Topic: Buggy Unlimited crashes, AGAIN!! Price rallies. (Read 1154 times)

well maybe semantics Franky. 

Honestly, NOTHING is compatible without majority miner support, otherwise, you could simply do it today already without debate.

Now, assuming majority hashpower, even bitcoincore.org agrees that its not fully compatible but Greg likes to accuse BU of not being compatible because its a hard fork... because many readers don't really understand HF vs SF or don't understand how segwit SF works.

All the SF accomplishes is that nodes can continue to stay on the chain...however what segwit proponents don't usually tell you is that nodes that don't upgrade aren't really participating in the network because they cannot validate the chain for themselves.  They simply have to trust that segwit's "anyone can spend" outputs are valid.

nope(if the promise had merit/ were truly "backward compatible")
secretly YES, but shhhh

and thats the point in me saying for him to just do it.. because it then reveals its not as backward compatible and safe as promised.

what blockstream are not telling you is activation day is about changing the DNS seeds to make it so segwit nodes become the main tier of the network and old nodes are then manually add-noded as a secondary network layer

its ven in the documentation.. if you dont want to upgrade, you have to download segwit to use as a filter(gmaxbuzzword) / bridge(luk jr buzzword) to connect to the network

and then all the blocks are then stripped and formatted to the old nodes if the tier network allows old nodes to connect to it.
what will be noticed is the old nodes become part of a cesspit of incompatible nodes that connect and disconnect to other nodes that end up not having good block height, delayed syncing, or just prunned so that the amount of clean connectable nodes becomes harder to obtain.

as explained before

would that block just get orphaned immediately right now?

lol

nope, but when you stop playing the BU vs debate and start thinking about the network and thinking about the 120 years and the direction bitcoin is going. you start to see the big picture.

that trying to cause drama just to make teams x,y,z bad to give the network over to blockstream is actually worse then calling out bugs of other implementations.

also hiding cores issues to pretend they are perfect is not helping the network either.
hiding core issues does not help

if you care about bitcoin and are independent you would not be kissing anyones ass..
if you care about bitcoin and are independent you would not think or dream that your utopian god(dev) will still be around in 2-120 years to look after you.

it just sometimes takes a while to shake people out of their blockstream devotion dream

Well, you have to be very proud making this argument!

actually segwit is not as backward compatible as promised/promoted.. its stripped and tiered to be backward translatable.

but should there be an issue where nodes need to downgrade and go back to a single block.. (deactivating segwit). all the people with funds on segwit keys get stuck or end up having funds treated like anyonecanspend.
yep thats right.,, shocking revelation

also although segwit creates a tier network that filters out older nodes from receiving unconfirmed segwit tx's at normal tx relay(prior to block confirmation) a malicious person could MANUALLY copy and paste a tx from a segwit node and put it into a standard block and mess with that tx.

this is why blockstream are screaming for anything non-segwit to "f**k off" because of that risk.
this is why blockstream even if soo backward compatible blockstream dont just activate at any rate.
this is why blockstream even if soo backward compatible blockstream wont lt non-segwit pools add a normal block after activation.

i have already, multiple times said to gmax, if segwit is so backward compatible why not just make a segwit TX, hand it to BTCC and get BTCC to make a segwit block containing a segwit tx. to show that its network safe and backward compatible..

BUG CARTEL

as for BU drama
689->281 =408 drop

still not beating last times 420 drop or cores recently 560 node drop or even the core node crash of 2013..


so BU still has to get a 560 node attack to surpass cores loss

You are correct -- however:  Proposals like BitcoinXT, which require a majority of hashrate to activate, ALSO do the same thing, even though it is a hard fork... yet we still had plenty of shills/idiots trying to label it an "altcoin".

Looks to me like it's just a matter of time until SegWit dies, alas: https://coin.dance/blocks

another crash?

Please sir, reset the timer, the next crash will be in the next 2 weeks.

ETA: 2weeks

go BUGGY coin, go to hell

Yes.

For the ordinary user, SegWit is backwards compatible.  It needs a majority of the hashrate to avoid a chain split, but by default it doesn't cause one (as I understand it).  Therefore it would be an upgrade of Bitcoin with a consensus, and if in the future there was a split that separates from consensus that was agreed before, that one would be the "new coin" to put it that way.

Feel free to correct me on that but I'm pretty sure that I can call it backwards compatible.

Do you even know what that means? 

The only thing "backwards compatible" is that nodes won't crash, because to them the segwit outputs appear as "anyone can spend"
... it doesn't mean they can meaningfully participate in the network without upgrading.

A hard fork is just as valid as far as a protocol upgrade.

Bugs should be fixed first and then announced. If I had a bug in my code and I know this will be exploited by people... then I would patch it first

and then admit to it. Why tell everyone about it and then get it exploited until I have written something to patch it? Does that make any sense?

You are not hiding the mistake or the possible exploit, you just announce it after it was fixed. { This way you reduce the damage it might have

done }  

smart mindset
bitcoin nodes have a bug, but diverse enough to not bring down the network.. = strong network = we can trust value in the network.

now imagine if every node was running the exact same line for line codebase and a bug happened... network stops.. loss of trust.. price crash

if you care more about blockstream control of a TIER network rather than a diverse single peer network of many brands.. shame on you
if you care more about blockstream control of a TIER network that moves peoples funds to patented chains. shame on you

i actually hope blockstream does move onto litecoin or hyperledger.. and allows bitcoin to become properly diverse and decentralised to naturally grow without dev dictatorship..

let litecoin become the bankers new best friend. while bitcoin gets back to the open borderless zero barrier of entry as a free choice away from the controls of egotistic banker cartels

thats back when satoshi was beginning to realise people were becoming too dependant on him..
thats about his personal time and sanity may be stretched too far.. nothing to do with network security

EG instead of one person trying to help out 12 brands (should satoshi be still here today)
EG instead of 400 people trying to help out 1 brands hoping to get paid by some VC cartel

400 should help out 12 brands

infact he was happy with people having their own versions.
EG he worked on his version that was on sourceforge right up until when he disapeared. and gavin had a version on github.

by the way the version on github started by gavin mid 2010(not satoshi's sourcforge of 2009) , expanded and then rebranded and then taken over by the now "core" group.
by the way the github version actually has had 7000+ forked implementations from it where people tweak it and run on the SAME network.

its actually GOOD to not have a single point of failure
its actually GOOD to tweak things and see what works and doesnt where by some versions are wrote in GO or ruby or java.
using different database structures. but all following the main consensus rules. and all only changing the consensus rules if all/majority see benefit of such.

if blockstream want to solely run an implementation.. seeing as they only came into existence in 2014.. THEY should go play with an alt..
wait they already are
elements
monero
hyperledger
litecoin

I'm baffled by these two statements. Unlimited's bugs are showing up in production. Core's bugs are quashed in testing. When did core not respond to bug reports?

The network doesn't improve by having competing clients, as adviced by satoshi: everyone should stick with the official (satoshi client) version. If you want different clients, create your own altcoin. This delusional notion of bitcoin being strengthened by different competing clients is stupid.

Segwit, LN, and so on are all open source protocols and anyone can develop anything they want on it. Don't confuse patent protection against trolls like Craig Wright with trying to monopolize technology.

Also /r/btc loons are already on it!

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6a3l86/bitcoin_unlimited_nodes_being_attacked_again/

if you ignore the reddit propaganda scripts you will learn that things like BU, classic, XT, nbitcoin, BTCD and all the others do NOT want to dominate and OWN/control bitcoin.

they want a diverse and decentralised PEER network of many brands on THE SAME CHAIN/network.
all they ask is that the blocks are not stifled at 1mb

yt the blockstream protagonists want to stifle the block to make people move their assets into the
blockstream:ELEMENTS:LN
blockstream:ELEMENTS(patented):sidechain
blockstream:ELEMENTS:segwit keys

simple solution

a true community uniting manatory activation of a 1 merkle 4mb block. where by native(legacy) key asset holders get more space AND segwit key opt-in users can disarm themselves to then be allowed to use voluntary services like sidechains/LN.

everyone becomes happy and the network remains peer, with only the services tiered.

however the blockstream soft agenda is a TIER network where people need to move funds to segwit keypairs to be top of the tier.

please look passed the reddit scripts, look passed the brand drama and look at things from the position of a diverse decentralised peer network. all will become clearer to you

Litecoin is in a quote precarious situation. I don't think it's alright that the price should jump multiple times higher over what it was in expectation of a new update. Sure, it will be a interesting and possibly great move forward, but I think the alt is overhyped at the moment.

Unlimited has its share of bugs, but I think it's great that they're ironing them out and notifying users of them. You can't say the same about Core's reactions to bugs.