravitate to altcoins.

I am a user and do use existing offchain solutions already.  My brain (or sometimes a piece of paper).  My son and I just keep track (roughly) in our heads how much we owe each other; I buy the ski lift tickets; he buys lunch; ...; eventually we settle on chain.

I, for one, wouldn't mind removing the block size limit (well, there will certainly be some practical limit) *but* we absolutely have to address the quadratic scaling topic first.

i guess you dont like the dirty code of just simply forbiding TX with >5000inputs ( understandable ) we will probably get segwit soon in any case, so soon it'll be a non-issue.

if a miner made a 1GB block it would get orphaned so fast it wouldn't be funny.

here's a better description of why miners have strong incentives to not make a big block.

http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/resources/feemarket.pdf
i prefer the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad0Pjj_ms2k
skip 6:00min in for the meat

so again , provided segwit removes the quadratic scaling problem, why not remove block limit altogether, code the second layer, and watch the free market come to its own preferred equilibrium!

[MFahad]

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.

If both of them are same in the future, would it will be better to combine the feature of both .
Means both of them using the same protocol and same block size.
It will be better.

[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.

If both of them are same in the future, would it will be better to combine the feature of both .
Means both of them using the same protocol and same block size.
It will be better.

right now they are both pushing very different things.
2MB vs segwit
right now it looks like core will win with segwit.

but let's say in 3 months segwit is not ready and still no where near ready
miners might get fed up and go with classic.
core will have no choice but to go alone with this, but they will still work on segwit and it will probably still be accepted by miners onces its ready.
so you might be right they might get combined.
its up to the miners to pick and chose which feathers they want and when they want them
core and classic only make suggestions.
competing implementations dont just drop dead when one wins over the other. and they dont fork off, they adhere to the new protocol and keep going.

[nagatraju]

I think we need to be continue with Core. If we support third party wallet/block chain, Bitcoin becomes Altcoin.

[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!

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

Look up the word "scalability" and explain how adding throughout with no scaling mechanism scales anything.

"Scalability is the capability of a system, network, or process to handle a growing amount of work"

ok so right now we can handle ~3TPS ( about the same as TX demand  today)
with 2MB blocks we can handle ~6TPS ( about twice the TX demand today )

I sorta get what you mean

i guess thin blocks would be an example of adding "scalability" in your very strict terms

It's not really strict terms, it's just general engineering principle. When you increase system load and therefore make a security tradeoff, you look at the costs and you try to mitigate them to optimize the system to handle that load. Rather than simply allowing it to grow endlessly while degrading network performance. So the biggest bottleneck is relay and secondly bandwidth.

Thin blocks is a good premise, I'd like to see it adequately tested. Unfortunately the BU team is very limited in developers and resources and I'm not convinced any of their code is sufficiently regression tested. It also doesn't seem clear yet that it would be an adequate replacement for the relay network. But yes, that is the idea -- closing relay bottlenecks which especially hurt smaller miners as load increases. Core has already addressed a lot of the non-relay bandwidth issues (blocksonly, upload throttling, wallet pruning) in 0.12, so I'm less concerned about that in the immediate term.