Topic: BTU Coin Questions (Read 2746 times)

After seeing the report by the major exchanges today and calling it BTU coin along with Coinbase now! Get ready because this means something WILL happen. Time to start dealing in BTU Coin!

Because its the longest?

If unlimited win, then unlimited chain is the real bitcoin.

Yeah this is never going to work out due to the bug that was found the other day, it's probably going to end BTC and put it oblivion based on the fact that if they can't even make sure their are no bugs in their code BEFORE they're even helping with the scaling solution it'll be a mess if we were actually to fork to BTU.

Thank god someone noticed this though and was able to put it to BTU, and I'm even happier they got caught lying when it came to them finding out about the bug as it really wasen't even them.

Segwit all the way!

I have a feeling that BTU is not going to happen, but what they stand for still might.

The updated BIP 100 could be reality and we may see that implemented in core.

Only way BTU will happen is if they get some more experienced developers and a better code review process. The process for consensus block size increases in the update to BIP 100 though I think could be something core may implement if we keep the pressure on them.

Why it takes years?

My version of the story:

Because a couple of the most prominent core developers like Gregory Maxwell decided at some point that
"Bitcoin cannot scale", then proceeded to form a corporation around that idea called Blockstream, got millions in venture
capital, dug their heels in, and fought tooth and nail with the rest of the community that wanted bigger
blocks and wanted Bitcoin to scale.    Great developers like Gavin, Mike Hearn, and Jeff Garzik either left
or were marginalized.  Blockstream did everything in their power to delay, censor, fight, attack anyone
opposed to their business plan, and even though much of the community wanted Bitcoin to scale,
through employing key Core devs, they remained largely in control of the Core code repository
and therefore controlled an entrenched position.  Gavin warned well ahead of time of the
upcoming network congestion.  Now that it is is actually happening, many miners are getting
upset enough to support alternatives like Bitcoin Unlimited, which actually
remove the blocksize from the protocol rules (a good idea imo).  Core published a scaling roadmap
but many disagree with it , think it is too slow, etc.  For example, segwit is a complex change with
risks and many miners do not want it.  The bottom line is that Core has taken a clear stance against
main-chain scaling, and many are diametrically opposed to this.  Different people want Bitcoin to be
different things at this point.  So the fight is still going on.

I read if they are yours then yes you get them.

What about those bitcoin which are on exchanges wallet? will exchange get the BU or will user have claim to it?

Man, do you even pay any attention to BTC ,

China has ~67% mining of it right now.

So Junior , BTC is already ChinaCoin, no matter what happens in the blocksize debate.   

 

I guess there isn't as far as I know so we should just use any if the forks (soft or hard) and see if we can get the issues with Bitcoin corrected.

Is there another way ultimately without a fork and the resulting factors of making a choice, new BTU coin etc?

This thing makes me wondering how it will be for bitcoin (as the way it was since the first time bitcoin invented).
If bitcoin unlimited be the majority choice but bitcoin divide into 2 coins, hmm I don't like it. The problem is just about block size but why it takes years to solve this with all of their, argue each other, speculate. Whatever it is, I will wait until the real solution be implemented.

Thank you

The first answer is the coin creation consensus logic has not changed. It's the same as it is now. It is about increasing native on-chain transaction capacity.

The second answer depends on whether a bilateral split occurs, and how the markets react to it. If it is a clean consensus hard fork with one chain left standing, it will be bitcoin and the current associated business infrastructure will work as it does now.

Unless you have the elixir of life, we will all be dead before any discussion of any tail-off emission to support the ongoing network takes place. Bitcoiners don't want to debase their currency. It is not in the miner interest to mint more coins since they are less valuable as a result.

hmm sorta, BTC is BTU, you can go buy some now on coinbase or whatever.

the BTC we hodl today is valid coins for any future chain split that will EVER occur.

Don't see why we are all arguing that Unlimited is pro-China. Currently, BTC.com even has a system to get your transaction accelerated for a huge fee, while working with the Chinese miners?

Isn't that blockstream's "Fee market" in essence? Then take in the fact that these guys are working with mainly Chinese pools.

Wow, really great answers/replies everyone, I can see the different out comes now!

And you guys just did all that without fighting because we simply assumed for argument sake it happened

Knowledge is power so the only thing left to do is sit back and be prepared no matter which scenario plays out.

Two last questions, is there no limit to the number of BTU coin then or is it still the same capacity as Bitcoin?

Any marketplaces opened up to BTU coin yet?

In my opinion the longest chain will be Bitcoin, no matter what happens in the future. The value of these coins will depend on the same principle that the coins value is determined now, namely : Supply & Demand. If this does happen, you might find some hardcore supporters selling off their coins, when their fork attempt failed.

Would you still support a Coin, that does not fit your needs or would you still run a node, if you do not support that code?

non-core implementations have been running on bitcoins main net for a couple years and NOT signalled splitting, not signalled banning. they have only shown desire to stick to bitcoins main rule of consensus.

they will only grow when there is clear majority consensus of NODES AND POOLS.
and then even with majority the pools wont push the boat out unless the pools know the orphan risk is low and that the merchants and services that they can spend their rewards with are supporting what they produce.

so dont expect BU to cause a split intentionally.

thy have even laughed in gmaxwells face when he begged them to split.

---

all the dynamic and base block increase proposals are adaptable to each other and many diverse nodes can function together uniting the community. however blockstream(core) refuse to release an adapted codebase and instead have banscore and autoban stuff to orphan a block, a pool or node that dont meet blockstream(cores) biased rules.

meaning if a majority event happened where the nodes, pools and merchants were ready to go with dynamics. it would be blockstream(core) thats a minority, who will ban their opposition. causing blockstream(core) to self inflict themself into being a minority split by not preparing to join the majority and instead being the banners.

so knowing the majority of merchants nodes and pools are moving forward with dynamic blocks. people on the majority side can just use their native keys as normal and need to do nothing.

but if your on blockstream(core) minority, their ban-hammer event causes them to activate segwit on a minority whereby they are only seeing other segwit nodes/blocks. and as such.. to achieve any noticeable segwit features users will need to start moving funds to segwit keys.

with less hashpower meaning delayed block creation times and people moving funds to new keys causing mempool bloat. and possible 51% attacking the minority pools. extra bloat from replay attacks.. dont expect a smooth transition for the minority SWcoin.

---

also you can use your pre activation(native keys) on both chains but expect people to be either manually or scripting transactions on one network to be copied and pasted to the other side(replay attack).

---

now imagine you did safely move your coins on both side to protect yourself from cross network replay attack.
because the events of a dynamic chain having majority, hashpower and node/merchant count.. the SWcoin will be worth alot less.

---

also note if there was a segwit bug that required downgrading back to old software. the segwit keys become deactivated and any funds on segwit keys are locked.

also note if there was a dynamic bug. blocks are just made at under 1mb again and because dynamic implementations stick with using native keys, users just use their private keys as standard(no fuss).

if you hold a BTC private key,  this key will be valid on both chain
this will effectively double your coins, because, using that private key, you will use a BU client to move the coins on the BU chain,  and use a Core client to move the coins on the Core chain