Topic: bitcoin "unlimited" seeks review - page 2. (Read 16106 times)

This is a simple animation to visualize how the network's block size limit could be increased through a completely decentralized process.  

When enough "forking pressure" builds, individual nodes defect from the historical 1 MB consensus, setting their personal block size limits higher.  A new consensus forms at a higher block size limit with the help of signalling.  When miners are confident that the economic majority will accept larger blocks, they begin to relieve the pressure by increasing their generation limits and producing larger blocks.  

Green stands for yes and red stands for no, there is nothing manipulative about this, unless you think that traffic lights and price graphs for example are also propaganda. These associations with colors are well established, and it is a fact that Core does not support an increased blocksize whereas BU does regardless of the blocksize limit and which blocksize increase proposal is chosen by the economic majority, so the way that Peter R depicts potential support and compatibility for these different implementations under different network conditions is accurate.

BU does not allow for Sybil attacks like you claim, since proof of work can not be Sybil attack, and it is proof of work which under BU would allow for a change to the blocksize limit, this is actually not any different to how the network already functions today, BU just further empowers participants by reducing the barriers to entry to effect such change.

Bitcoin Unlimited will just follow the longest chain regardless of the blocksize limit under the default settings, and proof of work can not be Sybil attacked, which is the primary reason why POW is even used in Bitcoin in the first place. It is supposed to be a reliable way to measure consensus since miners would not act against their own self interests by turning against the economic majority.

PseudoNode is better because it also covers any future non-blocksize related hardfork:



The only rational thing to do is to replace the entire Bitcoin network with PseudoNodes

I gotta admit XT failed miserably.

Hearn ran away...and support for XT is literally dead at this point.

It's a softfork of XT which makes it compatible with Bitcoin, and also removes all of its other ill-advised changes.

Okay I give up. What the hell is Bitcoin Ultra?

[a] Then what's the point of your post?

If you imagine that the block size issue would turn quickly towards something like bitpay nodes, wouldn't it be "safer" to run BU? I'm not saying that this is the saving grace of BU, just that this point might be more relevant now than it has been.



U R [expletive deleted]

Nobody cares about XTurd or Unlimiturd.  They had their chance, but failed to get more than 0.001% of the network to support them.

Bitcoin Ultra is the new hawtness.   

And BTW, what happened to the "Watch out Core, XT is going to take over in January" threats?

Did you forget about that?  Too bad; I have not.

Could have fooled me with the flagrantly biased, misleading and just plain wrong quote in your signature.  You're hardly the posterboy for neutrality, are you.  Troll harder next time.

Why are you posting that picture? Is the RED supposed to induce a negative emotion? Is RED supposed to be wrong?

BU is full of flaws and allows for Sybil attacks.

The crowd here are capable of thinking for themselves, this is not some political campaign where you just utter the same words over and over and show us 4 colored boxes. It means absolutely nothing that you draw those boxes. Its insulting how you present your option.

Indeed.  For people who want to track consensus regardless of the who/what/where/when/why of the eventual block size limit increase, Bitcoin Unlimited is the best choice.  

Actually because of the defaults set in BU it is more likely to follow the longest chain regardless of what the blocksize will be. Therefore it can be argued that BU is better for end users since if they where using Core instead they would be forked off the network when the blocksize is increased. BU allows for continued compatibility with the Bitcoin blockchain regardless of what blocksize proposal is adopted, unlike both XT and Core which will need to be upgraded and or patched in order to maintain consensus with the economic majority depending on the blocksize proposal that is chosen. Bitcoin Unlimited on the other hand maintains compatibility with other proposals out of the box from day one using the default settings.

And you would be surprised by how easy it would be to manipulate a small number of people to change a few settings to cause chaos for them, then have them have a really bad experience, then get press about how bad it is and how they lost their money.  This is a clear intent to break everything and make it too chaotic to be usable.

[ I really like the concept of BU - mainly because it is the most decentralised approach ]

I am curious as to what people think will happen, IF people started running BU, and the CORE said ' USE THESE SETTINGS ' , would the majority of people use them ?

I think they would.

In fact I think the CORE boys are doing themselves a disservice, by not realising that 'almost' everyone would still follow their lead. Easily the majority.

AND - importantly - even though we would still be using the settings CORE feels is right, because we were given a choice and not forced, there would be no animosity. win win.

People are funny like that.

Thank you. I understand your perspective now. It is interesting.

Good.  Let's hope Dr. Back has learned a valuable lesson about flittering between forums just because (heaven forfend) a mod does their job when Peturd Rizun insists on shitposting in a Serious Thread.

The idea that the grass is greener and free of Sensor Ships on /r/btc (of all places) is asinine.

For one (exorbitantly obvious) thing, posts here cannot be hidden by brigading Gavinistas or (charitably pretending there's a functional difference) Buttcoiners.

You'd think Dr. Back would know better after Bitcoin Judas's pet sub threw Drak under the bus.

Perhaps this is simply an extension of his admirably subtle strategy to counter-troll Unlimiturd's Redditard Army....   

I am claiming that one should assume a slight psychological incentive to run a full node as the maxBlockSize GUI within the BU full node wallet empowers the end user and encourages them to use an economic full node. The consequence of this is that it very slightly dis-empowers any developers as the decision with maxBlockSize(and in the future some BU supporters claim other BIP's) now is made principally between the nodes and miners instead of the developers(which is a slight negative consequence IMHO). I don't know if the incentives are strong enough to have a profound impact but at least it has started me thinking of ways we can encourage more economic full nodes besides the normal methods-

More features, better privacy, better UI, more secure, more reliable, ect...

All these represent obvious things we can improve to encourage more economic full nodes which is a large cost which will continue to grow as blocks size increases.

Some other methods to incentivize full nodes would be to cut them in on some of the LN, fraud proof server,  or payment channel fees by acting as a hub for these.

Than there is the other more complex incentives like gamification techniques that psychologically rewards the user in multiple ways or makes running a full node fun that can be explored.

Please be more specific about how it does that.

I tried really hard to have a healthy and technical discussion at the reddit forum that Adam directed us to continue the conversation but was met with a lot of groupthink , trolls , and some dishonesty. I suppose that exists a bit in the other reddits too so have given up wasting time in all those social platforms or that other forum as they are a bit toxic IMHO.

Bitcoin Unlimited seems somewhat interesting so I will still follow up looking into it some more independently .

Technically, the best things I like about Bitcoin Unlimited is the incentivization it places upon node operators. Recently BTCC decided to spin up 102 AWS nodes which they assumed would help the ecosystem but made the mistake of forgetting that you need an active human on the other side verifying txs and check for bugs... meaning you can't just spin up node instances and not use them as their action, albeit well intended, is slightly harmful to the ecosystem. BU incentivizes "economic full nodes" run by individuals on different /16 ranges which is exactly what we need . The incentive isn't enough to have much of an impact but it has got me thinking .... What other gamification techniques can be used to encourage economic node use?