Classic or Core? Which one is better?

[Bubble Dreams]

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.

Vod gets it. Vod is God.

[1Referee]

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

Of course we should stick with Bitcoin Core, if something other than Core is winning this nonsense battle, then these battles will happen over and over again in the future.

Look for example at countries in the middle east. When a dictator is forced out, people are happy for a while, but then they will force the new dictator/president out once again. Why? Because they can. Nothing stops them.

That's why it is very important to show support for the current Core client. Blocks will get bigger, just have some patience. People shouldn't let shills and fud trolls cause the community to split up in various groups. We are 1 community.

[Lauda]

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

If they didn't matter, there would be no Classic. This was always about power because if you ask each developer individually you are going to be left with Gavin and Garzik in favor of a 2 MB block size limit and everyone else being against it.

Many of the postings here and elsewhere are viewed by folks trying to take the pulse of Bitcoin.  

People who want to fork are trying to change Bitcoin.

but let's say in 3 months segwit is not ready and still no where near ready

If the people who are working on Classic had decent skills they'd help out with Segwit, but they don't. Segwit is nearing completion, however it should not be rushed.

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

Why would anyone waste time trying to do this?

[exstasie]

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

Of course we should stick with Bitcoin Core, if something other than Core is winning this nonsense battle, then these battles will happen over and over again in the future.

Look for example at countries in the middle east. When a dictator is forced out, people are happy for a while, but then they will force the new dictator/president out once again. Why? Because they can. Nothing stops them.

That's why it is very important to show support for the current Core client. Blocks will get bigger, just have some patience. People shouldn't let shills and fud trolls cause the community to split up in various groups. We are 1 community.

Yup, the forkers already disagree amongst themselves on the way forward. They are uniting for the moment behind 2MB in an attempt to take over control of the repo, but this would quickly devolve once they no longer have a common enemy. A lot of XT/Classic supporters don't support a 2MB limit at all, and BU supporters don't support any limit (maybe 16 or 32MB by default); BU nodes can (and will) even fork off from one another since each individual user can throttle their own maxblocksize. ie if there is any further disagreement on maxblocksize then BU will always allow a new fork to emerge for every different maxblocksize implemented. The whole premise of their client is to break consensus and form a second fork for every node that enforces a different maxblocksize. It's pure insanity but hey, forkers gonna fork.

[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

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

This has been said several hundred times: Nodes set their own block size limit depends on their preference, and so far they never set a limit higher than they consider safe, some miners even mine empty blocks, so the block size is totally irrelevant, it just a political tool for Blockstream devs to push their business solution, which are pegged alt-coin and pre-paid card model which have been abandoned by industry years ago

[johnyj]

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

Of course we should stick with Bitcoin Core, if something other than Core is winning this nonsense battle, then these battles will happen over and over again in the future.

Look for example at countries in the middle east. When a dictator is forced out, people are happy for a while, but then they will force the new dictator/president out once again. Why? Because they can. Nothing stops them.

That's why it is very important to show support for the current Core client. Blocks will get bigger, just have some patience. People shouldn't let shills and fud trolls cause the community to split up in various groups. We are 1 community.

It seems the core brand is so magic that makes people worshiping it. I foresee many bitcoin core coming up in the following months: The bitcoin Core, Core bitcoin, real bitcoin core, satoshi bitcoin core, bitcoin core SE, bitcoin core 2 ... Some of them might be a registered trademark by some banks 

[RussiaCoinDotInfo]

Will there be a day when the two wallet formats go their own seperate way one forking from the other and they no longer are interchangeable?

[shorena]

-snip-
i mean look at this.

Source?

[exstasie]

This has been said several hundred times: Nodes set their own block size limit depends on their preference, and so far they never set a limit higher than they consider safe

Rational =/= safe. Businesses act rationally; they go bankrupt all the time. And that's giving some leeway as to what constitutes "rational."

some miners even mine empty blocks, so the block size is totally irrelevant

What does SPV mining (to cut out idle mining time before validating) have to do with block size? Any rational miner would include the fees in their block if they had validated the prior one. SPV miners, due to shitty hardware and code, don't validate.

it just a political tool for Blockstream devs to push their business solution which are pegged alt-coin and pre-paid card model which have been abandoned by industry years ago

Please go ahead and describe exactly how this model works. Since it sounds so absurd, the burden is on you to explain it.

[Lauda]

Source?

IIRC it was from some pool. However, one would have to validate this himself as people tend to use such charts for manipulation. You can see this clearly as there is zero indication of what this chart actually represents.

It seems the core brand is so magic that makes people worshiping it. I foresee many bitcoin core coming up in the following months: The bitcoin Core, Core bitcoin, real bitcoin core, satoshi bitcoin core, bitcoin core SE, bitcoin core 2 ... Some of them might be a registered trademark by some banks  

Yeah, you have no valid arguments then you try to reduce things to nonsense. Quite obvious.

[shorena]

Source?

IIRC it was from some pool. However, one would have to validate this himself as people tend to use such charts for manipulation. You can see this clearly as there is zero indication of what this chart represents.

Looks like some sort of votes, hence Id like to see a source to see if there is anything behind it or if its just like a poll here.

[Jet Cash]

Some people seem to believe that increasing the blocksize will increase the number of orphans, and make it harder for small miners to compete. Add this to the reward halving, and it would seem to lead to mining centralisation. Would this take Bitcoin down the same track as US ISPs. The US used to be number 1 in the world ranking for Internet services. Centralisation has increased costs and pushed them down to number 26.

[johnyj]

It seems the core brand is so magic that makes people worshiping it. I foresee many bitcoin core coming up in the following months: The bitcoin Core, Core bitcoin, real bitcoin core, satoshi bitcoin core, bitcoin core SE, bitcoin core 2 ... Some of them might be a registered trademark by some banks  

Yeah, you have no valid arguments then you try to reduce things to nonsense. Quite obvious.

I found out that people here are much more IT illiterate than it appears, they even think programmers are magicians, so this trick will also work

[adamstgBit]

Some people seem to believe that increasing the blocksize will increase the number of orphans, and make it harder for small miners to compete.

it will most likely increase orphan rate.

but ALL miners will be subject to this mild incress in orphan rate. ( smaller solo miners simply do not exist, on one is going to run a small mining rig for 100 years in hope of solving a block on there own.)

but thin blocks might largely solve this orphan rate issue, it should incress block propagation time by about 100X.

[johnyj]

This has been said several hundred times: Nodes set their own block size limit depends on their preference, and so far they never set a limit higher than they consider safe

Rational =/= safe. Businesses act rationally; they go bankrupt all the time. And that's giving some leeway as to what constitutes "rational."

There is no safe call when you are trying to predict future, especially when your only tool is science. Remember LTCM? A group of Nobel price winner scientists trying to make a hit in financial world and their mathematical model totally collapsed and they even need FED to rescue

Progammers should learn risk management and gaming theory before they even start to make arbitrary decisions to predict economy events

A good example is the fee market prediction: Devs predict that when blocks are full, people will raise the fee, but the reality is, when blocks become full, people go to other cryptocurrencies, from gaming theory point of view, users are not stupid to be manipulated by devs' price control

it just a political tool for Blockstream devs to push their business solution which are pegged alt-coin and pre-paid card model which have been abandoned by industry years ago

Please go ahead and describe exactly how this model works. Since it sounds so absurd, the burden is on you to explain it.

Why is it absurd? They are facts. If you don't understand, then you better don't use bitcoin, you will lose money if you are gambling on some concept that you don't understand

[Abiky]

-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

I guess you are right. In fact, I think I will have some nodes with Classic and Core as well for testing purposes. I will be running each in testnet to test some BTC apps. As for Seg Wit, I have found it very interesting since it proposes to fix transaction malleability issues. 

[exstasie]

This has been said several hundred times: Nodes set their own block size limit depends on their preference, and so far they never set a limit higher than they consider safe

Rational =/= safe. Businesses act rationally; they go bankrupt all the time. And that's giving some leeway as to what constitutes "rational."

There is no safe call when you are trying to predict future, especially when your only tool is science. Remember LTCM? A group of Nobel price winner scientists trying to make a hit in financial world and their mathematical model totally collapsed and they even need FED to rescue

Progammers should learn risk management and gaming theory before they even start to make arbitrary decisions to predict economy events

A good example is the fee market prediction: Devs predict that when blocks are full, people will raise the fee, but the reality is, when blocks become full, people go to other cryptocurrencies, from gaming theory point of view, users are not stupid to be manipulated by devs' price control

Game theory is exactly the issue--and you have failed to present any argument that remotely proves your argument from game theory perspective. What possible evidence do you have that full blocks cause people go to other cryptocurrencies? What possible causal evidence could you provide for human motives in that case? Nothing because you apparently don't know fucking shit about how logic and scientific evidence work.

What evidence do we have that when blocks are full, people raise the fee? Because....that's what happens. Recall any dust spam attack or "stress test", or any time when there is a long delay between blocks (1+ hour), and see that the optimal fee to get confirmed goes up.

If you are suggesting that alts like ETH are taking over the market cap? Well, all of their volume is traded in BTC at Poloniex. LOL. You think that is "new money" that is "not from bitcoiners" and that "this money won't ever flow back into bitcoin?".... If so then I'm afraid you weren't paying attention to the altcoin craze in 2014, while bitcoin drifted into a miserable longterm downtrend.

Your whole argument is BS. Trying to compare bitcoin to a failed mathematical model based on zero evidence? Great. I know people like you (and Gavin) are happy to break the system in any way because "it's an experiment" but don't be surprised that investors may disagree.

it just a political tool for Blockstream devs to push their business solution which are pegged alt-coin and pre-paid card model which have been abandoned by industry years ago

Please go ahead and describe exactly how this model works. Since it sounds so absurd, the burden is on you to explain it.

Why is it absurd? They are facts. If you don't understand, then you better don't use bitcoin, you will lose money if you are gambling on some concept that you don't understand

Facts? They sound like meaningless opinions. Point to the sources and explain exactly what "Blockstream's business solution" is. If you're referring to LN (which Blockstream has no ownership of)...explain how LN = "pegged alt-coin and pre-paid card model" when its premise is bitcoin payment channels that are enforceable with smart contracts, where the state of any payment channel can be committed to the blockchain at any time when a participant seeks to close it, contract timelock, etc.

You're whole "I'm too fucking stupid to understand bitcoin and I refuse to explain myself" approach is pathetic, I'm sorry to say it.

[coin_gambler]

for me classic is better because they want to increase the block size of bitcoin as soon as possible and i like this idea

[johnyj]

Facts? They sound like meaningless opinions. Point to the sources and explain exactly what "Blockstream's business solution" is. If you're referring to LN (which Blockstream has no ownership of)...explain how LN = "pegged alt-coin and pre-paid card model" when its premise is bitcoin payment channels that are enforceable with smart contracts, where the state of any payment channel can be committed to the blockchain at any time when a participant seeks to close it, contract timelock, etc.

Did I say LN =  "pegged alt-coin and pre-paid card model"? Your reply already indicated that your level of understanding for core proposed solution is almost zero, trust core devs and hope for the best is your approach

[exstasie]

Facts? They sound like meaningless opinions. Point to the sources and explain exactly what "Blockstream's business solution" is. If you're referring to LN (which Blockstream has no ownership of)...explain how LN = "pegged alt-coin and pre-paid card model" when its premise is bitcoin payment channels that are enforceable with smart contracts, where the state of any payment channel can be committed to the blockchain at any time when a participant seeks to close it, contract timelock, etc.

Did I say LN =  "pegged alt-coin and pre-paid card model"? Your reply already indicated that your level of understanding for core proposed solution is almost zero, trust core devs and hope for the best is your approach

I said "If you're referring to LN" because you referred to "Blockstream's business solution" without any mention of what that is, except that "it is a pegged alt-coin and pre-paid card model."

So again, what is Blockstream's business solution, which you referred to?

If you are going to insult someone and suggest their understanding is insufficient, go ahead and prove it. You only make yourself look fucking retarded for suggesting it, when it's quite clear that you have no idea about the shit you talk about...