Pages:
Author

Topic: Classic or Core? Which one is better? - page 6. (Read 4868 times)

legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
March 25, 2016, 10:20:35 PM
#55
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.
legendary
Activity: 1988
Merit: 1012
Beyond Imagination
March 25, 2016, 10:19:59 PM
#54
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

I like Jeff's approach, at this stage, any large change to the protocol is extremely dangerous, should just switch the focus to how to build on it instead of changing the protocol
sr. member
Activity: 280
Merit: 250
March 25, 2016, 10:17:24 PM
#53
 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.
legendary
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1521
March 25, 2016, 10:16:41 PM
#52
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
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
March 25, 2016, 10:14:26 PM
#51
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.
legendary
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1521
March 25, 2016, 10:12:35 PM
#50
All you've done is parroted the "Segwit is more complex than 2mb" line. So what? Apparently most wallet devs and library maintainers don't see it as an issue at all. So, why is that an issue?
legendary
Activity: 1988
Merit: 1012
Beyond Imagination
March 25, 2016, 10:08:43 PM
#49

Ermagherd!!!! Segwit is just too complex!!!! Roll Eyes

It seems so.  Just check this lecture by Dr. Johnson Lau, supposed to be an segwit teacher and is giving lectures about it.
https://www.bitcoinhk.org/bitcoin-lecture-series/episode-1-upgrading-bitcoin-segregated-witness

In this lecture, his explanation of bitcoin transaction is plainly wrong. So even a person giving lectures about segwit (with a Dr. degree) don't understand  segwit, how could you expect others understand anything about segwit?

Cool story. So you ignored all the developers quoted above explaining how it is not overly complex, and how easy it is to implement, and respond with that? Why don't you begin by explaining how he is wrong rather than using your unfounded opinion to claim that Segwit is overly complex?

I don't have time to go into details, but quote Pieter's own word: "It pretty much changes every piece of software that has ever written for bitcoin"

Just a comparison:
Classic only changes block size limit from 1 to 2MB, nothing else
Segwit changes transaction, each transaction now consists of two parts, while one part is hidden to old nodes. Segwit also changes block structure, each block now become two blocks while one block is hidden to old nodes

If you don't understand what this indicates in terms of complexity, then you don't need to look further into segwit, you will spend years without understanding it

legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
March 25, 2016, 10:04:48 PM
#48
Quote
“I'm glad that Gavin has raised this issue and offered a concrete proposal. However, as discussed on the developers’ mailing list, everyone else seems to want gradual growth and not a single large-size step-increase. Coinkite does support a block size increase, although I'm not sure how urgent an issue it is. I feel personally, that 20 megabytes is too big in the short term.”

legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
March 25, 2016, 10:02:56 PM
#47
Quote
“We support Gavin's proposal as we think it is important for Bitcoin's growth and development to get ahead of this hard cap before it is a problem. Many of us are already circumventing this by processing as many transactions as possible off the blockchain which makes Bitcoin more centralized, not less.”
legendary
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1521
March 25, 2016, 10:00:46 PM
#46

Bitcoin -- like any engineering project -- requires very careful planning and execution.

You know that open source software is experimental, it does not guarantee anything, and it does not responsible for any financial loss caused by using it, so it does not necessary need careful planning and execution, just the community decide where it goes, called consensus, can lead to ruin any time, run it at your own risk

LOL. "Open source" means throw all caution to the wind, eh? Fair enough--that's Gavin's position. "It's just an experiment, who cares if we break it?" Which works for Gavin because he said all along he thinks Bitcoin is a payment channel, not a store of value, so he doesn't hold much if any.

It's always obvious who has invested real money into Bitcoin, and who hasn't, in these conversations. Well don't expect the rest of us to agree with your reckless proposals on the basis that you don't care whether it survives.

It means you have to responsible for your own decision making. If you think you are right by selecting core, and you lose money, it is your fault. So please do your research instead of blindly trust authorities, since none of the core devs is going to compensate your loss when bitcoin price crashes and they comfortably receive large pay checks from web wallet providers

WTF are you babbling about? Name one thing I've said that suggest I am blindly trusting anyone.... I'm well aware no one will compensate losses; I'm a goddamn day trader.
legendary
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1521
March 25, 2016, 09:58:29 PM
#45

Ermagherd!!!! Segwit is just too complex!!!! Roll Eyes

It seems so.  Just check this lecture by Dr. Johnson Lau, supposed to be an segwit teacher and is giving lectures about it.
https://www.bitcoinhk.org/bitcoin-lecture-series/episode-1-upgrading-bitcoin-segregated-witness

In this lecture, his explanation of bitcoin transaction is plainly wrong. So even a person giving lectures about segwit (with a Dr. degree) don't understand  segwit, how could you expect others understand anything about segwit?

Cool story. So you ignored all the developers quoted above explaining how it is not overly complex, and how easy it is to implement, and respond with that? Why don't you begin by explaining how he is wrong rather than using your unfounded opinion to claim that Segwit is overly complex?
legendary
Activity: 1988
Merit: 1012
Beyond Imagination
March 25, 2016, 09:57:49 PM
#44

Bitcoin -- like any engineering project -- requires very careful planning and execution.

You know that open source software is experimental, it does not guarantee anything, and it does not responsible for any financial loss caused by using it, so it does not necessary need careful planning and execution, just the community decide where it goes, called consensus, can lead to ruin any time, run it at your own risk

LOL. "Open source" means throw all caution to the wind, eh? Fair enough--that's Gavin's position. "It's just an experiment, who cares if we break it?" Which works for Gavin because he said all along he thinks Bitcoin is a payment channel, not a store of value, so he doesn't hold much if any.

It's always obvious who has invested real money into Bitcoin, and who hasn't, in these conversations. Well don't expect the rest of us to agree with your reckless proposals on the basis that you don't care whether it survives.

It means you have to responsible for your own decision making. If you think you are right by selecting core, and you lose money, it is your fault. So please do your research instead of blindly trust authorities, since none of the core devs is going to compensate your loss when bitcoin price crashes and they comfortably receive large pay checks from web wallet providers
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
March 25, 2016, 09:56:47 PM
#43

Bitcoin -- like any engineering project -- requires very careful planning and execution.

You know that open source software is experimental, it does not guarantee anything, and it does not responsible for any financial loss caused by using it, so it does not necessary need careful planning and execution, just the community decide where it goes, called consensus, can lead to ruin any time, run it at your own risk

LOL. "Open source" means throw all caution to the wind, eh? Fair enough--that's Gavin's position. "It's just an experiment, who cares if we break it?" Which works for Gavin because he said all along he thinks Bitcoin is a payment channel, not a store of value, so he doesn't hold much if any.

It's always obvious who has invested real money into Bitcoin, and who hasn't, in these conversations. Well don't expect the rest of us to agree with your reckless proposals on the basis that you don't care whether it survives.
" Gavin is as recklessness johnyj "
come on stop this BS....

legendary
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1521
March 25, 2016, 09:53:44 PM
#42

Bitcoin -- like any engineering project -- requires very careful planning and execution.

You know that open source software is experimental, it does not guarantee anything, and it does not responsible for any financial loss caused by using it, so it does not necessary need careful planning and execution, just the community decide where it goes, called consensus, can lead to ruin any time, run it at your own risk

LOL. "Open source" means throw all caution to the wind, eh? Fair enough--that's Gavin's position. "It's just an experiment, who cares if we break it?" Which works for Gavin because he said all along he thinks Bitcoin is a payment channel, not a store of value, so he doesn't hold much if any.

It's always obvious who has invested real money into Bitcoin, and who hasn't, in these conversations. Well don't expect the rest of us to agree with your reckless proposals on the basis that you don't care whether it survives.
legendary
Activity: 1988
Merit: 1012
Beyond Imagination
March 25, 2016, 09:52:59 PM
#41

Ermagherd!!!! Segwit is just too complex!!!! Roll Eyes

It seems so.  Just check this lecture by Dr. Johnson Lau, supposed to be an segwit teacher and is giving lectures about it.
https://www.bitcoinhk.org/bitcoin-lecture-series/episode-1-upgrading-bitcoin-segregated-witness

In this lecture, his explanation of bitcoin transaction is plainly wrong. So even a person giving lectures about segwit (with a Dr. degree) don't understand  segwit, how could you expect others understand anything about segwit? Yes, you just click one button and it installed!
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
March 25, 2016, 09:49:18 PM
#40

Bitcoin -- like any engineering project -- requires very careful planning and execution.

You know that open source software is experimental, it does not guarantee anything, and it does not responsible for any financial loss caused by using it, so it does not necessary need careful planning and execution, just the community decide where it goes, called consensus, can lead to ruin any time, run it at your own risk

i think we can all agree we should atleast TRY to processed carefully....




Coding and testing Segwit. Libsec, Core 0.12 optimizations. I'm not sure on the progress re IBLTs and weak blocks. Segwit was targeted for code ready in April....

so more then 2 weeks to Deploy

when programmers say "its relatively simple" i hear "very few human beings on earth understand this shit"
when programmers say "it shouldn't take more than 2 weeks"  i hear "We'll get beta running in 3 months and probably be working on this forever. "


legendary
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1521
March 25, 2016, 09:47:17 PM
#39

Coding and testing Segwit. Libsec, Core 0.12 optimizations. I'm not sure on the progress re IBLTs and weak blocks. Segwit was targeted for code ready in April....
legendary
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1521
March 25, 2016, 09:45:19 PM
#38
I too support segwit, but i would rather play it safe with 2MB, and have little interest in moving TX off chain prematurely

Okay, well then your position is opposed to all the devs that think otherwise. Such is life.

so its just me and Gavin then... everyone else rage-quit already?



We're just patiently waiting for Gavin to rage quit. Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 1988
Merit: 1012
Beyond Imagination
March 25, 2016, 09:43:08 PM
#37

Bitcoin -- like any engineering project -- requires very careful planning and execution.

You know that open source software is experimental, it does not guarantee anything, and it does not responsible for any financial loss caused by using it, so it does not necessary need careful planning and execution, just the community decide where it goes, called consensus, can lead to ruin any time, run it at your own risk
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
Pages:
Jump to: