Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[orpington]

I'm having a nice "classic" coffee right now, as we speak! Go figure

[Post-Cosmic]

Hurry up - there isn't much time left to make your Hearn, and cut your loose.

[orpington]

Bitcoin "Classic"! What a stupid name. Logically there's nothing really classic about it. They should have spent a little more time thinking up a proper name at least.

Sounds like a coffee or something 

If you wanna stay in Bitcoin, that's what it's gonna be called for a while. Will probably drop the "Classic" bit naturally, like with Coke.
After rabies finishes off all the smallblock Luddites.

Probably Core should rename themselves Classic. That makes more sense. And maybe the current Classic could rename themselves to Core! Confuse everyone even more! That should really make the price plummet!

[Fatman3001]

Jeebus, lambie is having a field day.

[Cconvert2G36]

Bitcoin "Classic"! What a stupid name. Logically there's nothing really classic about it. They should have spent a little more time thinking up a proper name at least.

It's called Classic because it is was inspired by Satoshi's scaling solution. And is in keeping with his vision for a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.

[orpington]

Bitcoin "Classic"! What a stupid name. Logically there's nothing really classic about it. They should have spent a little more time thinking up a proper name at least.

It's called Classic because it is was inspired by Satoshi's scaling solution. And is in keeping with his vision for a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.

Unhunh.
Sure would be nice if Satoshi could chime in right about now. Satoshi! Where are you? What is your favorite bitcoin flavor? Help us out a bit, please.
 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[MinermanNC]

Bitcoin "Classic"! What a stupid name. Logically there's nothing really classic about it. They should have spent a little more time thinking up a proper name at least.

It's called Classic because it is was inspired by Satoshi's scaling solution. And is in keeping with his vision for a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.

Sounds good to me, glad we have closure on the name now lol

[BitUsher]

Bitcoin "Classic"! What a stupid name. Logically there's nothing really classic about it. They should have spent a little more time thinking up a proper name at least.

It's called Classic because it is was inspired by Satoshi's scaling solution. And is in keeping with his vision for a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.

Bitcoin classic is BIP 102

Summary of differences between core+segwit and classic now -

Classic - BIP102
Effective 2MB block capacity + possibly removing RBF + possibly versionbits
5 developers maintaining

Core
Effective 1.75-2MB Block capacity
Version bits , future fraud proofs, signature pruning, simpler script updates, fixing malleability allowing future payment channels.
45 developers maintaining

Both are good.... but Classic isn't that exciting now that they decided to remove 2-4 + segwit as an option.

[MinermanNC]

At least the freefall in price has stopped and leveled back a bit. Everything's going to be fine. 

[fisheater22]

Core
Effective 1.75-2MB Block capacity
[...]

[BitUsher]

Core
Effective 1.75-2MB Block capacity
[...]

Agreed. Classic is between 0-0.25 MB more capacity without all the other benefits so I fail to see a large enough differentiation between them. The choice becomes almost a no brainer.

[Cconvert2G36]

Bitcoin "Classic"! What a stupid name. Logically there's nothing really classic about it. They should have spent a little more time thinking up a proper name at least.

It's called Classic because it is was inspired by Satoshi's scaling solution. And is in keeping with his vision for a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.

Bitcoin classic is BIP 102

Summary of differences between core+segwit and classic now -

Classic - BIP102
Effective 2MB block capacity + possibly removing RBF + possibly versionbits
5 developers maintaining

Core
Effective 1.75-2MB Block capacity
Version bits , future fraud proofs, signature pruning, simpler script updates, fixing malleability allowing future payment channels.
45 developers maintaining

Both are good.... but Classic isn't that exciting now that they decided to remove 2-4 + segwit as an option.

I must admit that you sound like a pretty reasonable person, so I'll go easy...

50% of the hashrate basically just said NACK to Core's Roadmap™.

Either the Blockstream devs and their wizards quickly alter course and are able to maintain and grow the shreds of support they still possess... or we are very likely to have a "contentious™" and quickly decided fork this spring. Out of those 45... how many do you think will #ragequit and never work on Bitcoin again because they couldn't keep 1MB and pave the way for LN and Blockstream™ products?

[AZwarel]

Bitcoin "Classic"! What a stupid name. Logically there's nothing really classic about it. They should have spent a little more time thinking up a proper name at least.

It's called Classic because it is was inspired by Satoshi's scaling solution. And is in keeping with his vision for a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.

Bitcoin classic is BIP 102

Summary of differences between core+segwit and classic now -

Classic - BIP102
Effective 2MB block capacity + possibly removing RBF + possibly versionbits
5 developers maintaining

Core
Effective 1.75-2MB Block capacity
Version bits , future fraud proofs, signature pruning, simpler script updates, fixing malleability allowing future payment channels.
45 developers maintaining

Both are good.... but Classic isn't that exciting now that they decided to remove 2-4 + segwit as an option.

I must admit that you sound like a pretty reasonable person, so I'll go easy...

50% of the hashrate basically just said NACK to Core's Roadmap™.

Either the Blockstream devs and their wizards quickly alter course and are able to maintain and grow the shreds of support they still possess... or we are very likely to have a "contentious™" and quickly decided fork this spring. Out of those 45... how many do you think will #ragequit and never work on Bitcoin again because they couldn't keep 1MB and pave the way for LN and Blockstream™ products?

Also, nothing stops the two group to team up after Classic forks to work together and implement the Core upgrades later into the now Classic chain. Especially after they realize they (core dev team) can be routed that easily, not like it is good -or bad-, just a fact. Consensus by the majority of the network, is not that how bitcoin developing supposedly?
So, why is that not an option? Because rage??

[BitUsher]

I must admit that you sound like a pretty reasonable person, so I'll go easy...

50% of the hashrate basically just said NACK to Core's Roadmap™.

Either the Blockstream devs and their wizards quickly alter course and are able to maintain and grow the shreds of support they still possess... or we are very likely to have a "contentious™" and quickly decided fork this spring. Out of those 45... how many do you think will #ragequit and never work on Bitcoin again because they couldn't keep 1MB and pave the way for LN and Blockstream™ products?

49% of the hashing power said "Ack" to to the idea of 2MB(which segwit essentially does). They are still all running core. We cannot assume their intentions towards acking Bitcoin classic 2MB until they actually change their code. My guess is there will be some consensus made between Core and Classic or some of that hashing power will just except Core + segwit if it gets rolled out ontime and merely acked classic because they wanted to reach consensus and move forward and would be happy with either classic or core + segwit.

If you have evidence that those miners oppose segwit and simply want BIP102 without segwit than please let me know.

I personally would be happy with either proposal , but am slightly inclined to core for obvious technical reasons. Can you explain to me why BIP102 is technically better than core + segwit?

pave the way for LN

Gavin is not only supportive of the settlement layers and the lightning network but believes they are absolutely necessary for bitcoin.
Stop creating wedges where none exist... Unlike Hearn, Gavin is a respected and reasonable person.

[Cconvert2G36]

Bitcoin "Classic"! What a stupid name. Logically there's nothing really classic about it. They should have spent a little more time thinking up a proper name at least.

It's called Classic because it is was inspired by Satoshi's scaling solution. And is in keeping with his vision for a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.

Bitcoin classic is BIP 102

Summary of differences between core+segwit and classic now -

Classic - BIP102
Effective 2MB block capacity + possibly removing RBF + possibly versionbits
5 developers maintaining

Core
Effective 1.75-2MB Block capacity
Version bits , future fraud proofs, signature pruning, simpler script updates, fixing malleability allowing future payment channels.
45 developers maintaining

Both are good.... but Classic isn't that exciting now that they decided to remove 2-4 + segwit as an option.

I must admit that you sound like a pretty reasonable person, so I'll go easy...

50% of the hashrate basically just said NACK to Core's Roadmap™.

Either the Blockstream devs and their wizards quickly alter course and are able to maintain and grow the shreds of support they still possess... or we are very likely to have a "contentious™" and quickly decided fork this spring. Out of those 45... how many do you think will #ragequit and never work on Bitcoin again because they couldn't keep 1MB and pave the way for LN and Blockstream™ products?

Also, nothing stops the two group to team up after Classic forks to work together and implement the Core upgrades later into the now Classic chain. Especially after they realize they (core dev team) can be routed that easily, not like it is good -or bad-, just a fact. Consensus by the majority of the network, is not that how bitcoin developing supposedly?
So, why is that not an option? Because rage??

Nothing stops Core or anyone else from developing Bitcoin before, during, or after a fork. The market decides what direction they want to go via:

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Cconvert2G36]

I must admit that you sound like a pretty reasonable person, so I'll go easy...

50% of the hashrate basically just said NACK to Core's Roadmap™.

Either the Blockstream devs and their wizards quickly alter course and are able to maintain and grow the shreds of support they still possess... or we are very likely to have a "contentious™" and quickly decided fork this spring. Out of those 45... how many do you think will #ragequit and never work on Bitcoin again because they couldn't keep 1MB and pave the way for LN and Blockstream™ products?

49% of the hashing power said "Ack" to to the idea of 2MB(which segwit essentially does). They are still all running core. We cannot assume their intentions towards acking Bitcoin classic 2MB until they actually change their code. My guess is there will be some consensus made between Core and Classic or some of that hashing power will just except Core + segwit if it gets rolled out ontime and merely acked classic because they wanted to reach consensus and move forward and would be happy with either classic or core + segwit.

If you have evidence that those miners oppose segwit and simply want BIP102 without segwit than please let me know.

I personally would be happy with either proposal , but am slightly inclined to core for obvious technical reasons. Can you explain to me why BIP102 is technically better than core + segwit?

You honestly think these miners would do this [endorse Classic]... if they were happy about the roadmap™? Look what it did to the price today... they are in it for the long term, even willing to take a huge hit in the price today to secure a more certain and prosperous tomorrow.

Some elements of segwit are likely to be introduced if their benefits outweigh the costs of complexity, and with the clarity/cleaness of a hard fork, the market will control the introduction and timing of such a solution.

[BitUsher]

You honestly think these miners would do this [endorse Classic]... if they were happy about the roadmap™?

Most are just frustrated at the infighting , politics, bikeshedding , and lack of consensus. I seriously doubt it has anything to do with the roadmap. They want an increase like everyone else.

Some elements of segwit are likely to be introduced if their benefits outweigh the costs of complexity, and with the clarity/cleaness of a hard fork, the market will control the introduction and timing of such a solution.

If you have evidence that those miners oppose segwit and simply want BIP102 without segwit than please let me know. Otherwise there is essentially is no difference in capacity between classic and core. Under certain circumstances Classic will have a slight amount of higher capacity , under others Core +segwit will have more capacity.

There are reasons where I can criticize segwit with , but am waiting to hear them from you to see if you understand segwit properly(and I believe the upsides outweigh the downsides)  

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Annnnnd....I'm back. 72 hours in angsty exile and you godless monsters! Look what you've done!!

Confession: My deep sense of isolation drove me into the hoary orange arms of another forum.  

Thanks Obama Blockstream Mike!