Classic or Core? Which one is better?

[adamstgBit]

we should at least TRY not insult the fucking shit out of each other.   
brg444 is the biggest ashole on the fourms
lets just leave it at that.

[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

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...

I only insult those who insult first, this is also part of the basic knowledge in gaming theory, multiple games

[Bitcoinpro]

thread title has been reorted to mods for

causing disambiguation of the name

core which has already been reserved

[Lauda]

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

Your replies show that you are completely clueless and just rambling because of unknown (to us) reasons. Instead of bashing the people who have worked hard to improve Bitcoin over the years, how about presenting valid arguments? The Blockstream propaganda has no basis.

brg444 is the biggest ashole on the fourms
lets just leave it at that.

Not really, no.

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

Both Classic and the idea behind it is horrible. If you want to damage Bitcoin then that is the way to go.

[Omegasun]

For me, if there is no block size increase (SegWit) after May this year, I will use Classic instead of Core.

[hv_]

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

Yep. And my vote is to let this be done by Classic AND Core together. This is just a tiny compromis and saves the BTC heaven!

... KINDERGARTEN....!

Hope that does not need a convincing sharp price drop just to learn that.

[hv_]

... And this might be the best plan ( I d do so..)  to cash in by investing 50 mio $:

First bring all BTCoiners into big trouble by technobubble, than buy coins cheap once market reacts and finally invent nice joining-all soultion and be the hero and no techno is needed at all.

Happy days!

[salmanahmedone]

Classic or Core . Be same more or less

[Lauda]

For me, if there is no block size increase (SegWit) after May this year, I will use Classic instead of Core.

So you're saying if Segwit does not get activated within this year you will switch to Classic? That's more than enough time to get it activated.

Classic or Core . Be same more or less

They're very different.

First bring all BTCoiners into big trouble by technobubble, than buy coins cheap once market reacts and finally invent nice joining-all soultion and be the hero and no techno is needed at all.

One has to love the conspiracy theories, right?
Update:

Could you pls help out?

Not really.

[hv_]

First bring all BTCoiners into big trouble by technobubble, than buy coins cheap once market reacts and finally invent nice joining-all soultion and be the hero and no techno is needed at all.

One has to love the conspiracy theories, right?

I felt more searching for an proper scenario how this invemstment could pay back after this big dispute here and some just called to leave or worse not join BTC, but failed, sorry for that. Could you pls help out?

[Lauda]

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.

I've found it. It is a chart representing the votes from Slush (outdated version of it)[1]. Currently it looks like this:

To clarify, there is barely any support for Classic. The chart was originally just used to try and to manipulate others into believing that there is strong support behind the contentious HF.
[1] Source - https://slushpool.com/stats/#voting-results

[shorena]

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.

I've found it. It is a chart representing the votes from Slush (outdated version of it)[1]. Currently it looks like this:

To clarify, there is barely any support for Classic. The chart was originally just used to try and to manipulate others into believing that there is strong support behind the contentious HF.
[1] Source - https://slushpool.com/stats/#voting-results

Thanks, very interesting. I wouldnt call support for classic barely existing. Similar as with the nodes, if you remove those that have not made an active decision (not voted, not updated node software) core and classic are very close.

[Lauda]

Thanks, very interesting. Similar as with the nodes, if you remove those that have not made an active decision (not voted, not updated node software) core and classic are very close.

I would not label nodes that have not updated to "don't care". There could be plenty of reasons for one not to update in X amount of time. That being said, if you are still running 0.11.x you are in support of Core. If you weren't, you would change the software.

I wouldnt call support for classic barely existing.

I would, especially if you read analyses like this one: A date with Sybil.

808 nodes for a maximum of 213 supporters

[adamstgBit]

808 nodes for a maximum of 213 supporters

we are voting with our money.

[RealPhotoshoper]

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

yeah me too,not interest of this debate because i'm not miner but can you explain to me what definetly of Unlimited that support by you?
tell me the detail and dont tell me that was joke

[shorena]

Thanks, very interesting. Similar as with the nodes, if you remove those that have not made an active decision (not voted, not updated node software) core and classic are very close.

I would not label nodes that have not updated to "don't care". There could be plenty of reasons for one not to update in X amount of time. That being said, if you are still running 0.11.x you are in support of Core. If you weren't, you would change the software.

I wouldnt call support for classic barely existing.

I would, especially if you read analyses like this one: A date with Sybil.

808 nodes for a maximum of 213 supporters

Nodes are less important than hash power. You cant reasonably imply a choice for those that did not make one. Its more reasonable to assume that those still running old software either have no idea whats going on (uninformed) or dont care (uninterested). The uninformed and uninterested installed their software when there was no choice (ignoring XT here) to make.

[adamstgBit]

Classic or Core . Be same more or less

there nearly identical.
2MB HF is offered by both sides
only diff is its a year away with core
the only real difference with core and classic is philosophical.
classic want to keep block growth ahead of transactional demand to keep the fee market without an much of an artificial pressure.
we will have segwit and a second layer with classic too, but we'll keep the blockchain as frictionless money as well.

[adamstgBit]

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

yeah me too,not interest of this debate because i'm not miner but can you explain to me what definetly of Unlimited that support by you?
tell me the detail and dont tell me that was joke

i like they're  "free the market free the blockchain" philosophy ( if that make any sense )
i believe there are significant incentives for miner not to create blocks that are TOO big, there no reason to limit anything.
also i think the work with thin blocks is awesome and proves to me they are serious devs.

[ATguy]

Its more reasonable to assume that those still running old software either have no idea whats going on (uninformed) or dont care (uninterested). The uninformed and uninterested installed their software when there was no choice (ignoring XT here) to make.

It just shows Bitcoin is slowly moving from centralized development to decentralized one. Ideally there should be at least 3 popular implementations with no one having over 50% nodes or hashpower, this would mean finally real competetion and increased inovation for Bitcoin.

[iCEBREAKER]

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

Yes, it would kill Bitcoin to reward the whining of the rage-quit brigade.  Thanks for asking!