Topic: Bitcoin Exchanges Unveil Emergency Hard Fork Contingency Plan - page 3. (Read 4581 times)

How many dumbass believe BTU will just create a >1 MB block out of the Blue.

Think about it for  2 seconds, there will be no emergency , like the liars are posting.

BTU will gain a 55 to 75% control and hold it for 2 weeks, once they have proven they can hold over 51% control,
from that date, everyone will have 2 weeks before they release a block that will discard the segwit idiots,
So everyone will have 2 weeks prior notice before the > 1mb block will be released .

That is not an emergency that is a well planned evolution of BTC new Transaction capacity , which will lower transaction fees and save BTC
from an early death of being priced out of the market.

 

FYI:
Within 72 hours of the fork, all segwit miners will migrate to the unlimited design or face an economic collapse.
Then there will only be 1 BTC again and the Trojan virus of Blockchains known as segwit , will have been eradicated.  
Learn it , Love it , BTU is the Future of BTC.

splitting the network is not a good thing, but if it happens we are going into a revolution.
It may make the price lower but at the long run we are just going to have a benefit out of it.

Because they care about the health of the network, they don't want to fork because they know that's bad for bitcoin... Once BU has a large majority of the hashrate (75% IIRC) they will start producing large blocks (and thus fork) in the hopes that the other 25% will then have no other choice but to also start mining (or atleast accepting) big blocks... They know that if they fork now they'll lose all the hashrate they currently have and that they'll create 2 BTCs, which they know would be horrible for adoption. Just imagine new people learning that there are 2 bitcoins all of a sudden  

your right. he doesnt have 16%. he has less.. try to double check statistics, not reddit next time

never said hashrate. i said majority. learn consensus and you will understand its about nodes that are more important.. remember its only core that car about hashrate. they even went soft because of it. but they didnt expect to be on the losing side. they thought they could fly their code in un opposed. it made me laugh when they avoided full node then pool, to instead just go pool only.. basically shooting self in the foot.
but we know the reason is to take the glory if it worked going soft or blame the pools if it didnt work.. either way not having to accept that segwit just isnt wanted.


doesnt matter what satoshi does. spending coins is just temporary "price" drama.
if anyone only cares about price drama they need to take a step back and think about the bigger picture.
if anyone only cares about 'double my coins' greed drama they need to take a step back and think about the bigger picture.

This has nothing to do with Segwit. You are living your delusions again.

If you believe that Jihan only has 16% under his control, then I have bad news for you. You are as ignorant as any other shitposter on this forum.

Majority hashrate != Bitcoin.

What makes you think that Satoshi is alive?

Sources?

everyone?? lol learn consensus. 74% of pools disagree or not decided.
also ZERO % of nodes have an active segwit wallet. all they have is a user agent sybil flagging desire for such.
in short segwit isnt even ready for release. without weeks/months of delays and drama after activation.

infact that 74% can be more because some pools faking desire for segwit, much like your propaganda of the opposite being true. but 26/74 are numbers that cant be ignored. its not 50/50 its not 75/25 its not 95/5... its 26/74

fixed that for you

jihan has only 16% management but even then not even 16% are voting in one direction. so blaming the 74% against segwit on one man with less than 16% is a major laugh, kind of digging at the bottom of the barrel for any straw you can find, laugh


again the whole 16%=74% jihan propaganda. lol. keep digging
if they have the majority they dont need to fork off.. if they dont get the majority they wont fork off. consensus of one single chain. LEARN IT

Yes, this is what I have mentioned in the other thread.  If Satoshi is adamantly against BU (and there are reasons to think he is) he could dump it into the ground.  It would be a very dangerous move though.  He would be acknowledging he is still alive and has active control of his keys.  He might help core by dumping on BU, but it could also make people not want to use either chain knowing he is back.  Obviously very unlikely but interesting to think about.  Of course, as has been mentioned, it will be a dumpwar fest regardless, since there are plenty of massive early adopter holders on both sides of the debate.

This is not a fork, it is a revolution

Interesting thought.  I suppose since Satoshi may still be out there holding a huge amount of coins if they're unhappy with one particular fork they could probably pummel it into oblivion by dumping those coins in large amounts day after day.

You don't understand how hard forks work. All these exchanges have defined BTU as an upcoming altcoin (if it happens).

Everyone sane just wants them to fork off to their altcoin so that we can move forward in a more timely manner. Whilst you obviously have theories about Blockstream or whatever, it is very unfortunate that you're completely ignorant about Jihan Wu and his power trip to take control of the Bitcoin network.

Wrong, Jihan & his cartel want not only BU to activate but to take control of the network. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/601t7u/jihan_wus_messages_after_the_announcement_seem_to/
Watch out for wrong or exaggerated translations.

They don't need the majority of hashrate to fork off.

If they have the majority of the PoW, they will fork off. Their coins will be listed as XBU.

The politicians and elites will do everything to split bitcoin network to several units and from the infect reduce it values and undermined people trust and integrity of it network. Just like every human system, bitcoin has its challenge such as high fee, slow for confirmation and vulnerability. If this issue and resolve by the inside then politicians will be put to shame.

all of this
"forking(splitting) the chain is a control attempt"
but then
"they need to fork(split) off"

lol makes me laugh at the hypocrisy and the bait and switch just to play a failed victim card.

the thing is the community wont split away..
they laughed at blockstreams CTO when he begged the open community to split away.

the community want consensus no matter what side it is.
however the group in the blockstream/DCG corps pockets know they cant incorporate bitcoin if bitcoin is left open to diverse nodes, so they want all the diverse nodes to fork(split) off.
thats why there has been soo many rekt campaigns against anything not in the blockstream/DCG corps pockets.

the only group willing to cause a split is the blockstream/DCG group. but they have to wait for majority to do it if they want any chance of incorporating bitcoin. to then have domination and control of who can take fee's to repay the VC's.

---

bitcoin should remain open and diverse PEER network, not changed to be incorporated and TIERED network. there are even some [true independent] core devs that are repulsed by corporations and not everyone in core actually like the corporate dominance plans.

its getting too obvious that the corporations are getting desperate when they are begging the independant community to split away. and the corporations are doing all they can to avoid community consensus with all these non community consensus 'soft' bips that have actual banning(splitting off) end results.

---

there is nothing stopping the corporations from making an LN right now, but they know that people will only see it as a voluntary side service if the community help bitcoin grow.. the corporations want bitcoin stagnant to make their LN essential to grab many fes's to repay the MILLIONS of debt(blckstreams $70m/DCG multimillion debt).

if you are actually advocating to follow the corporations then you are not thinking about bitcoin. your thinking about corporations control. so you might aswell just go play around with fiat or hyperledger and leave bitcoin to be an open currency.

atleast admit you care more about the corporate control to grab fee's for VC repayment. and then go play with hyperldger to go grab your fee's, leave bitcoin to be the open diverse currency that it suppose to be

I don't think it is going to hurt the price, but the market cap is going to be splited between 2 coins.

Let's say you now have one coin worth 1100$, so after the split you will have a coin worth 700$ and a coin worth 400$, or something like that.

I know you have this miners are happy with the 1MB limit mantra, but does past actions on behalf of the miners support this?

Miners used to limit blocks to 250kB, then 500kB, then 750kB, and then 1MB. That is, in the past they have implemented a soft limit in policy.h or using -blockmaxsize command line option. If they wanted to squeeze fees higher, they could reduce the block size now. They can't increase it as they have hit the protocol consensus limit.

For those that say BU not tested? It might have some bugs that need sorting out, but they do seem to have their own test chain:

poloniex is actually saying that if you have bitcoin in your wallet, you can withdrawn those as they are bbitcoin unlimited, this does not sound like an altcoin to me but more like having the same coins twice

this is dangerous it can certainly kill the value on both chain, since people will get coins for free

I don't think it will split.  BU only serves to not activate Segwit.  Miners don't want BU either.

But the thing I highlighted is the (only) thing that makes it precious: NOBODY can change it.   As we see, indeed, nobody can change it.  So it is working.  Immutability: it works the way it was designed from the start, and cannot be changed: the rules are graved in stone, for the better or the worse.

Yes, the *software* implementing those rules can change.  But the rules themselves, no, if they determine something economical.  That was the guarantee of a crypto currency: the rules are graved in stone for ever, like the transactions.