Topic: BU (Bitcoin Unlimited) and ETF Newbie questions (Read 1692 times)

Yes me too. That reminds me, must dump ethereum before I don't have any space.

I have the hard drive space.

Then if you have to store a BTC blockchain as well as an altcoin blockchain, does this take less space than a single blockchain?

That being said I will start mining an altcoin if bitcoin remains unsuitable for micro-payments because for me, micro-payments are important.

Centralization of mining is a result of the price of power. It would not be very cost effective for me to mine because power in California is expensive.

Block size has little to do with the centralization of mining.

In my opinion.

Any scaling solution could theoretically cause a network split.  Admittedly,  BU takes an aggressive stance,
by not waiting for a certain consensus threshold (75%, 95% etc).  This is perhaps the only way to move
forward as we as a community have failed to reach consensus even after years of trying.

Well, some argue that larger blocks will lead to greater centralization. I think they're wrong, but let us work with that assumption for now.

The max block size today is 1MB.

The SegWit Omnibus Changeset (bitcoin-core recent releases) allows miners to create blocks up to 4MB in size, and all others have no choice but to swallow it.

BU allows all participants to advertise their max block size to the network. Miners know that, should they create blocks larger than the majority will accept, those blocks would be orphaned, and that miner would eventually run out of money, and of out of business. If most participants can handle 4MB blocks, they will signal for 4MB blocks, and the max block size allowed will be 4MB. If most participants can handle 7MB blocks, they will signal for 7MB blocks, and the max block size allowed will be 7MB. If most participants can handle 1MB blocks, they will signal for 1MB blocks, and the max block size allowed will be 1MB.  

BU is the only system currently on the table that eliminates the need for future protocol changes for simple increases in max block size. It is also the only alternative scaling solution that allows the majority to set a max block size below 4MB.

Right now, the dominant implementation (core legacy) is significantly dominant on the network. This is also a form of centralization.

Mining is pretty centralized already. There is no structural barrier to new entrants, but capital requirements are currently significant. It is hard to know whether or not this will change in the future.

You will get different answers from different supporters. You need to read and understand as much as you can and come to your own conclusion.

But should a split occur, any BTC you have before the split can be spent twice, once down each chain.

So if all hell breaks loose, just hold on to your BTC and let the dust settle.

Some will take the risk to dump one side of the coin for the other, but that is risky if you choose the wrong one whilst trying to make a quick profit.

So which is the best update/upgrade to BTC that does not affect its decentralisation status?

Not an altcoin but a way to allow miners to decide how big of blocks they want. 

The "core" team has refused to raise the 1mb blocksize limit, which is why were seeing all the network congestion and slow confirmation.

Bitcoin unlimited is insecure and handing miners control over scaling will lead to centralization and Bitcoin being run by a mining cartel-

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/how-bitcoin-unlimited-users-may-end-different-blockchains/

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/how-a-floating-blocksize-limit-inevitably-leads-towards-centralization-144895

I don't know what to make out of the BU network thought it was a way to speed up the confirmation times on the blockchain but now see others saying it's a form of alt coin.
Very confusing for those who just started using it from all the publicity it has gotten lately caused by the ATH was reached and surpassed in this time.

Bu is a proposed why of running bitcoin, compared to how it currently runs, is probably the best way to describe it.  BU has a nes consensus called emergent consensus which is completely new.  some people believe that the recent dip is the big fish playing the market to buy more at a lower price before an increase, but its up to you weather or not you believe that or not.

read the code not the reddit scripts.

It is not a straw man argument. It is a simple question. (funny you don't recognize the difference) to wit:

where's the academic research supporting the 4:1 special treatment weight for signatures?

First thing you have said that I agree with. And that resistance to manipulation appears to be the BU movement, with the manipulation being from the SegWit backers.

You just admitted you don't understand it. 

Let's leave your contribution to the thread at that.

Bitcoin unlimited is different from BTC, it is not an upgrade for bitcoin. Actually, I don't understand what it is all about. I think it is another altcoin that wants to encourage clients that is already in BTC that's why it uses the bitcoin itself. There is no confusion as I said it differs from BTC.

hope lauda has learned about consensus.
i also hope lauda has learned about native key utility still able to cause disruption even after segwit activation

lauda you need not reply to me until you have learned the concepts.
all personal attacks are just rustles of tumbleweed blowing with the wind.

i would prefer technical rebuttles that have substance beyond the usual simplistic "wrong because.. " ..personal attack

please dont waste time with personal attacks and wisely use the time to learn bitcoin concepts and become wiser for it.

Straw-man argument. How classic. Or do I mean, 'how unlimited'?