Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 21, 2016, 03:24:38 PM

Yes I must have missed the news. Link, Lauda?

Quote from: BitUsher on January 21, 2016, 11:31:11 AM

Details and context being revealed ....(I look forward to more data confirming before making any judgments)

https://www.bikeji.com/t/3144
http://www.weibo.com/3884337005/De95fs0cx?from=page_1005053884337005_profile&wvr=6&mod=weibotime

The translation:

Yesterday, Jeff(Garzik?), a developer of Bitcoin Classic, took a flight to Beijing from New York, to attend a meeting with the Chinese Bitcoin businesses, including Haobtc, OKCoin, Bitmain, Bither, LIGHTNINGASIC, with the aim of gaining further support for Bitcoin Classic. When talking about Bitcoin Classic's releases, Jeff stated that a hard fork is needed for the upgrading and improvement of the source code(the original Chinese are weasel words and possibly syntactically incorrect), yet(and) without providing a clear long-term roadmap(about what lies ahead of the 2MB increase?), which led to almost universal dissatisfaction among those present, whom further expressed their withdrawal of support for Bitcoin Classic, and the need to reach a wider consensus within the community before a decision can be made.

An article with more details will come out soon... lets wait and verify before making any judgements.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 21, 2016, 03:24:38 PM

Bitusher, I'm confused what you are saying. What does Toomim have to do with
Bitfury and how/where is Bitfury attacking Classic's principles?

Quote from: BitUsher on January 21, 2016, 01:07:00 PM

Bitfury on the other hand gave a quick nod of approval to classic than quickly wrote this article which contradicts Classics Principles -
https://medium.com/@BitFuryGroup/keep-calm-and-bitcoin-on-4f29d581276#.lsa4ml1p6

Quote from: Valery Vavilov

Bitcoin Is Not an Electronic Payments System Like PayPal
You simply need an additional system operating on top of the Bitcoin Blockchain (with the Blockchain acting as a settlement layer)

Do we hear XT/BU/Classic proponents stressing the importance for tx to be spent on payment channels or on the main chain? From what I hear the sentiment is high volume on the main chain to directly pay the miners instead of a settlement system like Bitfury and core propose.

Quote from: Valery Vavilov

As the Bitcoin network continues to evolve, transaction fees need to grow in order to maintain a high level of security within and for the network.As BitFury has outlined in our white paper on Bitcoin security incentives, the transaction fee market is currently actively developing....
Overlay networks, such as Lightning and sidechains, can successfully deal with this challenge while in-service ledgers already do.

Do we hear XT/BU/Classic proponents stressing the importance for tx fees be raised and a fee market being created? Notice how he stresses the cheap tx's will be on the sidechains and payment channels like LN , and not on the main chain like being proposed by XT/BU/Classic proponents .

Quote from: Valery Vavilov

Bitcoin Transaction Processing Is Not Presently Clogged

Do we here this clarification from XT/BU/Classic proponents, or from Core proponents?

Quote from: Valery Vavilov

As the Scaling Bitcoin conferences have shown, miners are generally in support of cautious increases of the block size limit just not abrupt increases because such sudden change could undermine the foundation of the Bitcoin network.

Could that Abrupt increase be referring to a hard fork?

Quote from: Valery Vavilov

Mass Rule is Not Appropriate for Bitcoin

The pipe dream of some in the Bitcoin community is to govern the system by having ordinary users vote for changes by adopting the corresponding full node software. This approach is not only impractical, it is also not desirable.

This directly refutes the Bitcoin Classic And Bitcoin Unlimited governance model.
.