Topic: Classic or Core? Which one is better? - page 8. (Read 4868 times)

I'm surprised that you still have energy arguing these, I have mostly given up posting here and made some fork test at mean time while reading other forums 

So? It is relatively easy to jump-start a high number of nodes, especially if you have capital. There was even a recent analysis that shows that a maximum of 213 people are behind 800 nodes. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that they're promoting their Sybil attack by stacking datacenter nodes.

They will have an effect on it as it will increase the requirements for node operators. The question is whether the loss in decentralization is going to be negligible or it is going to be a bit more significant.

The main reason for someone to rush for more transactions is greed (i.e. hoping that: more people -> higher price). When scaling Bitcoin one has to be pretty conservative or else it might run into huge problems. Additionally, Core is coming up with Segwit which will also increase the capacity.

That's even worse.

i'm not a classic or core supporter anymore i support Unlimited. 

funny how bitcoin Unlimited was the first to implement thinblocks

the effects of 2MB seem totally overstated

segwit is the other option and it actually increases requirements to nodes by the same amount. expect maybe TX validation times but thats not much of an issue... IMO.

the very high level view of this classic Vs Core thing is that

Classic is a simple change with a vision that the cost to operate a node will increase in the future and thats OK

Core is a complex change with a vision that the cost to operate a node should be kept low, and if fees rise thats OK everyone can use the second layer solution.

Scalability =

So it means more than adding throughput. It means building the system to accommodate that throughput. Even XT/Classic people admit that endlessly adding throughput on mainchain will make it harder and harder to run a node (i.e. be a "peer" on the p2p network). They just don't care and think that decentralization should be ignored if it means we can have cheap transactions. Because they think cheap transactions guarantees bitcoin adoption. It doesn't.

You are correct that increasing block size adds centralization pressure. The ideal would be to reduce those pressures by improving relay, reducing required bandwidth, lowering validation times to make a block size increase less detrimental to the network.

I guess that it would allow for Bitcoin to handle more TPS (transactions per second) faster than what it is right now once the block size is increased. Since with 1MB blocks, confirmations takes 15 to 30 mins (and even more) I think increasing the block size might prevent this but at a cost of Bitcoin to become more centralized (based on what I have read here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy


Please correct me if I am wrong. I am here to learn everyday about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. 

Curious: have you ever looked up what "scalability" means? How does increasing block size contribute to it?

Thanks for your replies everyone.


In that case, then I will stay with Classic and support 2MB blocks. I think it would be the ideal choice (for me) to support these nodes and contribute to better scallability. 

prepare for the delirious Lauda to spout his classic doomsdays to try defending why blockstream should win peoples blind faith.

hint. if he tells you classic data bloat of 2mb(4000tx potential) will be too much for the network, tell him his dream of 1mbmaxblocksize+segwit+confidential payment codes = 2.85mb for 3800 transaction potential.

hint. if he tells you it will reduce full node count. tell him his dream of people who usually download core are now prefering pruned mode, and soon no witness mode, will be by far more of a risk to the dilution of true full nodes

hint. if he tells you onchain transactions cannot compete against visa's authorization network. tell him bitcoin has 2.5mill users not 900mill(visa quotes). so does not need to be exactly like visa in the next couple years. also the stats about visa's tx/s is based on a lab test of selective 'authorization' equipment in a mock lab test. and then the results multiplied in a flawed manner to the amount of systems they have dotted around the world. also worth highlighting i said it a few times.. the stats are on the AUTHORIZATION network. not the settlement network. so it should not be used in relation to blocks.

hint if he tells you that classic is headed up by a corporations. tell him that core is too (blockstream, ergo PwC, ergo many financial firms, banks)

hint if he tells you that only a couple people are employed by blockstream. tell him to explain the finances of how the $55million is to be spend by supposedly only 2-3 people

hint. if he tells you that its just a shill game and he tries to speak latin. tell him he fails latin. jst like he fails C++, by thinking bitcoin core writes its code in java if he read the code he would know its not java. he is simply guessing and needing to be spoonfed info

Both nodes have their pros and cons; benefit and risks (I shall not discuss and argue here). Although I incline to support Classic, I still think the core is doing well to fulfill the current functioning of bitcoin.

long term core and classic will continue to operate on the same protocol.
regardless of if segwit or 2MB "win".
so dont worry about having to switch back to core anytime soon.
it is important to understand that by running one client over another you are endorsing there roadmap, choose whichever you feel is best for YOU not what you think is best for the network or what you think will win long term.

Thanks for your reply. I was only asking which of the protocols would be better to run, in which I think that it might be Classic but I am not sure if it will be supported for long term. But other than that, I should choose whichever I'd prefer to support the Bitcoin network I guess. 

your opinion is perfectly valid.

let it be known by running a classic node.

also consider buying some classic hashing power if you feel strongly about your opinion  http://nodecounter.com/mining_donation_fund.php

I have seen a recent spike in the number of nodes that support bigger blocks (2mb) with Bitcoin Classic. However, Bitcoin Core is still in the lead. I was wondering which would be better to support, since I have doubts on whenever bigger blocks could cause an issue to BTC's decentralization.

If it were me, I think I would go with Classic, since bigger blocks means more capacity for transactions. I would like to view your opinion about this.