Topic: Bitcoin Unlimited v/s SegWit (Read 6157 times)
SegWit is bound to fail. Bitcoin is what it is today because people want freedom from banks. That cat is out of the bag and no matter what Blockstream/Core/AXA/Henri de Castries/Bilderberg do, short of rounding us all up, people will use the software that allows them pure p2p transactions on-chain. And as long as there are people who want that, there will be people who mine that way.
Right now, there are easily enough miners to start mining bigger blocks. If we forked to bigger blocks today it would kill Core-allied miners because they would take forever to mine a 1MB block, and it would get worse as smaller SW miners jumped ship. Meanwhile, big block miners would lose hashing power, but could mine bigger blocks to compensate.
I think the only reason they're waiting now is for a smoother transition process for everyone.
I see. So both segwit and btu fork is not active yet. Thanks for the information
Anyhow regarding on either we will have btc or btu, is there a particular date where a decision will be made?
If yes, who made the decision on whether we will be going for btc, btu or even both?
Thanks
No, there is no entity or central group of people that decides whether we use one proposal or another. The closest thing we have to that are miners, but the miners are not a cohesive group of people. There is no date or deadline for one proposal to activate. Anyhow regarding on either we will have btc or btu, is there a particular date where a decision will be made?
If yes, who made the decision on whether we will be going for btc, btu or even both?
Thanks
is the blockchain already splitted?
As i can see the BTU Coins in coinmarketcap
No. No fork has happened yet. The BTU coins you see are not actual coins but rather promises of future BTU coins after a BU hard fork.As i can see the BTU Coins in coinmarketcap
I see. So both segwit and btu fork is not active yet. Thanks for the information
Anyhow regarding on either we will have btc or btu, is there a particular date where a decision will be made?
If yes, who made the decision on whether we will be going for btc, btu or even both?
Thanks
is the blockchain already splitted?
As i can see the BTU Coins in coinmarketcap
No. No fork has happened yet. The BTU coins you see are not actual coins but rather promises of future BTU coins after a BU hard fork. As i can see the BTU Coins in coinmarketcap
is the blockchain already splitted?
As i can see the BTU Coins in coinmarketcap
As i can see the BTU Coins in coinmarketcap
segwit is a better option to go for....atleast the adoption of segwit won't bring any "Coin Split" kind of situation...and yeah it will also be helpful in solving the issues of "transaction malleability" the so called "bITCOIN bUG"
Here is one of the good article which shows difference between SegWit and BU
https://medium.com/@opinderpreet/bitcoin-scaling-issue-what-it-means-for-common-man-and-how-they-can-escape-from-it-5ada1a6900b7
https://medium.com/@opinderpreet/bitcoin-scaling-issue-what-it-means-for-common-man-and-how-they-can-escape-from-it-5ada1a6900b7
I do not support anything. Bitcoin needed a better, more effective solution. Both systems have significant insufficiency.
Can you be more specific? This is a technical forum.
I do not support anything. Bitcoin needed a better, more effective solution. Both systems have significant insufficiency.
Bitcoin Unlimited is gaining ground!
LAST 1000 BLOCKS:
Bitcoin Unlimited blocks: 395 ( 39.5% )
Bitcoin Classic blocks: 2 ( 0.2% )
SegWit blocks: 278 ( 27.8% )
If you run a node, make sure you are using an implementation that accepts big blocks - the fork is coming soon!
LAST 1000 BLOCKS:
Bitcoin Unlimited blocks: 395 ( 39.5% )
Bitcoin Classic blocks: 2 ( 0.2% )
SegWit blocks: 278 ( 27.8% )
If you run a node, make sure you are using an implementation that accepts big blocks - the fork is coming soon!
Choices are not so black and white.
While I think that everybody is entitled to an opinion, Bitcoin Unlimited is just plain wrong and irresponsible.Hence why choices aren't so black and white as this poll...
Oh well, the devs got paid. The banksters who funded this nonsense are out of 75 million though.
Banksters aren't out of anything, those millions have to be paid back (if they weren't yet) and with profit... Banksters are never out of anything
(thus Bitcoin was born...)seeing how it's is causing litecoin to come out it's 3 year slumber
What slumber, exactly? Last time I checked they weren't having any issues.
Bitcoin Unlimited blocks: 373 ( 37.3% )
Bitcoin Classic blocks: 2 ( 0.2% )
SegWit blocks: 275 ( 27.5% )
...
Neither miners nor holders want SegWit, so who does?
Bitcoin Classic blocks: 2 ( 0.2% )
SegWit blocks: 275 ( 27.5% )
...
Neither miners nor holders want SegWit, so who does?
Your block statistic answered part of your question: Some of the miners do.
I think I qualify as holder and I will accept segwit blocks which proves your arguments to be wrong.
I would have to say I would go with segwit because seeing how it's is causing litecoin to come out it's 3 year slumber and actually getting a must needed revitalization again, this can only make bitcoin stronger if it wades in the same waters as it's cryptocousin. 
Banks have a lot of money to mindlessly throw at their frankenstein creations.
I would have to say I would go with segwit because seeing how it's is causing litecoin to come out it's 3 year slumber and actually getting a must needed revitalization again, this can only make bitcoin stronger if it wades in the same waters as it's cryptocousin.
It's not a question of one or the other. BU is just not an acceptable choice by any measure, no matter how low your standards are.
If you intend to say they have bad development, be prepared to offer code snippets and explain in full technical detail why they are bad commits.
This isn't the "Dancing with the Stars" forum, its the bitcoin forum. There are a lot of people here who understand the whole 'Appeal to Authority' logical fallacy thing you guys love to do.
LAST 1000 BLOCKS:
Bitcoin Unlimited blocks: 373 ( 37.3% )
Bitcoin Classic blocks: 2 ( 0.2% )
SegWit blocks: 275 ( 27.5% )
Miners seem to disagree with the most likely rigged results of the poll here. Bitcoin holders don't seem to support SegWit either:
https://vote.bitcoin.com/arguments/block-size-limit-should-be-increased-to-8-mb-as-soon-as-possible
Neither miners nor holders want SegWit, so who does? Oh yeah, AXA, Blockstream, and Core. They should have just made their own alt-coin, because SegWit is dead and they just wasted 75 million dollars.
Oh well, the devs got paid. The banksters who funded this nonsense are out of 75 million though.
Bitcoin Unlimited blocks: 373 ( 37.3% )
Bitcoin Classic blocks: 2 ( 0.2% )
SegWit blocks: 275 ( 27.5% )
Miners seem to disagree with the most likely rigged results of the poll here. Bitcoin holders don't seem to support SegWit either:
https://vote.bitcoin.com/arguments/block-size-limit-should-be-increased-to-8-mb-as-soon-as-possible
Neither miners nor holders want SegWit, so who does? Oh yeah, AXA, Blockstream, and Core. They should have just made their own alt-coin, because SegWit is dead and they just wasted 75 million dollars.
Oh well, the devs got paid. The banksters who funded this nonsense are out of 75 million though.
It's not a question of one or the other. BU is just not an acceptable choice by any measure, no matter how low your standards are.
The answer is Segwit
I'm for simple on chain scaling using a bigger block size and believe most of the support to do other things is politically motivated or a result of misunderstanding via propaganda.
The biggest myths are:
1. we need high fees right now
2. there is a danger to bigger blocks (aside from quadratic hashing)
3. if we increase blocksize we'll have gigabyte blocks overnight
4. node cost increases can be eliminated
5. there is no centralization risk with LN
6. we wont need bigger blocks with LN
7. we need segwit for LN
8. there's a specific plan to get worldwide scaling with LN in a p2p fashion
The biggest myths are:
1. we need high fees right now
2. there is a danger to bigger blocks (aside from quadratic hashing)
3. if we increase blocksize we'll have gigabyte blocks overnight
4. node cost increases can be eliminated
5. there is no centralization risk with LN
6. we wont need bigger blocks with LN
7. we need segwit for LN
8. there's a specific plan to get worldwide scaling with LN in a p2p fashion
Great compilation - and the sad thing is that lots are brainstreamed already to believe in all that - so they act using only their instinct. Using instinct is far cheaper for human brains. Thinking about hard problems needs real energy = PoW and majority is not willing to spend that. We cant fix stupid....
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
I'm for simple on chain scaling using a bigger block size and believe most of the support to do other things is politically motivated or a result of misunderstanding via propaganda.
The biggest myths are:
1. we need high fees right now
2. there is a danger to bigger blocks (aside from quadratic hashing)
3. if we increase blocksize we'll have gigabyte blocks overnight
4. node cost increases can be eliminated
5. there is no centralization risk with LN
6. we wont need bigger blocks with LN
7. we need segwit for LN
8. there's a specific plan to get worldwide scaling with LN in a p2p fashion
The biggest myths are:
1. we need high fees right now
2. there is a danger to bigger blocks (aside from quadratic hashing)
3. if we increase blocksize we'll have gigabyte blocks overnight
4. node cost increases can be eliminated
5. there is no centralization risk with LN
6. we wont need bigger blocks with LN
7. we need segwit for LN
8. there's a specific plan to get worldwide scaling with LN in a p2p fashion
Jump to: