Topic: Bitcoin Unlimited Won't Ever Be The "Bitcoin", Exchanges Vow (Read 2571 times)

You are wrong. Miners' opinion is worthless. Lets say the biggest pools left mining core bitcoins and started unlimited coins instead. What difference will it make if nobody buys their product? They'll be mining for nothing.

There will be major difficulty decreases on the core and maybe we'll even return to gpu mining. And that's a good thing.  

No need to repeat.  You've made your point and I've made mine.  Cheers.

Fundamental misunderstanding of the implications of on-chain and off-chain growth, jonald


On-chain blocksize increases come with a serious cost: network resources (processing power to check all blocks and all transactions, bandwidth to relay transactions and blocks, hard disk space for the blocks, space in RAM for transactions in the mempool)


Off-chain Lightning transactions reduce the costs by several orders of magnitude: only processing transactions to check whether they're valid needs to happen with Lightning, and it's only those transactions which are routed through your channel, not every transaction on the whole Bitcoin network, so only processing and RAM are consumed, and not much. The bandwidth is negligible for that, and there is no hard disk cost, because it's off chain there are no blocks to store.

But, even better, we have....

On-chain transaction scaling: by making transactions more efficient using the same blocksize we already have, far safer methods of increasing on-chain capacity can be achieved. They're all hard forks, and they will all consume more processing, there's no getting around that. But of course, BU hard forks every time the blocksize changes by 100 Kb, so I know that doesn't concern you; actual on-chain scaling changes would only need a 1-off fork each, instead of once a week for all eternity.


Now, can you address any of these facts directly, or will you derail and divert because you're, as usual, too afraid to face the truth

Why should I repeat the same things again and again?

I told you already that you may not want to bind me to your dilemma of choosing between two evils. It is not about Adam, Greg, or whatever. SegWit is obviously an interim solution. I see the future and I don't see miners in it. At least, not the miners which brought Bitcoin into this state of affairs (I refer to transaction fees losing ground and users competing between themselves for the inclusion of their transaction into the blockchain). The Bitcoin future (if there is any) is certainly with massive off-chain transactions (like what LN proposes). This is the only viable way to scale Bitcoin up in any meaningful way

My point is that Bitcoin doesn't have a future at 3 TPS (or however much Adam and Greg decide Segwit should give us necessarily).  They don't like the path we've been on, or where we're going based on Core's roadmap.   
With 75% consensus, they feel it will be a small risk compared to staying on that path.

Which is not gonna happen anytime soon. It's always a matter of compromise and obviously, profits. All these drama appears to me as a conflict of interest between big companies with the community sandwiched in the middle.

No, I don't understand your point

As I said it before and repeat it again, I don't see any rational reason (apart from the deliberate FUD, of course) why would a top miner want to do something which basically comes down to abandoning the business which brings him hefty profits. It seems that I should repeat one time more that they won't be able to sit on two chairs at once. It is conceptually impossible since if a miner which supports BU switches to mining this new Bitcoin, he would most certainly expect it to outperform the old Bitcoin eventually (otherwise mining it would be like flogging a dead horse), but in that case he should as well expect a tough competition in the business. Thus, the miner in question should necessarily burn all the bridges behind him, there will be no way back if he is serious about BU

You're not wrong but obviously some other coins are surging.  My original point here was that sure, its risky for the miners to change the status quo, but also risky for them not to change it.  I think you're smart enough to understand my point.

This is exactly what I expected you to answer

Basic logic failure, no? So if Bitcoin market share dropped, it necessarily, inevitably and inexorably means that money is flowing out of Bitcoin into altcoins, huh? You don't obviously think that money may actually be flowing in, not out of Bitcoin? Again, you have to explain how Bitcoin prices could be surging (and Bitcoin market cap consequently rising) if money was going out of Bitcoin as you claim. This is a simple reality check for you

My statement is based on the fact that Bitcoin's market cap used to be over 80% of the total cryptocurrency market.  For the first time ever, now it is below 80%.
Check https://coinmarketcap.com/

You can't possibly claim that

By claiming that you either keep other folks for fools or not thoroughly weighing your own replies and checking them against reality yourself. Bitcoin price has been more or less consistently rising for over half a year by now. If not for the BU FUD now being raised to new heights Bitcoin would most certainly have continued its intrepid growth. Even the Chinese central bank couldn't stop it (it tried twice). Now your time to try to coherently explain how this is ever possible if capital is actually flowing out of Bitcoin. I guess you will have hard time to tie up the loose ends

life is not without risk.

Bigger risk is allowing capital to flow out of Bitcoin and into alts (already started happening) and Bitcoin dies.

As I said it already, no problem with that

Let's bring it on after all and let the market decide whether there is something behind this hard fork or it is no more than just empty talk. But are you certain that the dudes which are involved in this project (developers and miners alike) do really intend to go for it? Okay, some developers may be sincere (though even this is dubious), but why miners would want that? I mean that would be a huge risk for them since they would be risking their profits and their investments in Bitcoin mining, so they may of course pay lip-service to these developers but they might not be in fact going to actually switch to mining this new Bitcoin

And what's wrong with that?

I don't see any reason why they should support headlong something which could potentially incur heavy losses to them. If BU gains traction, exchanges will certainly accept it. In fact, they didn't reject it in the first place, they just rejected it as the legit successor to Bitcoin and, as to me, this is a perfectly legitimate decision on their part since there is no reason either to consider it as such successor altogether. On the other hand, are today's miners not profiteering vultures? If anything, exchanges are not trying to sell a pig in a poke to anyone after all

let the market decide what is the right blend of on-chain and off-chain, not Adam Back and Greg Maxwell.

I disagree with the OP. These exchanges are profiteering ventures. They will go wherever the market brings them. If bitcoin unlimited gets to see the light of day then most likely these exchanges will be the sun that will support the growth of bitcoin unlimited. Exactly because of the fact they follow the trend where they will make more money.

The road to hell is is paved with good intentions

And this is not a trite metaphor which lost its meaning. If your intentions are good as you claim, why people are complaining en masse then? Whatever you say is irrelevant if folks lose money in the end thanks to your "goodwill". In other words, they will make more harm than good. On purely technical grounds, I don't see how on-chain scaling can be good in the long run. This doesn't fix the issue, this only postpones it somewhat. That would make sense if there were no viable alternative as of now, but there already are a few such (though in the latter case miners may eventually become completely inconsequential)

A)

No you don't, you want on-chain bloating, not scaling. If blocksize and tx/s increase 1:1, which they do, that's not scaling. Real scaling increases transaction rate with the same amount of block space. Scaling means making transactions smaller, not the blocks bigger.

Or are you trying to make up your own definition for the word "scaling", like you do with other words that get in your way?

B)

All you want is to replace one centralised team with another.

It's not possible to have contradicting ideas existing in the same concept, that makes zero sense, lol.

Either someone's in charge or no-one is, if that's communism to you, you came to the wrong place

The fact that he is living in a trailer has nothing to do whether he might be credible.
Would it be more pleasing for you if he broadcasted from his house in Hollywood Hills?
This guy might be not technically skilled but you don't have to be on the level of G.Maxwell to express concerns about bitcoin's condition.

We want A) on-chain scaling and B) free of centralized development.

Are those "mad"?  And why would you doubt that's what we really want?