I might not be the best or the most technical for this but it's what I understood. From what I know both classic and core are just the software behind it. The coins are still bitcoins!

It can't really affect the coins no?

Well, actual BTC are not in risk of disappearing as they can fit in 2 MB blocks. Users are in a comfortable place IMO as they can choose whatever they like once it is developed, without risking their coins beforehand...

I don't give a rats ass about VMs or how many there are running whatever the hell they want to run.

By running a full node, I choose which branch my transactions happen on. You can call it a fancy wallet - but I don't really care for semantic games, those are usually played by arrogant people who know they don't have a point but are too prideful to admit it.

So by running my fancy wallet, I choose which fork I'm active on. When you or anyone sends me coins, it is valid on that fork or it isn't valid.

So when we, the users, run a full nodes - we, the users, decide which fork the block reward has value on - because if the miners decide they like classic (doubtful but hypothetical) and try to force us into it even though we, the users who buy coins, prefer core - then the coins those miners mine will be worthless because they can't sell them to us.

Thus they will mine what we, the people running full nodes, er, I mean fancy wallets continue to use - giving a balance of power because their block rewards are worthless if they can't sell the coins to us.

You don't get it.

I don't want the power to decide which fork wins. That's not security, that would be centralization.

This started because you wanted to know how people running full clients adds security.

It adds security because I don't get to choose, the miners don't get to choose, but a consensus of distributed users RUNNING FULL NODES FOR THEIR FANCY WALLETS gets to choose.

That's where the security from. Decentralization.

When we all use lite clients clients, it isn't decentralized consensus.

This isn't rocket science, it is ridiculous that you need this explained over and over and over again.

If the miners do not support core but the users do, there will be plenty of miners who do support core  - even if it means some of us break out our depricated USB hubs and USB miners.

What we have going on here is an attempted Coup d'état.

Even if Classic is the technically superior solution to the problem, if they are successful it will show the world that a small group of people with business interest can take over the bitcoin network and then I fear it is game over for bitcoin. That's the real reason I object to Classic.

If it is the technically correct solution, they should have convinced the core developers. If they couldn't convince the core developers, then maybe it isn't as sound as they think it is.

The reality though is I don't see support for Classic anyway. If the users don't want it, it will fail because the miners only care about money, they will mine where the block reward has user demand. Period. Demand is what drives the price.

I don't want to hijack this topic so I'll try to keep my question short:

If there is a move to Classic that makes up a large majority of the userbase, what does that mean for the average man? Do we just have to transfer our private addresses to the Classic clients, or what?

Truly I do not care what client is used, as I am not really educated enough on this topic to give an informed opinion. I am more interested in spreading the information explaining for other people how they can save their money.

Sometimes words fail me. How can ... why do you think Classic... how do you even...



>What we have going on here is an attempted Coup d'état.
No Alice, what we have here is a bunch of entrenched, entitled bitches. Who not only failed to prevent this [100% predictable] fiasco, but have *driven out* the people who tried to keep shit from hitting the fan. The very bitches who are now raping Bitcoin for Blockstream's benefit.

If there is a hard fork there is big trouble.

User A is on Fork A
User B is on Fork B

User A sends coins to user B but one of the inputs is only valid on Fork A

User B can not retrieve the funds because the transaction is not valid on Fork B and user A can not retrieve the funds either because the transaction is valid on Fork A and user A doesn't have the private key to the address.

That is what will happen if there is a fork and all users don't use the same fork.

Classic is an all or nothing. Either everyone uses it or no one uses it. There is no in-between.

If they fork the blockchain without consensus from the users - it will be hell.

I am aware of the different forks and the implications of all the users not agreeing to use the same fork, but I am referring to existing coins right now, whether or not they can be "transferred", per say, to the other blockchain without having to go through a seperate program aside from the client itself.

I assume that classic is basically copying the blockchain in its current state, and thus the Bitcoin transfers are being synced as they occur in the Core blockchain? I can very well be wong, because again I have no idea how this works.