Topic: Classic or Core? Which one is better? - page 3. (Read 4868 times)

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

we are voting with our money.

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

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.

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 It is a chart representing the votes from Slush (outdated version of it)[1].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

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?

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.

They're very different.

One has to love the conspiracy theories, right?

---

---

Update:
Not really.

Classic or Core . Be same more or less

... 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!

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.

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

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.

Not really, no.

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

thread title has been reorted to mods for

causing disambiguation of the name

core which has already been reserved

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

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.

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...

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

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

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.


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.

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.