Topic: Bitcoin Unlmited (Read 845 times)

That is not the case here, bitcoin unlimited doesn't refer to 21M total supply but is a different version of core wallet with a few changes in the software, as you should know, there are people trying to take control and be the center of decision making.
In case if you are confused about these different versions and their purpose, since bitcoin is like a wh**e there are a few pimps (core the first one/BU/XBC/Classic)trying to score her(bitcoin) and profit themselves.
This is what happens when you open her(source) legs to the public.  

lets address some of the r/bitcoin comments


as you can see the other implementations rejected causing an altcoin. and now the r/bitcoin are desperate to make other implementations move to an alt. while at the same time crying that the other implementations will create an alt.
to me thats like poking the bear to make it bite just to play the victim. every desperate method to make core the king controller


as we can see he will intentionally split the network by ignoring blocks of the opposition to force a soft fork in.
if he is willing to risk making an alt. why not avoid a hard bilateral, avoid a soft bilateral. and instead do a hard consensus. get the node count up. because obviously its the nodes that matter most.. to then give the pools the confidence boost that nothing bad will happen.

firstly BU never had 13.2btc to lose. in there are 20+ pools working non stop. getting a reject is the same as not solving a block. it didnt cost 13.2btc, bu simply didnt win 13.2btc, just like the other 19+ pools didnt win either.
secondly, it was a reject, dealtwith and thrown aside in 3 seconds
drama over in 3 seconds.
yet cored based pools cause rejects and orphans every day.
i even remember Sipa's bad code causing a 12 hour tail of orphans in 2013 (LevelDB bug). yep Sipa caused that boo boo

and now because those in r/bitcoin love their memes ill leave this for them

I had never experienced or savvy miners
but I know, somehow, Bitcoin is still limited in number, it is the only way to guarantee its value, if your Bitcoin mining without management, the number of coins will spill out, Bitcoin value will be lost

firstly learn consensus agreement vs bilateral split.

too many times people only speak of the best case scenario of soft and the worse case of hard.(they know why they do it!!)
but effectively the only difference between soft and hard is who gets to vote to activate..

soft.. pool votes nodes dont.
hard.. nodes vote then pools.

but in both soft and hard. both can have consensus, both can be controversial and both can have bilateral

softfork: consensus - >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: small 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: controversial - >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: long big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: bilateral - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

hardfork: consensus - >94% nodes, then >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: controversial - >50% nodes, then >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: bilateral - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

to make an actual altcoin you need to do more then just make bigger blocks or send an erroneous transaction.. as that just causes rejects/orphans.

you need to actually make the nodes ignore the opposing data and nodes so that they are not sticking to the same data. and instead walk in opposite directions

high agreement = less orphans low agreement = more orphans.
but if you have another clause to avoid rejecting or even seeing the opposition. then you are risking creating an altcoin

probably the only thing carlton has said this year that has merit.
the pools wont do anything if the risk of orphan is too high.. = incentive to play it safe and wait until there is little to no. or atleast acceptable risk

even with soft. even knowing nodes are not voting, pools are not going to risk doing anything to cause high orphan rate.
so this is why even with a soft fork. pools are waiting to see(unofficially) if node counts rise up to show they can validate FULLY the data devs want pools to make.

Bitcoin Unlimited as been debunked numerous times, the developers are just not cut for the job that is making a digital safen that guarantees things will be where they should be decades from now. Only conservative adults can get the job done so Core will remain as main devs.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5rfuc0/xpost_from_the_other_sub_what_are_the_main/

Here you can read more.

Of course franky1 will disregard everything as "/r/bitcoin" cultism while not seeing how the actual cultists are the /r/btc morons.

Good Answer.  I do like the idea in theory, and would love to see it played out on an altcoin or testnet, but to gamble with Bitcoin like this without knowing what will happen just sounds crazy.   

maybe im wrong, convince me if i am 

Good question. I expect the answer will be "incentive". Which assumes that the only incentive that exists is a positive one, whereas in the real world, those that may want all cryptocurrencies to fail can simply vote for the craziest forks 24/7.

I have been reading up on BU today, my question would be, "what is to stop BU forking into a couple of different chains with entrenched groups of miners and nodes on each chain?  all arguing over block size and direction of bitcoin"?  much like we have now.  i have a lot of faith in the mathematics of the system but very little faith in Human beings and there ability to agree.

its not about letting miners choose the size..

its about the NODES choosing what they can cope with.. and they then if there is a node network consensus that Xmb can be accepted.

the pools can then show their desire, and then at a certain time everything is minimal risk/ averted most issues, they make blocks to a size thats within that limit. usually starting small amounts above old limits to test the water.

the mining pools cannot exceed the limit that the nodes cannot cope with otherwise they are just gonna see their blocks rejected.

..

much like right now pools are not going to intentionally go outside of limits until they see high majority node acceptance. even for segwit
60% of pools have not flagged desire of segwit or not segwit.. because they have not yet seen what nodes can or cant handle.
even though segwit is a soft fork and doesnt need a node count(hard) the pools are still watching the node count before deciding

because smart people know, nodes matter most

Is it just allowing the miners to choose block size or are there some other sneaky things going on in it as well?