Topic: Block Size Debate, finally an ideal solution: Bitcoin Unlimited (Read 2125 times)

Haha you are right. That article is biased so MUCH it sickens me.

I hope this SegWitCoin will be rejected so hard the Core devs get fired by blockstream.

And they'll hate themselves even more this time next year for not buying in now.


Interesting article, but full of so much bad reporting that I don't trust any of it.
- implication aim of BU is to create a second chain (rather all be on one chain with user-set blocksize)
- implication aim of BU is to increase the 21M emission limit (ummm... no)

Just another poorly-written advocacy piece.

+1

I always chuckle when I see butthurt altcoin boys. They secretly hate themselves for not buying into Bitcoin when it was cheap and then hope to undo their mistake by buying into scammy ICOs.

edit:
Great News: Bitmain CEO Jihan Wu Will Firmly Support Funding of Bitcoin Unlimited

Comedy Gold.

Butthurt much? Sorry your preferred crypto is but a pimple on Bitcoin's ass.

Good that you feel violated, you should realise that Bitcoin is close to its headshot.
Why there's two categories at all? Its all about crypto, some alts maybe better in the meantime.
You BTC cowboys got to be shot off your high horse already and get your shit in order.
You're standing in the way of development and evolution, your pissing all over the place.

You've lost it already. You got nothing to do with the BTC market anymore, anyway, thats Chinese, 99%, the rest will follow and then you can start out like every other alt and you can name it Bitcoin Unlimited or whatever and see how far you'll make it with your outdated pile of crap.

this wont happen any time soon maybe in several year when they start to lose if the start to lose domination on market
considering they control mining power all over the world think that they will decide how it will be one one way or the other

It's funny how mods transferred this thread to the altcoin section.    I can imagine some people who are supporting Bitcoin Unlimited getting really butthurt with this.  Maybe it's time for it's followers to converge at forum.bitcoin.com.  That's Ver's forum and I'm pretty sure you guys will find like minded people.

I go there from time to time and the traffic is decent.

Bitcoin Unlimited won't happen unless the Chinese Mining Pools agree to implement it ,
since they control over 51% of the mining hash.

 

Hi, first thanks for taking a step on supporting BU (Bitcoin Unlimited). I don't support SegWit either, it is a very complex implementation that is not needed right now. Bitcoin scaling problems right now could be solved simply with BU. They try to convince you that SegWit is needed, but only for their own interested as Blockstream private company supports now the Bitcoin Core members.

My vote is for maintaing the current bitcoin code and give support to Bitcoin Unlimited which is running just fine and basically only increase the block size.

Bitcoin Unlimited = Make Bitcoin great again  

How do you ensure enough fees exist if there is 1 MiB cap on block size/space?

In some of my earlier posts I have indicated that there is no such thing as "no cap on block size". There is always going to be a hard cap defined by the network parameters. It is so whether the consensus likes it or not. Since the effective maximum block size is dependent on the overall network speed it does not belong to a protocol layer. Instead, each and every node should be able to define their own preferred maximum block size just like nodes can define their own TX fee. What core is trying to accomplish is like trying to enforce a predefined TX fee for every node with an ugly hack. Bitcoin wallet software is already complex. Making it even more complex will just prevent new developers from contributing. For a MIT licensed open-source project this is hypocrisy overload. Not to mention that blockstream is not the owner nor the creator of Bitcoin. Yet they act like they were. This is unacceptable.

How do you ensure enough fees exist if there is no cap on block size/space?

The next big bitcoin rally brings a new wave of people first time into the Bitcoin business. We can call them "the next generation of Bitcoiners".


The new generation of Bitcoiners will have to choose a wallet. They will read the descriptions of Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin Core. I'm sure they will choose BU because it's an elegant solution while SegWit is an ugly hack.

Even if the network is unable to come to a preliminary consensus and multiple forks come to be, it is possible to build a Bitcoin wallet that tracks ownership on all forks. What needs to be propagated is the fact that the longest chain is the true Bitcoin block chain. It is the responsibility of wallet providers to prevent users from spending coins that don't belong to the longest block chain.

i think its best you highlight ethereums "fork" was an intentional split. otherwise it confuses the issue of what a fork is

soft fork= no permanent split, no consensus needed by user level nodes, only consensus needed by pools to activate
hard consensual fork= no permanent split, consensus needed by user level  nodes first then pools second to activate
hard controversial fork = no permanent split, consensus isn't set, lots of orphaning occurs because no one can agree
hard intentional split fork=  permanent split, nodes 'ban IP' the opposition nodes to avoid them orphaning own desires, altcoin is created

agreed.

id rather see 5 different implementations. each with ~20% popularity.. thus avoid a devteam 51% takeover

There are 2 kinds of maximum block sizes. The theoretical/logical one currently is 1 MiB. The practical one is much higher and is dependent on the network speed of most miners. It is impossible to exceed the practical block size limit because when exceeded your block will simply be orphaned. Even 95% consensus would not allow us to have blocks larger than the practical maximum block size. It is very possible to exceed the logical block size limit on the other hand but it requires consensus. That said, in both cases we do have a maximum block size limit which means TX fees won't go to zero. Even if they did go to zero due to altruistic miners there are block rewards which are essentially equivalent to TX fees paid by all Bitcoin stakeholders collectively.

In the hypothetical situation where Bitcoin price is too damn low and block reward is worth nothing miners will start dropping out. Those with cheaper electricity or simply altruistic miners will remain. Tor nodes don't get no block reward but they still exist! Sure the network is slow but it is wrong of you to assume that every person on Earth is egoistic. Also, stakeholders are definitely willing to protect their investment by providing additional security to Bitcoin network. Finally, 51% attack is not as destructive as you think it is. If it's executed by ASICs then the community will simply change the mining algorithm. The true value of Bitcoin is not held in its protocol but in its block chain. The block chain is distributed and cannot be attacked in any way. 51% attack does nothing to the old blocks. That's why Bitcoin Unlimited is not an altcoin! Ethereum Classic is a good example of how a fork will turn out. Stakeholders will lose nothing. We don't need consensus. Both parties can have their own fork of Bitcoin and go on their own way. Eventually the most effective one will prevail.

Now we obviously have a bunch of egoistic manboys on both sides who think their fork should be THE BITCOIN and the other fork should be something else. I don't have an answer to this, it's just stupid. But as I have said before this situation will be solved by itself. No party is stupid enough to fork right now without having a consensus. As demand for blocks goes up TX fees will gradually rise. The backlog of TXs will also rise. Eventually miners will start noticing that they are missing out a lot of profits because they are not mining for larger blocks. At that point they will switch to Bitcoin Unlimited. With Bitcoin-core miners actually are the losers because Bitcoin gets more centralized around the Core Maffia which will impose their will over the miners even more. Smart miners are going to choose Bitcoin Unlimited.

You don't. A 51% attack is a 51% attack, no matter the block size. What are you trying to get at? Are you trying to assert that your absurd hypothetical is somehow unique to the large block case?


Way to completely avoid the point. No rational producer produces for no profit. Another (even more) absurd hypothetical.

How do you prevent a a 51% attack on Christmas Day when the blocksize is falling sharply, and there are hardly any TXs? This would be the optimal time for a 51% attack on Bitcoin unlimited if the statistics from VISA regarding peak transaction volumes on  December 23, and December 24 are any indication.

As for "free" cellphones, I'll stick with my rooted Nexus 4 and save over 20 CAD per month by avoiding a contract. The only "free lunch" in cellphone contracts is for the service provider.

Which of course explains why we can choose between a new iPhone or a new Galaxy at a cost of zero.

Really?

No. The point of the paper is to quantify the incentive for miners to mine. It shows that rational block size choice by miners is limited by the fact that larger blocks are orphaned more often than smaller blocks. Accordingly, blocks will be no larger than the point where marginal transaction fee equals marginal orphan probability cost.

Competition among the miners will drive the fees to zero, unless what is proposed here is a mining cartel.

Edit: ... and yes when the TX fees do reach zero the miners will stop mining and the coin becomes insecure.