Topic: Core or Classic? (Read 3565 times)

Classic is only popular in the u.s, while Core is mainly used in the rest of the world.

Therefore, if you are living in us you can use classic, if you live outside you can choose Core.

fact is, core devs know they just cannot commit HF.

even them dont have the power to make it so.

*cough* decentralized network *cough*

SegWit seems interesting, although we'd better judge it when complete. I think it's important that it's a soft fork though, block size increase isn't.

With SegWit being a totally plausible solution (a temporary solution, mind you), I think sticking with core will be the best.


If only the Core devs implemented SegWit and a blocksize increase together...

Slush wrote an interesting piece on the topic:
https://medium.com/@slush/contentious-blocksize-wars-6fd7c07f9d90

Here's the most cited quote from there, worth the read to see what he means.

To me is not the question of 'OR' :

If core just move a small bit / reschedule slightly  & classic forks into than we might have a nice compromis and all are back & unifyied in freedom.

All politics here is just getting people out of BTC  = anti marketing!

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/segwit-details-n-2numtxids-numvins-n-segwit-uses-more-space-than-2mb-hf-1398994

turns out segwit may not be so great after all...

There is billions of $ in bitcoin and alot of smart people trying to resolve the issues, in the end it will be sorted so just sit back and relax.  I have a core nodes running just because it was what i started with and has been around longest.  but i have no problems switching to classic the moment i know that it has the consensus of the community.....

This is the never ending discussion.Danny Hamilton's post sufficed all your questions.The block debate or the core/classic war is restricted to only people's opinions.The outcome is just speculated.One shouldn't be making any real assumptions based on other's views.Its subjective to choose,core/classic.I support core,have faith in core developers.

The kids on Reddit will blast you for almost anything you say on there, so this is not something strange. Just ignore all the BS and smack talk being dished out on public forums and you will be fine. Most of the stuff posted is from shill accounts any way, so you will rarely find a valid argument reflecting the truth. If you want reputable information, go to the developers circle and find the only information that counts for anything. As you said, the choice is yours to make. If you believe in any of the two submissions, run their code to support them.

I was already skeptical day one, when I watched a hardfork creating a new cryptocurrency coin, changing a number from 1 == 2 for the blocksize.  Then calling it Bitcoin "Classic" <-- Just screams hostile takeover.  Same nefarious tactics used on other industries such as Inciting fear, uncertainty, doubt, deception, diversion, "Problem-Reaction-Solution", divide and conquer, etc. Hardforking changing just one thing, then releasing it as if it's new software that's going to save everyone? Wouldn't it be better to fix/add/maintain  many big things during the fork, negating future problematic issues?

Well, classic already has forked from core on github. They are running Classic0.12.0 nodes against the core /Satoshi:0.12.0/.  One problem is you can't get a straight answer out of anyone who seems to support Classic.  When you make an attempt to gain understanding, by asking questions/debate, they downvote , divert , swear, and ridicule you.  Even when presented direct with actual information on the bitcoin protocols.    When you check out  https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/?q=/Classic:0.12.0/ browse through the pages you will see more than half the nodes are non-economic groups of them on the same network, under the domain of amazonaws.com. (Witnessed a group of 1000 nodes turned on at the same time, as well as 500 from a guy who admitted to it)  I would have to run through all the nodes again but the last time I checked they were holding well over 60% on one domain.

Try to talk to anyone on reddit about this and you get blasted.  It looks like a Sybil attack by definition.  Throw the fact that people constantly have had to correct so many people who are "classic" only supporters, giving out false information to others... Sik /..Corrected same person twice now within a day of each other, the guy is still up posting the same incorrect assertions as before. In one other discussion I watched a guy tell people that china won't accept "classic" because their ASICS couldn't handle the 2MB upgrade.  Then try to say something about china being centralized with more than 51% of the hashing power.  Chinas mining pools have stratums in many countries. Miners jump from pool to pool at times seeking a greater reward.  In some cases mining a different coin with the same SHA-256 algorithm like digitalcoin  ... I tried to ask where they get their information from, and they won't ever say anything. After I explained that the mining hardware will work just fine, 2mb will effect the full nodes that don't have a lot of ram to spare. Miners would possibly do better considering by theory 2mb was supposed to allow more transactions.  Inherently adding more fees to the reward when a block is found.  Yet, you haven't seen many miners move over to classic (Think around 20-35 PH/s.  Miners hashing "classic". Where the core is at 1.2 EH/s Or 1,200 PH/s)

Also would notice that "classic" absolutists/extremists go on some kind of weird smear campaign on Adam, an intelligent long-time cryptocurrency contributor/developer, and President of Blockstream. (ask them why and they slander you, or just throws like 5 links to other discussion channels that still don't answer anything.  I can't say I have seen the cryptocurrency space get that ugly ever before.  Seemed to pick up a great deal when those deceptive Bitcoin Unlimited, XT, and Classic started seeing the light.  Same with the slow transactions.  Blocks didn't reach the full blocksize and were doing fine, untill the every block filled to near 1mb, seemed to me that the inputs were being "padded" with NULL info just to add space.  (Problem, reaction, solutions).  Then add those silly pranksterz who were flooding nodes with itty bitty transactions( Some with a tiny fee, others with none).  Think that's when the slowdown happened for anyone who didn't increase the trans fee when sending from their wallet providers.

Then I could never get past the fact that when you hard fork from bitcoin it becomes an altcoin. Their are only a few altcoins that seem to want to add the name Bitcoin in it, they are Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin XT, and now Bitcoin "Classic".  Now Bitcoin has competition of well over 150 different crypocurrencies, all with amazing innovative options that separate from bitcoins blockchain.  These altcoins that change one thing and claim to be the next bitcoin, appear to me as a hostile takeover from opensource volunteered, labor of love developers.  Brian Armstrong CEO of Coinbase had been making what I would interpret as a call to be leader of bitcoin.  Yet he didn't seem to have the technical knowledge( same with classic supporters, diversion from technical debate... because they hate it or something)... Brian is great at Marketing no doubt about that.  However their has been a huge influx of venture capital funds that have flooded into many different blockchain/cryptocurrency related entity's.  Guessing shareholders are getting very twitchy, they want to see an ROI NOW!%!$@#! Coinbase being one of those companies that received a good portion of that capital has me feeling uneasy.  Along with shouts to whatever news organization willing to spew such unproductive, uninformed, hate crying out to others that Bitcoin needs new developers.  He(Brian) just incites division in an already fragile atmosphere.  I don't trust coinbase, or Brian Armstrong at all really.  I have no problem trusting the current developers and contributors.

It may have been due to ego in a couple situations.  I believe it's a little more complex then that.  The supporters exclusively supporting classic don't give me the impression that they even want to try and understand.  They are doing a job it would seem.

The choice is yours, Classic - Core.. 

Sorry for the disorientating rant, but I had to kinda vent.. This community, and others like it has been increasing my level of insanity breaking the bar....! Personal Bests! Plus sleep deprived,.

It's a very simple decision. Look at what both teams have done on their own. Core has done all the great stuff you see nowadays, (SegWit, Libsecp256k1, op_hold, soon sidechain and so on....)

Classic.. what the hell has Classic done?

This is why im not putting my money on developers that have nothing of value to show, so stick to Core.

Classic vs Core.

at some point, they may become different forks.
A fork indicates where the database or record of all transactions no longer agree.

So, any transactions before that fork are still agreed by both forks.


If you have some BitCoin in an address, and there becomes a fork after, your transaction is still valid on both forks.

But, the two forks are no longer compatible. So if you spend coins on one fork, they still exist on the other fork. lol
But only one chain of that fork will become official. 

Core vs Classic represents a dilemma, when they fork, which one will be the official fork?? That is why value down etc. People are scared.

But your coins will still be in your address.

Some prominent figures in the bitcoin space (namely Theymos and Luke Jr) have argued that anything else other than bitcoin Core isn't actually bitcoin and therefore an altcoin. Of course both those people have sided with Core so it'd be safe to assume that their argument isn't impartial. If you think that bitcoin has a better future with certain developers/features go ahead and support whatever you want. However, one of the reasons that consensus is hard to be reached with bitcoin is that interests of many people are involved and for bitcoin to be strong there's need to be an absolute majority agreeing with change. In other words, the issues that are supposedly addressed by Classic could remain unchanged unless it's absolutely urgent to address them.

This thread shouldn't be in the tech section, it should be in general discussion bs, where there is a thread with the same title. 

That's absolute nonsense (which is to be expected since you're probably only posting to increase your post count for your sig ad campaign).

Valid bitcoin transactions are never rejected, cancelled, or returned anywhere.

If they are not confirmed and they are not re-broadcast by anyone, then they may become forgotten.  If a competing transaction (spending the same inputs) confirms then they can become invalid.

To avoid this, all the merchant has to do is verify that the transaction they receive:

• Pays a reasonable fee
• Spends only confirmed inputs
• Contains no dust outputs
• Has no competing transaction spending the same inputs

As long as the transaction meets that criteria, they can feel pretty safe sending the merchandise or providing the service.  If the transaction does not meet all those criteria, then the merchant should inform the customer that the customer's wallet sent a high-risk transaction and that the merchant will not provide anything of value until the transaction confirms (unless the merchant has established a trust relationship with the customer).

Six month confirmation times haven't stopped retailers using PayPal. Credit card confirmations can be pretty long as well.

I'd stay with core, because whatever happens, your coins will still be valid. If you go with classic, and they create larger blocks, then you are risking any new coins imho. If they don't start using the risky larger blocks, then there is no improvement, and you would have been better off with the changes implemented by core.

Thanks guys, that helps a lot.



Not sure what you mean by "affect your bitcoin".  It is possible that your computer could get infected by a hacker or malware.  In that case you could lose all your bitcoins.  It is also possible that the exchange rate could be significantly different in the future, meaning that each of your bitcoins could be worth more than $10,000 or less than $10 (or anything in between).

By that I meant if I stay with the same wallet provider, i see you can have a Core or Classic wallet now, that I didn't know, but how do you know what the other wallets support? Mycelium or Hive for example?



You've read fact-checked articles written by reputable journalists listing specific retailers that have stated that they have stopped accepting bitcoin transactions and that long confirmation times are the reason?  Or you've read some random blog post by some random internet writer that is trying to push an agenda and making up things that support their argument without any proof of anything they've said?

And the answer to this may be in two parts! I thought it was a fact checked article, I think I read it on CCN? I wasn't being specific as I can't for sure remember and don't want to point a finger wrongly, however I know there wasn't a list of these retailers.

Thanks for taking the time to answer so comprehensibly though. It is very much appreciated. And I learnt a lot from it.