Topic: Bitcoin Unlimited v/s SegWit - page 2. (Read 6157 times)

Yahoo, and what quality measure do you apply to this adressing thingy, directly?

If acceptance stays that poor, given the most are agnostic or blindly following core, the measure is very poor....

There is no "blocksize problem". There is a transaction capacity problem. And Segwit _directly_ addresses that actual problem with a immediate capacity improvement.

If BU forks and fails to kill off Bitcoin, there will indeed be two coins. If they do kill it off and achieve the coup, many of us will never accept miner-monopolized control over it and will leave their faux bitcoin for good.

Yeah. All politics, hidden interest, fight for big balls and control.

I say remove one line of code and let the market do the free float. But who gets the merits? No testing needed...

All the rest are nice to haves and can be added later.

I don't understand why people are calling BU a "fork coin". It's concept is good, I don't see anything wrong. If everyone else were to support it, there would be no two different coins, just one Bitcoin.

Segwit will not tackle the blocksize problem. It's a temporary fix them at will require a fork in the future.

How about you explain why instead of blindly fanboying what you were told to think?

I still like segwit for long-term period and I do not support the Bitcoin unlimited and it should seem a fork coin of bitcoin and will watch which one is the winner after then?

I agree. I think segwit Bitcoin is no longer really Bitcoin if there are so many changes to the base protocol. I'm not saying changed are bad, just that if you want segwit Bitcoin just fork and create an alt instead of changing so much. Code is law. No need to rewrite the whole Constitution.

I think both have good technologies that could help improve bitcoin. The problem is with the people behind each organization. Bitcoin politics is not fun to deal with. There is too much drama, hate, and attempted attacks to take over bitcoin.

So what's the exact reason then that Segwit is bad?
If you aren't able to say it in your own words instead of just dumping a like, there probably isn't any.

Besides that, this link is 22 days old. Don't you follow the news?
Bitmain-miners aren't signiling for BU because they think it's good, they signal for it to preserve their 20% additional profit from covert ASICboost, which is huge in a low margin business like mining.

(Some reasons) Why segregated-witness is bad -

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5zn4oi/some_reasons_why_segregatedwitness_is_bad/


1) segregated witness is a big change from the whitepaper, it changes fundamental concepts and outlines of Bitcoin.
2) it adds a huge more 'technical debt' which will make actually fixing the blocksize problem much, much harder than it is right now.
3) it does not actually fix anything regarding scaling, it merely pushes the issue off for another 6 months-2years, but if btc survives we will be back here discussing these same things again, but with more difficultly as segregated witness makes solving the blocksize issue much more difficult on a technical level
4) there is a massive, absolutely huge amount of misinformation and lies that are being used to try and persuade people to use segregated witness, I don't usually like things that have to be lied about to sound good.
5) segregated witness does not double the block size, far from it. In fact bitcoinCore gives an estimate of 1.6 or 1.7 times the current size (which was too small over a year ago if we want to avoid full blocks like Satoshi said we should). They estimate that we could get up to 2MB with a working LN (not yet developed)
6) it increases the amount of data that is sent at a higher rate than it increases capacity, increasing waste
7) segregated witness as a soft fork includes far more technical debt than as a hard fork, which makes all the above problems worse
8 ) there is no reason why a hardfork would be bad if the supermajority if the hashpower was needed to be using it before it activates, such a well prepared fork is just an upgrade
9) the things that segregated witness does do (tx malleability) can be done with FT or something better than segregated witness, or segregated witness as a hard fork (to lessen the amount of technical debt that will interfere with a real scalability fix)
.

10,000 websites using our gateway
2,000 wordpress websites using our wp gateway plugin according statistics on wordpress.org - https://wordpress.org/plugins/gourl-bitcoin-payment-gateway-paid-downloads-membership/

For example, Bitpay.com wp plugin using only 800 websites - https://wordpress.org/plugins/bitpay-for-woocommerce/ 

I wonder how you manage to pay $500-600 per day on tx fees if nobody actually uses your service 

Our payment gateway GoUrl.io will support "Bitcoin Unlimited".

As we wrote in other topic, "Gourl.io Bitcoin Gateway pays $500-600 per day as transaction fees for forwarding payments to our customers. It is expensive!"

Segregated Witness is not good solution ...

Still think the BU folk.... should just accept Seg Wit...up to this point anyway....see how it goes.....THEN make the case once that is done. Less risky then a hard fork and would show at least one camp acting like an adult imho.

unlikely but a guy can hope...

I really hope that bitcoin does not fork. A hardfork is just not needed at this time (and it is very risky). Its better to implement Segwit with Lightning first. If later it becomes necessary, a hardfork (BU) can always be implemented.

While I think that everybody is entitled to an opinion, Bitcoin Unlimited is just plain wrong and irresponsible.

I think there are issues with both sides. It feels like a propaganda war. What I do know though is that BU has too many bugs to implement and that we do have the issue of scaling and fees.

Choices are not so black and white. There was already a more comprehensive poll regarding this..

I support Big Blocks. Not necessarily BU; Bitcoin XT with BIP-101 also good.

But in this poll, Bitcoin Unlimited wins for me.

Well f2pool is undecided as it seems because they're signaling all three proposals at the same time, unlimited, 8MB, segwit.
I'd go with unlimited as long as they do it with 75% consensus because segwit is going to change a lots of things which are not in the interests of end users.