Topic: When push comes to shove. How many % of the hash power will run "classic"? (Read 1033 times)
January 17, 2016, 06:31:34 PM
When is core planning on rolling out segwit? I'd prefer to keep with core but it seems like they are in no hurry.
January 17, 2016, 05:35:07 PM
Anyone find any hidden gems in the Classic code like "blacklisting"?
The code everyone was soiling themselves over last time is actually present in Bitcoin core's repository too, so any node could be running it right now regardless of the client they elect to use. It's not "blacklisting" per se and it's definitely not unique to XT. So yeah, you probably will find that code in Classic, because it's in Core too.
January 17, 2016, 05:28:46 PM
When push comes to shove all I see is darkness for bitcoin. Ripping the network appart can not be in the interest of anyone.
Pretty much my thoughts on the whole ClassicCoin / Core topic, division or forcing X really isn't the best route.
January 17, 2016, 05:27:38 PM
I think a better name for classiccoin would be DOAcoin.
January 17, 2016, 05:12:47 PM
Anyone find any hidden gems in the Classic code like "blacklisting"?
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
January 17, 2016, 03:02:20 PM
Been waiting THREE YEARS?!?! Why the hell would you increase block size three years ago?
No one is proposing to increase the block size. The block size has always been set by the miners through a dynamic market process (supply and demand).
Classic is proposing to increase the limit for block size from 1 MB to 2 MB. The fact that so many people still don't understand the difference is perhaps one of the biggest obstacles towards moving forward.
Good point Peter.
Another thing that people should realize is that 1MB is not a magic number.
It was chosen as a common sense ROUND NUMBER. 2MB would have
worked just as well. Although a forking process may have some inherent
risks, the actual fundamental change essentially does not.
January 17, 2016, 02:58:28 PM
Been waiting THREE YEARS?!?! Why the hell would you increase block size three years ago?
No one is proposing to increase the block size. The block size has always been set by the miners through a dynamic market process (supply and demand).
Classic is proposing to increase the limit for block size from 1 MB to 2 MB. The fact that so many people still don't understand the difference is perhaps one of the biggest obstacles towards moving forward.
January 17, 2016, 02:57:38 PM
I'm not sure if "Bitcoin Classic" will get 75% of the network processing power. Some big pools have said they will use it, but not enough to get it at 75%. Core has most of the developers behind it, and there will be too many pools that stick with it rather than trust the few developers controlling Classic.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
January 17, 2016, 02:55:41 PM
that version is adding nothing besides the block to 2mb, why we should move from core, when with segregate we will get roughly the same thing?
all those proposal are the same in the end, but soem add useless stuff that aim at bring the advantage on a side instead of another
all those proposal are the same in the end, but soem add useless stuff that aim at bring the advantage on a side instead of another
I agree very much. I haven't heard a single original idea from them yet. What are their credentials?
one word: Gavin.
He said he'd only help them get started. He's not very interrested in btc-development any more it seems. So the question remains
Quote
I certainly would not want to wait for Core to publish segwit anything or else. We've been waiting 3 years
for a blocksize incrase.
for a blocksize incrase.
Been waiting THREE YEARS?!?! Why the hell would you increase block size three years ago?
1MB was only supposed to be a temporary measure.
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-block-size-debate-going-since-2013/
Yes, but you can't seriously say you have been holding your breath for this.
Many of us had been hoping most of 2015, when Gavin first announced
he was working on a solution , that bigger blocks would be forthcoming.
To say we've run out of patience is to put it mildly. This is long overdue.
January 17, 2016, 02:55:24 PM
I think it's a non issue. Three stooge inactive developers who tried and completely failed with XT now want Classic while the other 35 or more active core developers are getting on with there work and have no interest in dealing with these guys and the forum trolls. I predict this thread will soon fill up with answers from the trolls. All I can guess is these people think they were too late with Bitcoin and are now trying to bring down the price.
^^^ This!
Whether they realize it or not, people supporting builds like XT and Classic are enemies of the Bitcoin state.
Maybe core is the one that needs to be doing the checkpointing?
January 17, 2016, 02:48:04 PM
that version is adding nothing besides the block to 2mb, why we should move from core, when with segregate we will get roughly the same thing?
all those proposal are the same in the end, but soem add useless stuff that aim at bring the advantage on a side instead of another
all those proposal are the same in the end, but soem add useless stuff that aim at bring the advantage on a side instead of another
I agree very much. I haven't heard a single original idea from them yet. What are their credentials?
one word: Gavin.
He said he'd only help them get started. He's not very interrested in btc-development any more it seems. So the question remains
Quote
I certainly would not want to wait for Core to publish segwit anything or else. We've been waiting 3 years
for a blocksize incrase.
for a blocksize incrase.
Been waiting THREE YEARS?!?! Why the hell would you increase block size three years ago?
1MB was only supposed to be a temporary measure.
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-block-size-debate-going-since-2013/
Yes, but you can't seriously say you have been holding your breath for this.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
January 17, 2016, 12:40:57 PM
that version is adding nothing besides the block to 2mb, why we should move from core, when with segregate we will get roughly the same thing?
all those proposal are the same in the end, but soem add useless stuff that aim at bring the advantage on a side instead of another
all those proposal are the same in the end, but soem add useless stuff that aim at bring the advantage on a side instead of another
I agree very much. I haven't heard a single original idea from them yet. What are their credentials?
one word: Gavin.
He said he'd only help them get started. He's not very interrested in btc-development any more it seems. So the question remains
Quote
I certainly would not want to wait for Core to publish segwit anything or else. We've been waiting 3 years
for a blocksize incrase.
for a blocksize incrase.
Been waiting THREE YEARS?!?! Why the hell would you increase block size three years ago?
1MB was only supposed to be a temporary measure.
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-block-size-debate-going-since-2013/
January 17, 2016, 11:29:15 AM
that version is adding nothing besides the block to 2mb, why we should move from core, when with segregate we will get roughly the same thing?
all those proposal are the same in the end, but some add useless stuff that aim at bring the advantage on a side instead of another
all those proposal are the same in the end, but some add useless stuff that aim at bring the advantage on a side instead of another
some dont like segwit.. some dont like other features either.. but the majority collectively do want 2mb.. so a version that is just a block increase is helpful.
atleast going for an option that is just 2mb makes them still part of the relaying network. then if everyone atleast upgrades to the baseline of 2mb.. then smaller amounts of people can happily do their own thing with slight changes to features as they will all be sending out 2mb blocks
and those not wanting the features can still be full nodes, giving them time to let the minority play with the features and review actual real life outcomes instead of utopian dreams of possibilities.
January 17, 2016, 10:33:27 AM
that version is adding nothing besides the block to 2mb, why we should move from core, when with segregate we will get roughly the same thing?
all those proposal are the same in the end, but soem add useless stuff that aim at bring the advantage on a side instead of another
all those proposal are the same in the end, but soem add useless stuff that aim at bring the advantage on a side instead of another
I agree very much. I haven't heard a single original idea from them yet. What are their credentials?
one word: Gavin.
He said he'd only help them get started. He's not very interrested in btc-development any more it seems. So the question remains
Quote
I certainly would not want to wait for Core to publish segwit anything or else. We've been waiting 3 years
for a blocksize incrase.
for a blocksize incrase.
Been waiting THREE YEARS?!?! Why the hell would you increase block size three years ago?
January 17, 2016, 10:33:20 AM
When push comes to shove all I see is darkness for bitcoin. Ripping the network appart can not be in the interest of anyone.
January 17, 2016, 10:32:21 AM
I think it's a non issue. Three stooge inactive developers who tried and completely failed with XT now want Classic while the other 35 or more active core developers are getting on with there work and have no interest in dealing with these guys and the forum trolls. I predict this thread will soon fill up with answers from the trolls. All I can guess is these people think they were too late with Bitcoin and are now trying to bring down the price.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2008/11/04/JohnSpringerCollectionCorbis_3stooges460.jpg
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2008/11/04/JohnSpringerCollectionCorbis_3stooges460.jpg
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
January 17, 2016, 10:31:06 AM
that version is adding nothing besides the block to 2mb, why we should move from core, when with segregate we will get roughly the same thing?
all those proposal are the same in the end, but soem add useless stuff that aim at bring the advantage on a side instead of another
all those proposal are the same in the end, but soem add useless stuff that aim at bring the advantage on a side instead of another
I agree very much. I haven't heard a single original idea from them yet. What are their credentials?
one word: Gavin.
I certainly would not want to wait for Core to publish segwit anything or else. We've been waiting 3 years
for a blocksize incrase.
Plus I just don't trust core any more. They care more about Blockstream and couldn't give a damn
what the rest of the community wants.
January 17, 2016, 10:27:31 AM
that version is adding nothing besides the block to 2mb, why we should move from core, when with segregate we will get roughly the same thing?
all those proposal are the same in the end, but soem add useless stuff that aim at bring the advantage on a side instead of another
all those proposal are the same in the end, but soem add useless stuff that aim at bring the advantage on a side instead of another
I agree very much. I haven't heard a single original idea from them yet. What are their credentials?
January 17, 2016, 10:19:49 AM
that version is adding nothing besides the block to 2mb, why we should move from core, when with segregate we will get roughly the same thing?
all those proposal are the same in the end, but some add useless stuff that aim at bring the advantage on a side instead of another
all those proposal are the same in the end, but some add useless stuff that aim at bring the advantage on a side instead of another
Jump to: