All Bets

Will the Bitcoin Classic 2MB hard fork happen in 2016?

Will the Bitcoin Classic 2MB hard fork happen in 2016?


Do you think the Bitcoin Classic 2MB hard fork will happen this year? You are damned sure it will? Or think there's no way in hell? Bet on it!

Decision Logic

The bet will be flagged as True if, within the present year 2016, there will be a Bitcoin classic majority hard fork supporting 2MB block size.
//Admin edit Feb 15 - Bitcoin Classic majority specified. Logic: as per rest of the bet information and common sense (otherwise anyone could create a 'bitcoin' hard fork).

CLOSING IN2016-02-29 22:59:00

5:40PM, Feb 10, 2016 UTC

10:59PM, Feb 29, 2016 UTC

10:59PM, Dec 31, 2016 UTC

RESOLVED AT 11:08PM, Dec 31, 2016 UTC

Total Volume: 18.98

This bet has been resolved!

The outcome was "No"

18.98386945 was split between 26 bettors.
# of Bets:23
# of Bets:26


Login or Sign Up to comment.

hellobitcoinwo 5:17AM, Mar 1, 2016 UTC
BIP 109 is Classic. Classic is BIP 109. If Core adopts BIP 109 out of desperation, they only did so to save face. They still lost and 1mb is no more, and Classic won. Classic clients will be operational then because the 75% threshold of blocks marked as BIP 109 will have been met. So Classic will have hardforked, even if Core decides at the last desperate moment to help accomplish it.
praine 6:29PM, Feb 18, 2016 UTC
Well, this is what Avalon said would be "new and improved Core, not Classic", so yes, it should be cancelled in that case.
grixm 6:25PM, Feb 18, 2016 UTC
I too voted no on this bet simply because I don't think classic will be able to overtake core. In the event that core changes their mind and adopts bip109 without being threatened by Classic, I would object to this bet resolving as true. I think it should be nullified in that case. If however classic gets 75% of recent blocks or almost certainly will in the near future, and core yields and adopts bip109 merely in order to not split the network, then of course the bet would be true.
BetterM 6:49PM, Feb 17, 2016 UTC
@Avalon - You are right indeed! :) OK then!
Avalon 6:13PM, Feb 17, 2016 UTC
@BetterM - We'll have to decide in that scenario should it arise. There may be other factors at play as well.   This goes for all other 'what-if' scenarios; we'll have to review all evidence presented at that time. You can spend days going over every 'what-if' scenario and still miss something else that may happen. Discussion is still welcome of course!
BetterM 5:59PM, Feb 17, 2016 UTC
@Avalon. .. Uhm... My description said "The bet will be flagged as True if, within the present year 2016, there will be a Bitcoin classic majority hard fork supporting 2MB block size. ". If Core adopt BIP109, that is exactly the code that Bitcoin Classic introduced, so that would be in fact the Bitcoin Classic hard fork winning (in respect to the present version of Core / current valitation rules). If that still laves doubts, I would ask hellobitcoinwo opinion, as the major and first better.
Avalon 5:39PM, Feb 17, 2016 UTC
@dooglus - My algorithm change reply was for the issue of them getting around consensus. You're right in that the Classic project, and the code they release counts for this resolution, but only if it is done reasonably and for their current stated purpose, from their landing page: "We are writing the software that miners and users say they want. We will make sure that it solves their needs, help them deploy it, and gracefully upgrade the bitcoin network’s capacity together."
Avalon 5:33PM, Feb 17, 2016 UTC
@BetterM - Your bet as it reads is about whether or not the Bitcoin classic group can overtake Bitcoin Core. If Core adopts the same functionality as Classic, it is still 'new and improved Core, not Classic'. In this case however, we would nullify the prop as the outcome conditions have changed (both Yes and No results would be meaningless).
dooglus 4:04PM, Feb 17, 2016 UTC
@Avalon "For the mining algorithm change, that would no longer count as 'bitcoin classic' so it is already stated" If the Bitcoin Classic project changes the mining algorithm, why wouldn't they still count as "Bitcoin Classic"? By definition Bitcoin Classic is whatever the Bitcoin Classic project releases. And since they appear to be guided by popular opinion via the dodgy proprietary voting site they are promoting, it could happen. The conflicting statements in this chat need cleaning up.
BetterM 10:56AM, Feb 17, 2016 UTC
Unless Core relent and it too adopt BIP109 (so the same code as Classic, relative to block size validation). That goes without saying because in that case blocks mined by Core will be marked in the exact same way as Classic do.
Avalon 4:32AM, Feb 17, 2016 UTC
@todu - As discussed by praine and BetterM, this proposition will consider Bitcoin Classic-forks only, otherwise the bet would resolve as 'No'. To re-iterate: if Bitcoin Core changes to 2MB+ blocks, this does NOT count toward the resolution of this bet.
praine 3:14AM, Feb 17, 2016 UTC
Alright, let us continue then.
BetterM 3:10AM, Feb 17, 2016 UTC
You're right. And re-reading how I described & titled the bet, that was indeed the most reasonable and logic assumption, and most easy verifiable. So, 750/1000 Classic blocks and it's TRUE. OK!
praine 3:02AM, Feb 17, 2016 UTC
Not necessarily. There is already talk that core want to increase, but that's not necessarily due to the pressure of Classic. I'm going by what hellobitcoinworld posted when he posted that 750 out of the last 1000 blocks are mined with Classic to activate it. Only then does this proposition win, as it was that mutual understanding that caused me to bet in the first place.
BetterM 2:55AM, Feb 17, 2016 UTC
Well, first let me make clear that I'm perfectly fine if the logic remain the one visible now, as edited by the Admin. But I also think that my explanation doesn't really go against that. Let me explain. If, like in the example I written below, Core tomorrow decide that it's OK to go for 4MB, it would be only because it relented under the pressure of Classic. But again, for me the logic as is presented now in the edited version is fine too. Let's keep that one!
praine 2:06AM, Feb 17, 2016 UTC
So if the decision logic changes to reflect your comment, I request that the proposition be cancelled, as I feel I would have a pronounced disadvantage.
praine 2:04AM, Feb 17, 2016 UTC
That's not the impression I was under. All the information you provided was that this renders true if the hard fork is initiated by Bitcoin classic, and Bitcoin classic alone. That is also the impression hellobitcoinworld was under when he placed his 5 BTC bet on yes before he got and oppositional volume. There is already a proposition on this site about a 2MB block increase on this site, what made this appealing was that it needed to be caused by Bitcoin classic.
BetterM 1:55AM, Feb 17, 2016 UTC
Sound reasonable?
BetterM 1:53AM, Feb 17, 2016 UTC
Sorry for the delay - didn't notice the comments. So, in my intention the proposition is true if within this year 2016, 2MB (or even larger) blocks became valid / accepted for Bitcoin. So if Classic gain ground, the 750/1000 trigger, the grace period pass, someone mine a 1.1MB block, and that fork become Bitcoin, that count as TRUE. Or if tomorrow Bitcoin Core decide that 4MB max block size is OK, all parties agree and we are all an happy family again, that will also count as TRUE.
todu 6:15PM, Feb 16, 2016 UTC
What happens if Bitcoin Core surrenders and accepts to implement the 2 MB hard fork themselves before Bitcoin Classic has gotten it's required 75 % miner majority to hard fork? Does that mean that Bitcoin Classic won this bet because Bitcoin Core gave up and did what Bitcoin Classic demanded, or does it mean that Bitcoin Classic lost this bet because Bitcoin Core is the altclient that successfully hard forked the Bitcoin blockchain?
Avalon 6:13PM, Feb 15, 2016 UTC
@dooglus - For the mining algorithm change, that would no longer count as 'bitcoin classic' so it is already stated. For the 75% vs 51% target; not sure why the 75% matters as 51% is still a majority so that's more of a political issue and is still valid even if they change the target down to 51% and hard-fork. Keep in mind they wouldn't because that leaves no room for error so that scenario wouldn't happen without other concessions which would nullify this prop.
dooglus 4:21PM, Feb 15, 2016 UTC
@Avalon - OK, but I think it's much better to have the condition stated clearly up front. I don't want to tie my coins up for a year only to be correct but have the proposition cancelled because it wasn't clearly stated.
Avalon 8:13AM, Feb 15, 2016 UTC
@dooglus - We will wait for @BetterM to chime in but we would use the current prevailing circumstances to resolve. ie: 75% target, and not any workarounds (ie; changing mining algorithm). If logic is not clear, we always read it as 'for all intents and purposes'. If the circumstances change to a point where a resolution cannot be reached, the proposition is cancelled.
dooglus 7:51AM, Feb 15, 2016 UTC
This could use further clarification. What counts as a "Bitcoin classic majority hard fork"? What if they change their 75% target to 51%. Would that still count? What if they change their mining algorithm to something incompatible with Bitcoin Core? Then they can force the hard fork through with no support. How does the bet resolve then?
Avalon 6:18AM, Feb 15, 2016 UTC
Decision logic clarified to specify "classic" and "majority" as per the rest of the information provided by the author.
plasmoske 5:10AM, Feb 14, 2016 UTC
Good luck to everyone :-)
hellobitcoinwo 7:04PM, Feb 13, 2016 UTC
You can watch the Classic blocks at 750 out of any group of 1000 blocks are needed to activate Classic. May the best Bitcoin win. -hellobitcoinworld

Direct Link (click to highlight):

BBCode (forums):

Anonymous Bet - care to Login or Sign Up?

Placing bet on ""

Send winnings to:

*For use with standalone wallets (bitcoin-qt, electrum).
Shared wallets (exchanges, multifactor) will not work!


Send your bet to this address:


* Minimum bet is 0.0001 BTC

Your bet will be automatically entered when picked up - no confirmations needed!