Topic: Bitcoin.com almost forks the blockchain with buggy BU - page 2. (Read 2701 times)

Most definitely. I'm certain that there would be a fair amount of support for a proposal (post SegWit) that increases it somewhere between 10-20% yearly. However, there is definitely going to be very little-to-no support for proposal such as the one from Luke-jr. That proposal even goes as far as reducing the current block size.

Until yesterday I was not totally against Bitcoin Unlimited - at a first glance it seems to be an attractive way to adapt block size to the needs of users and miners. But this event shows us that it's basically beta (or even alpha) software. And I really fear worse things could happen to BTC if BU really becomes the dominant chain, as after looking into the details even from my layman's view the consensus method could lead to different types of "attacks" from interest groups to rise or shrink the maximal block size.

Changes of this magnitude should really be tested and reviewed extensively.

For now, because of this event, I am again more in favour of the Core fraction, although I would prefer a conservative maximal block size increase of 10 or 20% per year.

---

Where is all this 'quality' and 'testing' that they are speaking of?

Who exactly are the shills? Known members of the community?  

FTFY.

Nice shill parade.


BU code seems to be recognized.


And it has a luxury issue: It's been used.


And yes it's code.


And yes, code has bugs


All begining is hard.


And  yes bitcoin is strong and will stay.

"Bitcoin Unlimited is building the highest quality, most stable, Bitcoin client available. We have a strong commitment to quality and testing"

then research harder... Ver is not the one you want to be under
have a good researchin'!  

here is the funny part
you have said nothing original. you repeat what others have said. you dont even care who says it.
and it has been a few days since you yourself were told to research. and all you manage to do is repeat other peoples words.

i see nothing new and you are just trolling.

for your own sake atleast spend a few minutes reading the truth and not just reading r/bitcoin scripts. or copying other people.

p.s
i dont even run a BU node. i have my own
funnier part is icebreaker tried to sideline me into classic camp, then xt camp last year.. rather then admit the truth and just realise i simply hate blockstreams corporate paid backing and core paid devs employee contracted terms to meet certain code/commercial service objectives to make financial returns for their investors.

pretty much a shame that you are wanting blockstream to be king..
where as i prefer diverse USER consensus with no dev control.

lol
Why do you always do what Ver tells you?
Dont you have your own thoughts and your own feeling?

stop acting like Roger Ver will always be with you,  you dont need him holding your hand...  today he lost $12000... he cant always pay his shills...
...As I said before, my errant friend, researh, research, research, try different ways to broaden your horizons and someday you will hear way to go!..

untill learn something begin now, dont waste your time posting here it would have no relevance anyway...

sounds familiar.
oh i forgot you are in the r/bitcoin tribe that loves to read and repeat. rather then learn and think independently.

time for you stop rehearsing lines,

i understand the terms. i just dont go batshit crazy when talking generally.

take for instance achowe himself.. deeming a 3 second reject as a fork..
that is achowe doing a grammar boo boo missuse of buzzwording.

infact achowe went sooo deep he wanted to take a zero drama non-event such as a 3second reject. to make it into some 'BU caused a bilateral fork'. that he forgot that core closed the connections to make it bilateral rather than leave the connections open to stick with consensus

but it is good to see the only argument left to sustain this non event, is the grammar nazi argument.

so i find it funny that you think that this non event deserves its own r3cked topic all because you are a grammar nazi, as your only ammo to defend your corporate pals.

gmaxwll hates it when i dont
call his confidential payment codes, 'confidential Pedersen commitment'
call an intentional split, 'bilateral split'

so forgetting blockstreams buzzword anal desires. and instead thinking real world scenario use of words so common people can get the general context without having to decypher buzzwords

an orphan is not just where the parent is killed and the good child ends up being sidelined and alone, forgotton about.
an orphan is where the parent themselves choose to giveup the child, dont put their names on the birth certificate and instead choose to adopt another child.

so the child in both circumstances is an orphan. because it has no ties to a parent. and doesnt continue the family tree legacy.

a child can be an orphan whether the parent is alive or dead


i fully understand the terms. i just choose to translate the nazi buzzword's into common tongue.
for instance if i decided to become a medical doctor. i would refuse to tell a patient they had a 'acute myocardial infarction' to sound smart. i would instead say their heart stopped for 30 seconds. because its better to tell the person what actually happened rather than sound like a smart ass

oh well enjoy your social campaigns

I earnestly suggest to franky1 to learn something elementary, research harder, run some code, begin with 'hello world' then research, research research, just not to look like complete oaf,
but he prefer not to wake up, to act like Ver constantly takes care of him, continue dreaming in his imaginary world... 

Banhammered at the protocol level.  That is glorious.

Time to make an "BitcoinUnlimite Officially #REKT" thread.  

Working title:

BU Builds Broken Block, Blundering Bigblocker Buffoons BTFO


TIL Roger Ver, franky1, Quickseller, and DannyHamilton have very weak, incomplete, and/or just plain old wrong (mis)understandings of Bitcoin's specialized definitions for Orphan, Chain Fork, and Consensus Critical.

For years, these people have stubbornly insisted on telling us how Bitcoin is supposed to work.  Now we have confirmation they don't understand the basic concepts.

"but but orphans happen all the time"

BWAHAHAHA.  

"but but there was no danger of the fork persisting"

BWAHAHAHA.   

"but but the pool didn't really lose money"

BWAHAHAHA.   

This is my concern with BU, they don't have what is takes to implement a successful hard fork they are advocating for. That is why they embark on divided and rule strategy between the miners and core team

When he breaks Bitcoin with his hardfork and millions of people lose their money, he's going to compensate them too?

Right. I think the BU issue is solved now for good. If these morons may allow such mistakes, Who will trust them implement their hardfork? 

May be they run out of money eventually, and people start to abandon them. And they go bankrupt. I think everyone get tired of obstinate bastards

The point is that they waste time and money running equipment generating hashes that will never be part of the blockchain.  That's the expensive lesson.

i completely agree with danny hamilton. including the hard/expensive lesson for BU to learn.

but technically.. they never actually got the funds in the first place. so its just like all blocks... there is only one winner, and BU simply didnt win

Only because this block was invalid.  It is identical to what happens (and is supposed to happen) any time a node receives an invalid block.


Absolute nonsense.  Unless you are saying that a significant majority of all mining nodes are willing to accept a block larger than 1 megabyte (in which case it is Core that is trying to create a consensus split by refusing to accept the longest chain). No. In this case, a minority of miners would be willing to accept such a block.  As a result the valid chain would quickly grow longer.  Only those nodes foolish enough to accept and mine on top of an invalid block (such as so-called SPV miners) would be affected, and any miner dumb enough to accept an invalid block deserves to waste hash power on a dead chain.


No. Not in any real way, it couldn't.  That's a whole lot of FUD and nonsense.  If I didn't know better, I'd think you were just another sig ad spammer.


Let them.  Thats what they get for running code that will mine on top of invalid blocks.  They'll lose some revenue and learn an important lesson.


Then they deserve to waste their hashpower and resources on an invalid block.


Exactly.  If bitcoin can't handle some nodes receiving invalid blocks occasionally, then it has already failed and we should all abandon the whole experiment.  Those dumb enough to mine on top of an invalid block deserve what they get (which entertainingly enough is literally "nothing").


Only nodes that are willing to risk wasting time and money on a useless endeavor.


Which is why this is nothing more than people blowing a lot of smoke and then trying to claim there is a fire.


And yet you continue to act like it was somehow a valid block that could have "forked the network!"  Nonsense.


Like I said, if it can then bitcoin is already a failed experiment and we should all abandon the entire concept immediately.  There is nothing more to see here than fools seeing rain and believing that the sky is collapsing on them.

and the only knitpick you can find is that i over used the buzzword orphan..
aww you may consider an orphan to be strictly related to a bad parent being taken away leaving the child to be lost in the system and rejected as a consequence, even if the child is a good child..

i consider all rejections where having a parent or not, whether the child is good or bad ends up as the same result.
ends up with the same result
in laymans:
lost and rejected, cast aside. in the dustbin, thrown away, disguarded. bye bye gone!
(and dont even bother replying there is no dustbin in bitcoin.. )

your just going to nd up looking pedantic again

orphans/rejects do not cause altcoins. orphans/rejects sort themselves out in the end.
what causes altcoins is when nodes are triggered to ban other nodes to not see a orphan/reject. which then leads to two nodes seeing or not seeing the same data.


happens more often then you think
https://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks