Topic: BU + segwit - page 2. (Read 2245 times)

I am not an expert on this things but in my opinion when we talk about codes there are several things to consider. The reason why core developer does not accept Bitcoin Unlimited its because it runs on hard fork and it is going away from the original form of bitcoin. Bitcoin Unlimited does not want to accept Segwit since they dont see the code fit to run and replace the current code.

That means BU would start with slightly increased block size (let's say doubled) to ease the urgent problems and then do almost the same as the core devs, but with the power in BU's hands?

well it might be, you just don't know how tech is going to be....and what will be cored in, plus what usually happens is BU if it won out would have to adopt a segwit soln down the track anyway

If we really want bitcoin a means of payment for masses (like Roger states), we would need thousands of transaction per second. So increasing block size is NEVER a real solution.

As far as I did understand, Lightning is not a "second layer". Both partners of one transaction will have their transactions signed by the other; only if there is a dispute, transaction data will be given to the blockchain. So, usually, there is noone to control people's transactions, for it is the purpose of Lightning to get data off the chain in order to disburden it.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

if it is the middle way has been not found again, the way one of them is the need to divide the two sides did not let each other at loggerheads, that I want to ask is actually what is the subject matter, if indeed BU want to enlarge the bloc's goal to accelerate the transactions that you do with little additional cost.

I think bitcoin needs change but what roger has done is  not good , Roger is greedy and is harming the eco system

The next step, if the chain divided will be call as to clean the abandoned-lost wallet to bring together all BTC and issued new Genesis block with the exact number of BTC gathered in this mix place and start from the beginning.
And that's part of the test. Test technologies and mass of users by the NSA, FED,ECB .who knows who is behind this, who knows who is behind this. and all we deserve when we believe the founders of which were use TOR network to log into this forum.Whatever can happen will happen.

See I am not so sure about the miners, I mean if they can get a block with so many more transactions they get more money as that block will eventually fee and so on.

or does the lightning network does this take fees away from miners?


Further, if we the bitcoiners want segwit + BU I think the miners will do it.

Further if any part fails then we patch it, I mean BTC has needed to be hardforked due to bugs a few times in the past.

Lets take the oxygen out of the room from the fighting parties, the miners and the naysayers and just do both, its not a binary out come

Well, they CAN shut you down at will.  If they decide to orphan all your blocks, you are being denied mining.  You are BTW confusing decentralized and permissionless.  You can still hope that mining is as of now, mostly permissionless. 

But that is not the point.  The majority hash rate decides upon the protocol, unless it hard forks, and the minority continues the old chain with the old protocol (or decides to hard fork away and becomes a minority fork).  The majority hash rate decides upon censorship (like, yes, YOUR blocks, your transactions, ....) and decides upon the transactions it processes and hence the pressure on the fee market.

What most of you ignore to understand is not whether or not mining is centralized right now, you lack the knowledge about what is centralization and what it means being decentralized. no one should care if mining is in hands of a few but you should care if you ever decided to start mining yourself none of the other few miners could potentially deny you from mining or have a closed source code for mining or could shut you down at will.

Can you right now buy 100K S9 miners and start mining dozens of blocks each day or not? if you can then bitcoin is practically decentralized.

last line of defense poison pill to stop the BU fork - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/defensive-nuclear-weapon-armageddon-avoidance-proof-of-coinbase-poison-pill-1833046

What you stated in your first post, is not what I stated.
You are stating that nodes that do not mine have no significance.

I disagree and think that their centralization, which is separate from mining
centralization, is the last stop to full centralization and governmental regulation
of Bitcoin itself.

If you were correct in your IDEA, then what is occurring within Bitcoin, would not right now.
We would have all hardforked long ago, if you are correct.




I disagree entirely.

If you are correct, clients like BU would not have needed to be created.
The fact that they were designed to do what they do, proves you incorrect.

Your whole argument and premise is based on a twisting of reality.
At one point you say second layers are bad because of centralizing nature.
and just now you are saying miners are already centralized today. LOol.

I hope you see all the contradictions in your attempt at argument.  The single miner was YOUR example to demonstrate that decentralization came from the nodes, not from the miners.  I took your premise to show you how that argument was totally flawed.  Now you start saying that it is not "real world".  No, but it is the perfect illustration of what I was saying: centralisation is mining centralization.

Now, you even admit that in your perfectly decentralized network with one miner, bitcoin would be dead.  So you just admitted the point for which you called me a moron.  


No.  Your IDEA that consensus was "the majority of the community" was equivalent to "consensus of proof of work" stopped being valid at that point, and what remained was "proof of work" and NOT "majority of community".  In other words, the failed attempt of Satoshi to use "proof of work" as a means of "consensus of community" is what you are talking about, but what effectively is valid, is proof of work.  And if the proof of work is centralized, everything is centralized, and the rest doesn't matter.  The non-mining nodes don't matter.  They are simply proxy servers of the chain made by the miners, nothing more.

Can you cite the documentation that you must be referring to.
Banking nodes may exist in this future world obviously, but where is it that the system is reliant upon them.
Please provide your sources.

So as I stated, what company is going to run the second layers?
You are talking about Lightning Network. That is one proposed idea for second layers.

LN hubs, to be effective, have to be very big hubs with a lot of little customers connected to them with their small channels.  In other words, banking nodes with a lot of capital to use as collateral on their customers' links, and inter-bank links.  Big financial groups.  

In the LN you have a huge economy of scale if you can put in a lot of collateral.  

In fact, the LN will centralize even faster than the proof of work because the economies of scale are more important.

You fail because you are trying to make points that are not valid to real world situations.
If a single miner did come about, then Bitcoin is done and everyone goes to a new coin.
So this example is worthless.

Pose an example that is worthy of discussion.

BTW "consensus by proof of work" was defined when miners and validators were a single entity.
Your definition of it, stopped appling to Bitcoin when GPUs and ASICs came about.

What is actually occurring now is "proof of work block building reliant on node network consensus".

Indeed, the second layer is banking.

Yes, you fall for that erroneous propaganda.  If you would think for yourself, you would be able to understand why that is totally flawed as an idea.  

If there is only one miner in the whole world, there is only one block chain, right ?  Nobody else is able to make another block chain, right ?  Because you need a lot of proof of work to make one.

Now, tell me, that single sole block chain made by the sole miner doesn't suit you.  The whole network "denies" its blocks. So what is "the whole network" now doing ?  Nothing.  No transactions get processed.  No wallets update.  You cannot put coins on an exchange, you cannot withdraw them, nothing.   All nodes came to a standstill.  

So if you are a user, you have the choice of accepting the sole block chain that is being made, or not having a block chain at all.  Bet that you will adapt your node to accept the sole block chain that is around.  Bet that exchanges will do the same.  And in order to get it, you better connect directly to the miner's node infrastructure, if most of your peer nodes came to a grinding halt.

If there's one miner, that makes a block chain according to his wishes, you have no choice but to use it, or to leave the coin all together and all your addresses on it.

I know that's not what the propaganda tells you, but think for yourself, and find a hole in this reasoning.

That's why it is called "consensus by proof of work", not by "number of nodes".

Lol. What company is going to run the second layers?
Do you even know what second layers are?

Are you talking about third party second layers?
Are you aware some of the proposed second layers will be anon?

BTW Satoshi's true dream died when someone started using GPUs and then ASICs.
So talking about second layers being the problem is 8 years too late.