Am I missing something or is BTU at 45% of the network hash - page 2.

Haladay

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: Xester on March 27, 2017, 03:57:43 AM

If we allow BU to take over the bitcoin network or let them monopolize the bitcoin mining sector then in the end bitcoin will be corrupted with bugs and many problems. The bitcoin unlimited has made the bitcoin community to somehow weaken their trust to bitcoin. If bitcoin unlimited will be successful then almost everyone who invested on bitcoin will leave and shift to ethereum.

This is the most clear comment in this topic obviously. They aim to centralize the bitcoin to take control over it, yet we will not let them do this. Having a high network has should not mean that you can centralize bitcoin or make a hard fork to take control over it!

stdset

hero member

Activity: 572

Merit: 506

Quote from: Oznog on March 27, 2017, 09:53:02 AM

I think Bitcoin's miners will learn from that mistake and self-organize to neutralize the incorrect blockchain by creating empty blocks as long as it takes.

Sounds like you support ETH? If so, it's a symptom that you don't understand what value blockchain brought to us.

Quote from: Oznog on March 27, 2017, 09:53:02 AM

Quote from: stdset on March 27, 2017, 09:47:53 AM

2) Why are we sure, that there won't be more than 21M BTC? What if miners decide to remove the cap. What if the chain with increased emission will have more PoW than the original chain? Would that force us to accept modified BTC instead of original?

Miners can do that perfectly (always with sufficient consensus and cooperation).

If that's so easy, can we expect Bitcoin to be overtaken by powerful entities such as governments to be turned into fiat? Governments like fiat, they like to control money, the more contol they have the more they like it.

unamis76

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

I'm wondering if someone managed to develop "fake BU" nodes, just like someone did with XT... That can explain the recent rise in Unlimited-related hashpower.

Oznog

member

Activity: 65

Merit: 10

Quote from: stdset on March 27, 2017, 09:47:53 AM

1) ETH forked off ETC. Starting right from the split ETH had much more PoW (and still has much more PoW than ETC). How ETC survived and still being accepted by markets, users?

I think Bitcoin's miners will learn from that mistake and self-organize to neutralize the incorrect blockchain by creating empty blocks and artificial transfers as long as necessary.

Quote from: stdset on March 27, 2017, 09:47:53 AM

2) Why are we sure, that there won't be more than 21M BTC? What if miners decide to remove the cap. What if the chain with increased emission will have more PoW than the original chain? Would that force us to accept modified BTC instead of original?

Miners can do that perfectly (always with sufficient consensus and cooperation).

But before doing so they will question what impact it will have on the market price.
If they are favorable, they will and if not, no.

Problem?

stdset

hero member

Activity: 572

Merit: 506

Quote from: Oznog on March 27, 2017, 09:33:03 AM

Quote from: stdset on March 27, 2017, 09:24:35 AM

Apparently this noob doesn't know what is a harfork.

I suspect you think you're smarter than Satoshi.

Quote from: stdset on March 27, 2017, 09:24:35 AM

Engineers developing diesel engines must stop using common rail, turbocharging and other improvements developed in last several decades, we must respect the path of Rudolf Diesel.

Confirmed, you think you're smarter than Satoshi.

Your comparison is absurd.

You do not understand the revolution of electric cars.
Simple, efficient and will fix the wars and the world.

A couple of questions. Find answers to them and it will improve your understanding of what a blockchain is, and why it's a great invention.

1) ETH forked off ETC. Starting right from the split ETH had much more PoW (and still has much more PoW than ETC). How ETC survived and still being accepted by markets, users?
2) Why are we sure, that there won't be more than 21M BTC? What if miners decide to remove the cap. What if the chain with increased emission will have more PoW than the original chain? Would that force us to accept modified BTC instead of original?

Oznog

member

Activity: 65

Merit: 10

Quote from: uchalkql on March 27, 2017, 09:37:35 AM

Quote from: Oznog on March 27, 2017, 09:23:45 AM

Quote from: uchalkql on March 27, 2017, 09:13:51 AM

Users have had the opportunity to switch to a 2MB blocksize client, twice. Users rejected it, twice.

Users, nodes and developers do not have any special authority on Bitcoin.

Edit your comment/quote. I did not say -> Users rejected it, twice.

OK, as you wish.

uchalkql

jr. member

Activity: 49

Merit: 2

Quote from: Oznog on March 27, 2017, 09:23:45 AM

Users, nodes and developers do not have any special authority on Bitcoin.

Edit your comment/quote. I did not say -> Users rejected it, twice.

Oznog

member

Activity: 65

Merit: 10

Quote from: stdset on March 27, 2017, 09:24:35 AM

Apparently this noob doesn't know what is a harfork.

I suspect you think you're smarter than Satoshi.

Quote from: stdset on March 27, 2017, 09:24:35 AM

Engineers developing diesel engines must stop using common rail, turbocharging and other improvements developed in last several decades, we must respect the path of Rudolf Diesel.

Confirmed, you think you're smarter than Satoshi.

Your comparison is absurd.

You do not understand the revolution of electric cars.
Simple, efficient and will fix the wars and the world.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: Oznog on March 27, 2017, 09:23:45 AM

Quote from: uchalkql on March 27, 2017, 09:13:51 AM

Users rejected 2MB, twice.

Users, nodes and developers do not have any special authority on Bitcoin.

We'll see

uchalkql

jr. member

Activity: 49

Merit: 2

Quote from: Carlton Banks on March 27, 2017, 09:16:35 AM

Quote from: uchalkql on March 27, 2017, 09:13:51 AM

Many new users download the first google result, and many take a lot of time to update software.
So it's FAR from true that many users don't want BU.

There are only 10% BU nodes today. And it's already been demonstrated that a majority of those are run by 1 person from the same cloud hosting service.

Quote from: uchalkql on March 27, 2017, 09:13:51 AM

I am running core 0.14, but because of core don't care about users and don't update to 2(m3gaByt3s) and because of c3ns0rsh1p in this forum, I will download and use B1tcoin Unl1mit3d today.

Users have had the opportunity to switch to a 2MB blocksize client, twice. Users rejected it, twice.

I think many believed that core would eventually come to a consensus with miners and raise to 2MB.
And now many of them are realizing that this is not gonna happen.

stdset

hero member

Activity: 572

Merit: 506

Quote from: Oznog on March 27, 2017, 08:51:53 AM

Markets will have no choice but to accept the chain with more proof-of-work.

Apparently this noob doesn't know what is a harfork.

Quote from: Oznog on March 27, 2017, 08:51:53 AM

Developers will have to provide better simple and good on-chain solutions, respecting the path of Satoshi.

Engineers developing diesel engines must stop using common rail, turbocharging and other improvements developed in last several decades, we must respect the path of Rudolf Diesel.

Oznog

member

Activity: 65

Merit: 10

Quote from: Carlton Banks on March 27, 2017, 09:16:35 AM

There are only 10% BU nodes today. And it's already been demonstrated that a majority of those are run by 1 person from the same cloud hosting service.

I'm sorry to have to correct you, but I have a Bitcoin Unlimited node with symmetrical 200mbps, 41ms and 24/7.
So at least we are two people.

Quote from: uchalkql on March 27, 2017, 09:13:51 AM

Users have had the opportunity to switch to a 2MB blocksize client, twice. Users rejected it, twice.

Users, nodes and developers do not have any special authority on Bitcoin.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: uchalkql on March 27, 2017, 09:13:51 AM

Many new users download the first google result, and many take a lot of time to update software.
So it's FAR from true that many users don't want BU.

There are only 10% BU nodes today. And it's already been demonstrated that a majority of those are run by 1 person from the same cloud hosting service.

Quote from: uchalkql on March 27, 2017, 09:13:51 AM

I am running core 0.14, but because of core don't care about users and don't update to 2(m3gaByt3s) and because of c3ns0rsh1p in this forum, I will download and use B1tcoin Unl1mit3d today.

Users have had the opportunity to switch to a 2MB blocksize client, twice. Users rejected it, twice.

uchalkql

jr. member

Activity: 49

Merit: 2

Quote from: Carlton Banks on March 27, 2017, 03:04:14 AM

There is a real risk that BU will start adding sybil nodes to the network, to push BU nodes up to 51% or more (it should be obvious now that an overwhelming majority of genuine Bitcoin users do not want BU).

Many new users download the first google result, and many take a lot of time to update software.
So it's FAR from true that many users don't want BU.

I am running core 0.14, but because of core don't care about users and don't update to 2(m3gaByt3s) and because of c3ns0rsh1p in this forum, I will download and use B1tcoin Unl1mit3d today.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 27, 2017, 08:31:17 AM

They are SAVING us from people leaving to ethereum because there will actually be allowed to grow again. Blockstream wants bitcoin to grow... but only on their terms.

So how come your Chief propagandist Peter Rizun has stated he wants the miners to use BU against the BTC chain, to prevent the BTC chain from operating?

If this was really about free-market competition, Peter Rizun wouldn't be promoting the use of force against legitimate competitors, using the lame excuse "to stop people becoming confused about the fork"

Oznog

member

Activity: 65

Merit: 10

The miners rules (fully influenced by the market price).
The miners will deploy the nodes themselves if necessary.
The miners will hit the table.

Markets will have no choice but to accept the chain with more proof-of-work.

Developers will have to provide better simple and good on-chain solutions, respecting the path of Satoshi.
"Paid communicators" will be unmasked over time.

Those who have believed themselves smarter than Satoshi will bite the dust.

Those surprised should read the following document that may be of interest:
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: Xester on March 27, 2017, 03:57:43 AM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on March 27, 2017, 03:04:14 AM

There is a real risk that BU will start adding sybil nodes to the network, to push BU nodes up to 51% or more (it should be obvious now that an overwhelming majority of genuine Bitcoin users do not want BU).

Once they've done this, the BU shills can just turn the whole thing into a great big charade (and let's be honest, faking it is their speciality)

Then the attack on the BTC chain begins. They can use 51% nodes and 51% hashrate to make Bitcoin unusable, no transactions will confirm on the BTC chain if they attack with sufficient vigour (and the BU pushers in chief have already said that this is their intention, to "help avoid confusion" lol).

We're being forced into PoW change. The sooner everyone admits this, the sooner we can move on, and with Bitcoin as undamaged as possible, preferably.

If we allow BU to take over the bitcoin network or let them monopolize the bitcoin mining sector then in the end bitcoin will be corrupted with bugs and many problems. The bitcoin unlimited has made the bitcoin community to somehow weaken their trust to bitcoin. If bitcoin unlimited will be successful then almost everyone who invested on bitcoin will leave and shift to ethereum.

Plenty of room for Core, Classic, XT, BU, whatever... BU is just a catalyst to bigger blocks since the Core team has tried to rule with an iron fist and the miner's ain't having it... They are SAVING us from people leaving to ethereum because there will actually be allowed to grow again. Blockstream wants bitcoin to grow... but only on their terms.

European Central Bank

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1087

save judgement for stretches of 2016 blocks before anything else.

yesterday segwit was on the rise. tomorrow it may be again or nowhere.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: rdnkjdi on March 27, 2017, 05:42:55 AM

I don't intend to sound contrarian. Over time I've moved to hoping core wins in spite of their many missteps as they're obviously the more qualified candidates.

But we aren't being "forced" into anything. Anymore than the big blockers yelling about how they were being "forced into high fees by greedy miners" a year ago. The governance we've chosen is governing.

You don't get it

BU can be used like a weapon against the BTC chain. There will be no BTC to govern in that circumstance, and the BU chief ~~scient~~propagandist has literally stated that their intention is to prevent the BTC chain from being able to continue, once they hard fork.

So, yes, we are being forced to change the PoW. Because that's literally the only way to stop this class of attacks, QED

zimmah

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1005

It's probably around 41%~43% or so.

It's hard to tell how much hashrate they have exactly because of variance, but it probably a bit above 40%.

Topic: Am I missing something or is BTU at 45% of the network hash - page 2. (Read 2000 times)