Classic or Core? Which one is better? - page 4.

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

Quote from: exstasie on March 26, 2016, 03:38:26 AM

Quote from: johnyj on March 26, 2016, 03:08:48 AM

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." Wink

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

Quote from: exstasie on March 26, 2016, 03:38:26 AM

Quote from: johnyj on March 26, 2016, 03:08:48 AM

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

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: Jet Cash on March 26, 2016, 05:02:26 AM

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

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

Quote from: Lauda on March 26, 2016, 04:48:10 AM

Quote from: johnyj on March 26, 2016, 03:22:25 AM

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 Grin

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

Jet Cash

legendary

Activity: 2814

Merit: 2472

https://JetCash.com

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.

shorena

copper member

Activity: 1498

Merit: 1528

No I dont escrow anymore.

Quote from: Lauda on March 26, 2016, 04:48:10 AM

Quote from: shorena on March 26, 2016, 03:33:17 AM

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.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: shorena on March 26, 2016, 03:33:17 AM

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.

Quote from: johnyj on March 26, 2016, 03:22:25 AM

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 Grin

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

exstasie

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1521

Quote from: johnyj on March 26, 2016, 03:08:48 AM

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." Wink

Quote from: johnyj on March 26, 2016, 03:08:48 AM

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.

Quote from: johnyj on March 26, 2016, 03:08:48 AM

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.

shorena

copper member

Activity: 1498

Merit: 1528

No I dont escrow anymore.

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 25, 2016, 10:40:44 PM

-snip-
i mean look at this.

Source?

RussiaCoinDotInfo

sr. member

Activity: 325

Merit: 251

Any ideas?

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?

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

Quote from: 1Referee on March 26, 2016, 01:57:29 AM

Quote from: nagatraju on March 26, 2016, 01:39:33 AM

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 Grin

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

Quote from: exstasie on March 25, 2016, 10:59:28 PM

Quote from: johnyj on March 25, 2016, 10:19:59 PM

Quote from: exstasie on March 25, 2016, 10:16:41 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 25, 2016, 10:14:26 PM

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! Roll Eyes

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 Cheesy

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

exstasie

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1521

Quote from: 1Referee on March 26, 2016, 01:57:29 AM

Quote from: nagatraju on March 26, 2016, 01:39:33 AM

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.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: johnyj on March 25, 2016, 07:00:37 PM

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.

Quote from: David Rabahy on March 25, 2016, 10:44:48 PM

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.

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 26, 2016, 12:14:43 AM

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.

Quote from: David Rabahy on March 25, 2016, 11:00:03 PM

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?

1Referee

legendary

Activity: 2170

Merit: 1427

Quote from: nagatraju on March 26, 2016, 01:39:33 AM

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.

Bubble Dreams

newbie

Activity: 38

Merit: 0

Quote from: Vod on March 25, 2016, 10:30:27 PM

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.

exstasie

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1521

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 25, 2016, 11:03:07 PM

Quote from: exstasie on March 25, 2016, 10:57:58 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 25, 2016, 10:23:08 PM

Quote from: exstasie on March 25, 2016, 10:16:41 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 25, 2016, 10:14:26 PM

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! Roll Eyes

.... i find it silly to say that 2MB block aka doubling capacity has no scaling effect.

Look up the word "scalability" and explain how adding throughout with no scaling mechanism scales anything. Roll Eyes

"Scalability is the capability of a system, network, or process to handle a growing amount of work"

ok so right now we can handle ~3TPS ( about the same as TX demand today)
with 2MB blocks we can handle ~6TPS ( about twice the TX demand today )

I sorta get what you mean

i guess thin blocks would be an example of adding "scalability" in your very strict terms

It's not really strict terms, it's just general engineering principle. When you increase system load and therefore make a security tradeoff, you look at the costs and you try to mitigate them to optimize the system to handle that load. Rather than simply allowing it to grow endlessly while degrading network performance. So the biggest bottleneck is relay and secondly bandwidth.

Thin blocks is a good premise, I'd like to see it adequately tested. Unfortunately the BU team is very limited in developers and resources and I'm not convinced any of their code is sufficiently regression tested. It also doesn't seem clear yet that it would be an adequate replacement for the relay network. But yes, that is the idea -- closing relay bottlenecks which especially hurt smaller miners as load increases. Core has already addressed a lot of the non-relay bandwidth issues (blocksonly, upload throttling, wallet pruning) in 0.12, so I'm less concerned about that in the immediate term.

nagatraju

hero member

Activity: 672

Merit: 500

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

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: MFahad on March 25, 2016, 11:57:12 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 25, 2016, 10:20:35 PM

Quote from: jak1 on March 25, 2016, 10:17:24 PM

Classic and Core, both of them are good. If you are using Core, you should stick to it. Thats what i recommend.
In the long Run, both will be equally better and important.

in the long run both will adhere to the same protocol (what ever that happens to be 2MB blocks or segwit-ed blocks).

there will be no forking off.

If both of them are same in the future, would it will be better to combine the feature of both .
Means both of them using the same protocol and same block size.
It will be better.

right now they are both pushing very different things.
2MB vs segwit
right now it looks like core will win with segwit.

but let's say in 3 months segwit is not ready and still no where near ready
miners might get fed up and go with classic.
core will have no choice but to go alone with this, but they will still work on segwit and it will probably still be accepted by miners onces its ready.
so you might be right they might get combined.
its up to the miners to pick and chose which feathers they want and when they want them
core and classic only make suggestions.
competing implementations dont just drop dead when one wins over the other. and they dont fork off, they adhere to the new protocol and keep going.

MFahad

hero member

Activity: 2506

Merit: 645

Eloncoin.org - Mars, here we come!

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 25, 2016, 10:20:35 PM

Quote from: jak1 on March 25, 2016, 10:17:24 PM

Classic and Core, both of them are good. If you are using Core, you should stick to it. Thats what i recommend.
In the long Run, both will be equally better and important.

in the long run both will adhere to the same protocol (what ever that happens to be 2MB blocks or segwit-ed blocks).

there will be no forking off.

If both of them are same in the future, would it will be better to combine the feature of both .
Means both of them using the same protocol and same block size.
It will be better.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: David Rabahy on March 25, 2016, 11:36:42 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 25, 2016, 11:24:27 PM

my final thought on the matter of Core or classic is that, they are BOTH right!

and we should let the free market find the perfect equilibrium between the two schools of thought.

like so:

miners have incentives to keep blocks small
users have incentives to go offchain ( once such a solution is available )
why not remove block limit altogether, code the second layer, and watch the free market come to its own preferred equilibrium!

Some miners *might* want to keep blocks small but I just bet they mostly want to make money. Can they make more money with small blocks and higher fees *or* bigger blocks and smaller fees? My gut tells me the more people in Bitcoin the better. One of the original selling points of Bitcoin was low/zero fees. Are those days truly gone now forever? If so then we need to reset expectations to avoid disappointment. If low/zero fees are so compelling then some folks might gravitate to altcoins.

I am a user and do use existing offchain solutions already. My brain (or sometimes a piece of paper). My son and I just keep track (roughly) in our heads how much we owe each other; I buy the ski lift tickets; he buys lunch; ...; eventually we settle on chain.

I, for one, wouldn't mind removing the block size limit (well, there will certainly be some practical limit) *but* we absolutely have to address the quadratic scaling topic first.

i guess you dont like the dirty code of just simply forbiding TX with >5000inputs ( understandable ) we will probably get segwit soon in any case, so soon it'll be a non-issue.

if a miner made a 1GB block it would get orphaned so fast it wouldn't be funny.

here's a better description of why miners have strong incentives to not make a big block.

http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/resources/feemarket.pdf
i prefer the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad0Pjj_ms2k
skip 6:00min in for the meat

so again , provided segwit removes the quadratic scaling problem, why not remove block limit altogether, code the second layer, and watch the free market come to its own preferred equilibrium!

Topic: Classic or Core? Which one is better? - page 4. (Read 4868 times)