only core gave mining farm the vote and core do not care about node consensus.
if core dont get the miner vote, core will force activation anyway. thus wasting a year pretending its an election but where the end result in their eyes a sure thing and mandatory activation anyway..
bu and other dynamics rely on node consensus which pools have to follow and also have a lower preferential threshold that is only allowed to go a certain way into before pools have to back off and not push thier luck
to even activate irequires both a NODE AND POOL consensus (unlike cores pool only soft bypass exploit)
for the last 2 year many dynamic implementations have set no deadlines no threats, just running along side dozen other brands happily letting the community decide or not.
SW(segwit) will allow the developers to implement major changes in the future without needing to perform a hard fork
this is called a backdoor exploit and a risk because if it lets core implement a change without node consensus.. meaning anyone else can too.!!
emphasis exploitable
hard fork BU if activating via consensus will cause minimal distruption. but core wont let it get that far into consensus because core will cause a split to prevent bu getting popular. thus core will cause the damage for the whole network while blaming BU for just becoming popular.
If you think SW will give advantage to anyone running SW activated software they would be wrong. the activation is just to get people to resync and reset connections to a TIER network of centralism. the funny part of trying to coax 46million unspent tx's to move to new key pairs is going to cause alot of mempool spam and issues. with no guarantees on the segwit promises. due to it not actually killing off native spam methods.
oh i must add segwit have introduced new ways that spammers can mess with blocks.
But one can argue why not switch to BU and have whatever BU supporters are going to have? answer is simple: BU is one of many dynamic implementations that do not rely on devs to control bitcoin decisions. where the node has more control and users can independently change settings at runtime
If BU had only changed the block size limitation then the remote shutdown exploit which was part of core 0.12 would still be there. lucky it was fixed and a release was ready, even though some nasty people wanted to scream out to attack it before people downloaded the update.
core would be glad to accept their version but blockstream managers told the core independent devs not to independently review it but REKT it instead
Having freedom over the size of a block makes no difference to ASIC miners. after all an ASIC doesnt have a hard drive so doesnt see or care about blocksize. all an ASIC see's is a hash. so blocksizes do not make it expensive to mine. because it doesnt affect an asic chip in any way
if core dont get the miner vote, core will force activation anyway. thus wasting a year pretending its an election but where the end result in their eyes a sure thing and mandatory activation anyway..
bu and other dynamics rely on node consensus which pools have to follow and also have a lower preferential threshold that is only allowed to go a certain way into before pools have to back off and not push thier luck
to even activate irequires both a NODE AND POOL consensus (unlike cores pool only soft bypass exploit)
for the last 2 year many dynamic implementations have set no deadlines no threats, just running along side dozen other brands happily letting the community decide or not.
SW(segwit) will allow the developers to implement major changes in the future without needing to perform a hard fork
this is called a backdoor exploit and a risk because if it lets core implement a change without node consensus.. meaning anyone else can too.!!
emphasis exploitable
hard fork BU if activating via consensus will cause minimal distruption. but core wont let it get that far into consensus because core will cause a split to prevent bu getting popular. thus core will cause the damage for the whole network while blaming BU for just becoming popular.
If you think SW will give advantage to anyone running SW activated software they would be wrong. the activation is just to get people to resync and reset connections to a TIER network of centralism. the funny part of trying to coax 46million unspent tx's to move to new key pairs is going to cause alot of mempool spam and issues. with no guarantees on the segwit promises. due to it not actually killing off native spam methods.
oh i must add segwit have introduced new ways that spammers can mess with blocks.
But one can argue why not switch to BU and have whatever BU supporters are going to have? answer is simple: BU is one of many dynamic implementations that do not rely on devs to control bitcoin decisions. where the node has more control and users can independently change settings at runtime
If BU had only changed the block size limitation then the remote shutdown exploit which was part of core 0.12 would still be there. lucky it was fixed and a release was ready, even though some nasty people wanted to scream out to attack it before people downloaded the update.
core would be glad to accept their version but blockstream managers told the core independent devs not to independently review it but REKT it instead
Having freedom over the size of a block makes no difference to ASIC miners. after all an ASIC doesnt have a hard drive so doesnt see or care about blocksize. all an ASIC see's is a hash. so blocksizes do not make it expensive to mine. because it doesnt affect an asic chip in any way
fixed that for you
) to generate blocks with any size depending on the numbers of unconfirmed transactions in the mempool but they didn't just change that NO they have changed other things as well and that's why nodes were operating on BU software were attacked/crashed/exploited. (ever since ASIC miners came to be no longer 1CPU or 1 computer was a full node and now you could operate 10K ASICs on only one full node but that is about centralization topic and doesn't belong here).
