Incentives for Core, Classic, XT and Unlimited

[spinner52]

First of all, sorry for spamming the forum, hope you don't get too much of this.


I'm doing a paper on the incentives and reasons why users use Bitcoins. It's 7 multiple choice questions, takes a minute to complete: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1QUxwovU7dT5WMk_Gxy_tNG3dYdldOVS3KHVlBg3IgZ8/viewform


Would really appreciate if you have the time for it and thank you in advance!


The final report is in English. Be happy to post it or the results of the poll if requested.

[Lauda]

I've just completed the form on a virtual Linux machine. The questions are definitely very simple and it takes very little time to answer them. Hopefully you know that the 4 implementations in the first question are very different. Core is the main implementation, XT is dead, Classic is dying and BU has some people behind it (although a very low number nodes). I do like how the questions involved the central banks and fractional reserve banking which is one of the main reasons to opt into Bitcoin.

[thejaytiesto]

Core is the only way to go because in Core the devs have demonstrated that they can came up with real solutions, and their conservative approach is desired in the crypto space where everyone wants to innovate and scale at all costs (see ETH disaster).

[spinner52]

No, I was actually not aware that Classic were dying, and that XT was already dead.. Surprised by that.. As a non-user BU seems to take some very radical steps compared to classic and xt.

Core is the only way to go because in Core the devs have demonstrated that they can came up with real solutions, and their conservative approach is desired in the crypto space where everyone wants to innovate and scale at all costs (see ETH disaster).

Not to start a blocksize debate here, but I got the impression that the general view amongst users was that Core devs was too conservative.

[Amph]

by how the thing are going, bitcoin right now is not even so good about tx fee, they are becomign more and more expensive, if you don't want to be delayed indefinitely

i'm with core but somethign need to be done about this, no matter what, 1 mb limit is not acceptable, and it's not optional to do the next move

[tobacco123]

I used to run a Classic node to support the network. However, as I need to travel a bit due to work, I usually turn off my computer when I was away. After sometime, I feel like my contribution is low- most of the time spent just to catch up with the current block.

 

[7788bitcoin]

Just completed the survey. Honestly, I was a supporter of Classic 2Mb blocksize increase. I think it is not the best solution long term, but we should then enable a bit more transactions for further development.

However, after Craig and Gavin's drama. I decided to stop running a node- a bit disappointed actually...

[ChrisPop]

I have completed the survey. I hope it helps you. Regarding the first questions in the survey,sincerely I didn't know what Classic,XT and Unlimited are. I know just that Bitcoin Core is a wallet. So I would appreciate if someone could enlighten me on this matter.

[spinner52]

I have completed the survey. I hope it helps you. Regarding the first questions in the survey,sincerely I didn't know what Classic,XT and Unlimited are. I know just that Bitcoin Core is a wallet. So I would appreciate if someone could enlighten me on this matter.

Well, I actually thought they were "competing" software, for the miners to choose between, until Lauda enlightened me that XT is already dead and Classic is dying. And he don't seems to optimistic about BU.

Basically, they differ on the question of blocksize.
Core wants to keep at 1MB
Classic wants to increase it to 2MB
XT (used to) want to increase gradually, starting with 2MB, then 4MB, 8MB and then 16MB.
BU sets no limit, and leaves it up to miners to set the limit.

Or at least, thats how I've understood it. Please correct me if I'm wrong anyone.


And yes it helps! Thank you!  

[HostFat]

There should be a another option for the first question:
- Fork from a different team then Core

I think that there are good choices, but the most important thing is to fork to another team (not Core) at least one time.
This will teach to the network that it is possible to change, and every team, current and future, will know that they can't maintain their position forever.

[Cuidler]

Basically, they differ on the question of blocksize.
Core wants to keep at 1MB

I believe many core developers are fine with 1 MB only until compact blocks are developed to allow faster block propagation - they understand 1MB cannot be keept forever, but they preffer not raising before it is super safe and all other scaling options used.

BTW very similar feature works in BU called XThin blocks, and Im surprised miners dont use BU because this feature means slightly lower orphan chance. Maybe because BU nodes represents only about 3% of all nodes, and XThin block needs connection to another XThin block node (BU node only) to allow faster block propagation

[ChrisPop]

I have completed the survey. I hope it helps you. Regarding the first questions in the survey,sincerely I didn't know what Classic,XT and Unlimited are. I know just that Bitcoin Core is a wallet. So I would appreciate if someone could enlighten me on this matter.

Well, I actually thought they were "competing" software, for the miners to choose between, until Lauda enlightened me that XT is already dead and Classic is dying. And he don't seems to optimistic about BU.

Basically, they differ on the question of blocksize.
Core wants to keep at 1MB
Classic wants to increase it to 2MB
XT (used to) want to increase gradually, starting with 2MB, then 4MB, 8MB and then 16MB.
BU sets no limit, and leaves it up to miners to set the limit.

Or at least, thats how I've understood it. Please correct me if I'm wrong anyone.


And yes it helps! Thank you!  

Thank you for the explanation! Many softwares but as I pointed out in the survey I think the most reliable is the Bitcoin Core.

[Lauda]

Basically, they differ on the question of blocksize.
Core wants to keep at 1MB

In that case that this still interests you and/or you want to make use of the information in the future: When it comes to scaling, Core wants to take a different (better) approach and will start with Segwit (which will improve the TPS once adopted).

Many softwares but as I pointed out in the survey I think the most reliable is the Bitcoin Core.

Of course. Classic has practically no developers aside from 1 man (looking at the past 2-3 months and the commits). This non-existing team (even if it includes Gavin and Toomin) can't be compared to the people working on Core.
Are the results of this 'survey' going to be posted here? If so, when?
Update: Ignore the off-topic rambling from the troll under me.

[franky1]

lauda thinks that segwit is the sole route to capacity growth..
yet i can quote him saying that segwit is temporary solution
yet i can quote him saying that segwit main aim is not scalability, and its just a side effect
yet i CANT quote him saying that segwit wont be the thing that can rescale after its scaled.. (because segwit cannot double up after the 1.8x.. 1.8x is 1.8x and thats all it will ever be, but lauda only thinks short term)

lauda thinks that the core devs are brand blockstream. he may pretend they are all independant. but if that was true then the coders of core should could and can be the coders of all different "brands". but no.. its either blockstream dominates core or bugger off.

once he realises that the dev team all work together and produce something that ANY AND ALL implementations should use he will stop hard selling blockstream

EG. bitcoinJ has one coder. but utilises the code of core and people use it happily
EG. bitcoinLjr has one cover. but utilises the code of core and people use it happily

so why does be not cry out that bitcoinJ or bitcoinLjr are "dead" and "useless". they are in the same boat as many other implementations afterall

its because he loves brand blockstream and wants bitcoin to be brand blockstream.. and not an independant engine that any implementation can use.

[spinner52]

Are the results of this 'survey' going to be posted here? If so, when?

I would like to post it in a week or so, when my analysis is done

However, at the moment, there is too few respondents too make it useful for me or interesting for you.

[Lauda]

I would like to post it in a week or so, when my analysis is done

That would be great.

However, at the moment, there is too few respondents too make it useful for me or interesting for you.

It is unfortunate that a considerable amount of users that spam can't even spend 1 minute of their time to participate in a single survey. Hopefully you will get more people to participate soon. Keep in mind that you are allowed to bump this thread once every 24 hours.

[Stringer Bell]

Not to start a blocksize debate here, but I got the impression that the general view amongst users was that Core devs was too conservative.

Among the long-term, active participants of the network I know personally, they are generally very happy with the state of the network and core dev's rate of innovation/new contributions/management of the release. It works reliably well, it's stable. When it comes to commerce this is what you want above all else.

[pedrog]

Also, "Don't care as long as price goes to the moon!"

[Kprawn]

No, I was actually not aware that Classic were dying, and that XT was already dead.. Surprised by that.. As a non-user BU seems to take some very radical steps compared to classic and xt.

Core is the only way to go because in Core the devs have demonstrated that they can came up with real solutions, and their conservative approach is desired in the crypto space where everyone wants to innovate and scale at all costs (see ETH disaster).

Not to start a blocksize debate here, but I got the impression that the general view amongst users was that Core devs was too conservative.

They are conservative for a reason, and that is to secure the network and not to implement any radical changes without planning and preparing it 110% .... It is not easy to have the responsibility of

keeping the wealth of 100 000's of people... secure. This is not a Million dollar project anymore... We are talking in Billions. These other smaller Alt coins, has not reached these levels before and

cannot understand how difficult it must be to make big decisions like this. They could understand it... but they not feeling that now... This might be why Gavin jumped ship, when this got to big for him.

[spinner52]

I think no one support XT or Unlimited anymore, also looks like people don't support classic anymore.
But, if you asked this question few ago, i'm sure the result would be different

There is actually quite a few people who have checked Classic and UL. XT seems to be dead.

Whether indicates that people are actually running the software, or simply supports the notions behind it, is the question.

I would like to post it in a week or so, when my analysis is done

That would be great.

I've postponed the actual analysis, but as soon as I have some numbers, I'll make sure to post it in this thread.

However, at the moment, there is too few respondents too make it useful for me or interesting for you.

It is unfortunate that a considerable amount of users that spam can't even spend 1 minute of their time to participate in a single survey. Hopefully you will get more people to participate soon. Keep in mind that you are allowed to bump this thread once every 24 hours.

Yes, I was expecting a bit more response. Hopefully, this little bump will provide a few new answers.