Topic: BitFury signals it's FIRST SegWit Block.. (Read 501 times)

BU is just one of many implementations that took CORES 0.12, and made tweaks.
now knowing a few of them bugs didnt get fixed until core made 0.13. so ofcourse the core devs didnt think to also include them by patching their own older repo's to match.

EG core didnt fix 0.12, they called it dead and just put patch into 0.13. meaning anyone who uses 0.12 will still have cores bugs.
it wasnt core that fixed BU either. bu fixed a bug. but then core highlighted that not everyone with BU updated to the new version without the bug

but funnier part.. because BU and dynamic implementations believe in PEER diversity.. the bug didnt cause drama.. it just took out a few nodes while the rest of the network continued... you cannot say the same if everyone is FORCED to use the exact same core base code in cores tier network.. if core gets a bug.. expect bigger issues (such as the 2013leveldb update bug)

but the real question is. where are all of these "independent devs".
oh yea, they are dependant on gmaxwells leadership.

if you want true independent diverse decentralised bitcoin.. then dont throw all your dreams, kings and asskissing into one camp.. instead let there be no single camp and let the devs migrate freely without being tarnished by REKT campaigns if they are not in core camp.

remember devs are not immortal. devs do come and go, move onto different projects, get bored. etc. so dont kiss devs asses. just think about bitcoin as a diverse and OPEN decentralised network.

core mindset
"i pretend to be independent but refuse to independently review anything thats not gmaxwell sanctioned"
"i pretend to be independent but argue anything thats not gmaxwell sanctioned has not been independently reviewed"
"i pretend to be independent everyone should only use core"

total hypocracy and mindlessly handing control of the previously open divers peer network over to gmaxwells corporate tier network

1.
the price movement happens without very much actual coins moving it.
you cannot link Xwin = A y...win =B because there is actually no correlation.

neither has won. so the price speculation of just a few people who are dumb enough to trust exchanges (after 8 years of "we been hacked") is meaningless..

real value is not about the price or the bubble number of the market cap.
real value is based elsewhere.

anyone only loking at the fiat price and only choosing core because core will split the network in two(pretending its a victim, pre-mptive strike attack)
are only caring about short term FIAT drama.. not the longevity of bitcoin.

dynamics have many implementations that can all work on the same PEER playing field..
segwit sets up a TIER network

dynamics use native keypairs and tweaks
segwit needs users to move funds just to try achieving the segwit promises.. plus segwit is a complete rewrite basd on an elements altcoin of 2014-2015

segwit keypairs and block formation has never been used on mainnet. but dynamics has

dynamics have not needed to threaten or set deadlines or make things mandatory, or bypass node consensus
segwit has needed to threaten and set deadlines and make things mandatory, and bypass node consensus

core want everyone to rewrite their nodes to match the segwit elements2014 altcoin. and even then point fingers that other implementations are still not bitcoin and thus not be top tier.

yet the community know deep down that core can just change a few lines of code and be part of the peer network.. and even funnier. get to have all their sparkly features too.. but it involves core giving up their tier network and just becoming a equal peer.

..

anyway back to your question.

The explanation is rather simple: Buggy Unlimited jeopardizes the entire system with incompetent developers. The network can crash at any time.
 Regardless how much (centralized) hashing power is backing it up, if the software is shit then THE ENTIRE THING IS SHIT.

The value of bitcoin ultimately depends on how solid the software is, and Buggy Unlimited is based upon a flawed concept and the coders are shit to boot. It will NEVER work. Even if Jihad Wu gets 99.999999999% of the hashrate bought by the PBOC, users will go with Core and new miners will mine bitcoin with the new PoW as ChinaBU collapses.

frank - as a free market proponent..

Why is it that whenever it looks like BU might actually win - bitcoin price tanks. And whenever it looks like CORE might actually win - bitcoin price recovers. Can you explain that ?

(I have changed the title - as you rightly pointed out - its just a signal.. .. wow.. we have some common ground after all.. )

title misleading

bitfury mines a block in favour of mandatory segwits activation by november 15th

they still have not mined an actual block in a segwit new blockformation and/or containint a segwit tx.
which is funny..

---

if all is so backward compatible.. just mine a real segwit block with a real segwit tx and show how much the compatibility promise really holds up.
afterall core are kings and perfect and nothing will go wrong.. (sarcasm)

dynamic implementations showed that without consensus dynamic wont split the network.. instead nodes just reject the block in 3 seconds and no drama.

so come on core. drop your pants and make a block and show what will happen.

unless you are afraid

https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitfury-mines-its-first-segwit-block-armory-says-no-to-bitcoin-unlimited

I was wondering where this latest little pump was coming from..

And - BIP148 goes LIVE whether you're with us or against us on November 15th 2017.

Game ON!

..

Shaolin Fry (author of BIP 148 ) explained:


Goatpig (Bitcoin Armoury) wrote: