Topic: Can we start talking about splitting amicably... (Read 1420 times)
We stand united as one Bitcoin, We do not leave it broken
Why in the world would anyone support spillitng, you are coming in my house as my brother, then suddenly claiming you have a better right over my house and then you want me to keep some share and loose the remaining, no way, we are going to fight it out till the very end to make sure we can yet save Bitcoin and this is what is needed, it is the need of the hour that bitcoin members get up and fight for their rights.
I think the only option to split in an "amicable" way would be that BU starts as an altcoin, in the way I described here (taking a BTC snapshot as a starting point).
A hard fork is too risky to be considered "amicable". It would lead to extreme market insecurity and volatility and put adoption and confidence in the BTC currency in severe danger, while a BTU altcoin could grow organically if it demonstrates that their technology (EC) is sound.
A hard fork is too risky to be considered "amicable". It would lead to extreme market insecurity and volatility and put adoption and confidence in the BTC currency in severe danger, while a BTU altcoin could grow organically if it demonstrates that their technology (EC) is sound.
And why wouldn't BU want this?
If EC is the greatest idea ever, why would they pass on being the early miners earning 50 BTU per block? The early Bitcoin miners who enjoyed that are now mega-rich.
Their excuse has always been "I want to protect my BTC holdings, and the BTC of others".
It's just bizarre reasoning, and (strangely) has the effect of doing the opposite, as they want to use hashrate to prevent the actual BTC chain from existing Am I the only one who thinks they're lying from one side of their faces to the other, and that they're just trying to be as disruptive to Bitcoin as possible?
There can be only one.
Highlander versus the Borg
The Joke is the Blockchain on a Meta Level
We are fighting over Blockchains
https://commsrisk.com/beyond-bitcoin-networks-will-love-blockchains/
(To OP: Sure you can have the Blockchain over here that does this I'll take the one that did this and eat my cake)
The miners gets to decide not the commumity.
The best way is not splitting, it would reduce the hashpower of bitcoin and all this BU vs Core debate is just a power grab on who takes control this crypto currency. I bet alt coin owners are happy in what is currently happening to btc.
People are scared that they might lose their profit so they cling to whatever hope they can get like the BU and Core supporters.
In the end we all want to make profit.
The best way is not splitting, it would reduce the hashpower of bitcoin and all this BU vs Core debate is just a power grab on who takes control this crypto currency. I bet alt coin owners are happy in what is currently happening to btc.
People are scared that they might lose their profit so they cling to whatever hope they can get like the BU and Core supporters.
In the end we all want to make profit.
I think the only option to split in an "amicable" way would be that BU starts as an altcoin, in the way I described here (taking a BTC snapshot as a starting point).
A hard fork is too risky to be considered "amicable". It would lead to extreme market insecurity and volatility and put adoption and confidence in the BTC currency in severe danger, while a BTU altcoin could grow organically if it demonstrates that their technology (EC) is sound.
A hard fork is too risky to be considered "amicable". It would lead to extreme market insecurity and volatility and put adoption and confidence in the BTC currency in severe danger, while a BTU altcoin could grow organically if it demonstrates that their technology (EC) is sound.
This will have too many negative affects for the reduction in hash rate and also decentralization of the network, when a large quantity of miners are split to mine another new Alt coin. The people behind BU knows that Bitcoin has the advantage of the network behind it and would not go the Alt coin route.
Most Alt coins do not make it, because they do not have utility and a network that use their coins. BU is nothing more than a attempt at a hostile takeover. ^grrrrrrr^
That is a simple idea but it is very hard to do. Well for me instead of splitting up why not unite and work as one for the betterment of bitcoin. This problems ans issues within bitcoin has bring bad impact not only to the price but also to the credibility of bitcoin itself. Aside from that it is not only bitcoin who is affected but the whole cryptocurrency economy who are dependent on bitcoin.
I'm starting to think "working together" is not an option.
it seems clear that what is causing problem is "trying to work together", consider how segwit AND bigger blocks both have not been activated.
it seems to me without a split nothing will change, the only way for bitcoin to move forward at this point appears to be a split.
i mean how many more months ( years!?!? ) are we willing to waste watching 30% segwit 30% BU +-10%??
Maybe, the current stalemate not being resolved is more damaging to bitcoin than a split would be.
BTU only needs 15% more to FIX BTC, so the transaction fees are not sky high anymore.
BTU needs to FIX BTC when they reach 55% and then the deadWIT supporters can rejoin BTC or split off to SEGPAL.
Funny thing is When SegPal switches PoW to a CPU only version, the remaining ASICS miners have no choice, but to support BTU or lose their entire investment.
Since 100% of the ASICS will then be on BTU, why does anyone not believe it will keep the name Bitcoin.
The only ones splitting off will be Core and a few greedy nodes that think they can profit from the PoW change.
SegPal will be their New Altcoin, it will not resemble BTC at all and definitely won't have it's security.
We have 2 possible outcomes.
1. BTU splits and we get rid of Jihad Wuss and Vermin which is good, but we may have temporary reduce in price.
2. BTU doesnt split and bitcoin remains intact which is also possitve, but those rats continue to poison the community.
1. BTU splits and we get rid of Jihad Wuss and Vermin which is good, but we may have temporary reduce in price.
2. BTU doesnt split and bitcoin remains intact which is also possitve, but those rats continue to poison the community.
i'm worried about outcome #3
3. there is no spilt and nothing changes, 6 months from now we are no futher along, expect that, TX fee go up thru the roof, and altcoins continue to profit from this problem which will never be solved!
We have 2 possible outcomes.
1. BTU splits and we get rid of Jihad Wuss and Vermin which is good, but we may have temporary reduce in price.
2. BTU doesnt split and bitcoin remains intact which is also possitve, but those rats continue to poison the community.
1. BTU splits and we get rid of Jihad Wuss and Vermin which is good, but we may have temporary reduce in price.
2. BTU doesnt split and bitcoin remains intact which is also possitve, but those rats continue to poison the community.
I hope both sides should not even consider splitting. We already have so many alt coin and we shouldn't create just another one. We should be united to make bitcoin even stronger. I do not support BTC/BTU splitting.
That is a simple idea but it is very hard to do. Well for me instead of splitting up why not unite and work as one for the betterment of bitcoin. This problems ans issues within bitcoin has bring bad impact not only to the price but also to the credibility of bitcoin itself. Aside from that it is not only bitcoin who is affected but the whole cryptocurrency economy who are dependent on bitcoin.
I'm starting to think "working together" is not an option.
it seems clear that what is causing problem is "trying to work together", consider how segwit AND bigger blocks both have not been activated.
it seems to me without a split nothing will change, the only way for bitcoin to move forward at this point appears to be a split.
i mean how many more months ( years!?!? ) are we willing to waste watching 30% segwit 30% BU +-10%??
Maybe, the current stalemate not being resolved is more damaging to bitcoin than a split would be.
can we just agree this isnt working out?
no "51% attack" no "UASF PoW change"
we simply split this thing right down the middle
amicably!
is that possible?
how do YOU USERS feel about that?
no "51% attack" no "UASF PoW change"
we simply split this thing right down the middle
amicably!
is that possible?
how do YOU USERS feel about that?
That is a simple idea but it is very hard to do. Well for me instead of splitting up why not unite and work as one for the betterment of bitcoin. This problems ans issues within bitcoin has bring bad impact not only to the price but also to the credibility of bitcoin itself. Aside from that it is not only bitcoin who is affected but the whole cryptocurrency economy who are dependent on bitcoin.
let not pretend Todd and Gmax haven't said things too...
can we split amicably? how do we do that? is such a thing even possible?
thats the question.
Splitting amicably !!! can we split amicably? how do we do that? is such a thing even possible?
thats the question.
if it is sailing smoothly and if there is an absence of discord then why are you thinking about a split. A split happens only when there are two opposing factors and i am not sure BU has the capability to handle billions of dollars worth network and if they think they could do it is just foolish as we are seeing with the recent crashes 
. 
I think the only option to split in an "amicable" way would be that BU starts as an altcoin, in the way I described here (taking a BTC snapshot as a starting point).
A hard fork is too risky to be considered "amicable". It would lead to extreme market insecurity and volatility and put adoption and confidence in the BTC currency in severe danger, while a BTU altcoin could grow organically if it demonstrates that their technology (EC) is sound.
A hard fork is too risky to be considered "amicable". It would lead to extreme market insecurity and volatility and put adoption and confidence in the BTC currency in severe danger, while a BTU altcoin could grow organically if it demonstrates that their technology (EC) is sound.
can we just agree this isnt working out?
no "51% attack" no "UASF PoW change"
we simply split this thing right down the middle
amicably!
is that possible?
how do YOU USERS feel about that?
no "51% attack" no "UASF PoW change"
we simply split this thing right down the middle
amicably!
is that possible?
how do YOU USERS feel about that?
We stand united as one Bitcoin, no splitting. We ought to look natural and not forked.
let not pretend Todd and Gmax haven't said things too...
can we split amicably? how do we do that? is such a thing even possible?
thats the question.
Just convince Core to implement SegWit as a hard fork. Then all the SegWit supporters can amicably run their own fork. can we split amicably? how do we do that? is such a thing even possible?
thats the question.
segwit is "Effectively" a HF.
maybe the 30% of miners backing segwit right now, can mine a block with a segwit TX in it, and prove my point...
i'm missing something, how is segwit an hard fork, if it's already implemented in the 13 version, and only need to be activated?
and miner can't mine segwit block if it's not activated, or at least it doesn't make any sense
new expenses incurred due to increased block size.
but seriously I think dividing isn't necessarily the best option if someone can just agree for once ffs. It's all a passing contest, no one cares what is best for everyone.
Yes, the amicable way must be working together by adjusting each other. Unfortunately the miners are not ready to sacrifice something for the better future of bitcoins. When they all work together, definitely we can see price appreciations of bitcoins to get them increased profits to cover the new expenses incurred due to increased block size.I do not understand why miners not bothering about future but they are seeming like minding only about today's profits.
Geeze franky1, could you spin it more.
---
Users choosing to install client software with a new proof of work does not aggress upon those who want to remain with a different, previously existing proof of work. It's an optional alternative and not forced upon anyone.
However, actively attacking a chain with a different proof of work with the aim of preventing others from continuing that chain, is an aggression and an attack.
---
Creating blocks which signal a specification which others do not agree with does not aggress upon those signalling a different specification.
However, intentionally orphaning blocks which signal a specification you do not agree with, in order to directly impact the income of those miners, is an aggression and an attack.
---
Choosing to stick with the original specification during a contentious hard fork does not aggress upon those who have decided to change their clients and implement a new set of rules.
However, intentionally mining empty blocks on a chain which chooses not to change their clients and implement a new set of rules, in an attempt to prevent that chain from existing, is an aggression and an attack.
---
Finally, for the love of all things holy, no one from Core has ever forced anyone to install their software, we who choose to install it do so because we agree with the rules set forth in the software which is provided by them.
---
You obviously have a serious issue determining the difference between force and choice when your narrative requires you to be willfully ignorant to the reality of the situation.
---
Users choosing to install client software with a new proof of work does not aggress upon those who want to remain with a different, previously existing proof of work. It's an optional alternative and not forced upon anyone.
However, actively attacking a chain with a different proof of work with the aim of preventing others from continuing that chain, is an aggression and an attack.
---
Creating blocks which signal a specification which others do not agree with does not aggress upon those signalling a different specification.
However, intentionally orphaning blocks which signal a specification you do not agree with, in order to directly impact the income of those miners, is an aggression and an attack.
---
Choosing to stick with the original specification during a contentious hard fork does not aggress upon those who have decided to change their clients and implement a new set of rules.
However, intentionally mining empty blocks on a chain which chooses not to change their clients and implement a new set of rules, in an attempt to prevent that chain from existing, is an aggression and an attack.
---
Finally, for the love of all things holy, no one from Core has ever forced anyone to install their software, we who choose to install it do so because we agree with the rules set forth in the software which is provided by them.
---
You obviously have a serious issue determining the difference between force and choice when your narrative requires you to be willfully ignorant to the reality of the situation.
holliday
the BTC.Top statement of:
"We have prepared $100 million USD to kill the small fork of CoreCoin, no matter what POW algorithm, sha256 or scrypt or X11 or any other GPU algorithm. Show me your money. We very much welcome a CoreCoin change to POS."
is in response to cores threat of killing pools ASICS. he is stating he has $100m of funds to fight whatever ALGO CHANGE core nuke the network with.
its a defense not an attack.
as for gavins and Peter R
those too are again if dynamics get consensus and AFTER the grace periods they will do things before pushing the blocksize up. as the best ways to get the other implementations to pull their fingers out of their asses and be part of the PEER network of many diverse nodes.
........
however core is not a wait and let consensus happen and then rock the boat.
core have bypassed node consensus - error 1 they know it but instead of admitting it. they are now crying that its the pools fault
core have set a deadline which if not met is then FORCED on the community (bip9 and UASF)= still no free community choice
and core too have their attack the opposition code, but core want to utilise it before consensus. not after. meaning attack not defence
yet core are not going to back off if the community dont want it. core are happy to wait until November as it helps push tx prices up to get their commercial hubs utility ready. (blockstream are $70m+ in debt afterall)
where as other dynamic nodes set no deadline made no first strike threats to initiate pre activation... and if any diverse/dynamic peer node wanted to split the network without consensus they would have done so already.
core poke the bear hoping bu/dynamic implementations throw the first stone.. just so core can play the victim card.
yet dynamic implementations will wait for consensus before doing anything.... unless core try attacking with pool ASIC killing algo changes.
whats funny though. if core actually did change the algo. all that PoW hardware will happily jump to the side that allows PoW. as theres no point letting good hardware go to waste afterall.. instantly making core super weak with whatever algo they choose.
sorry but core cannot play the victim card by poking the bear
the BTC.Top statement of:
"We have prepared $100 million USD to kill the small fork of CoreCoin, no matter what POW algorithm, sha256 or scrypt or X11 or any other GPU algorithm. Show me your money. We very much welcome a CoreCoin change to POS."
is in response to cores threat of killing pools ASICS. he is stating he has $100m of funds to fight whatever ALGO CHANGE core nuke the network with.
its a defense not an attack.
as for gavins and Peter R
those too are again if dynamics get consensus and AFTER the grace periods they will do things before pushing the blocksize up. as the best ways to get the other implementations to pull their fingers out of their asses and be part of the PEER network of many diverse nodes.
........
however core is not a wait and let consensus happen and then rock the boat.
core have bypassed node consensus - error 1 they know it but instead of admitting it. they are now crying that its the pools fault
core have set a deadline which if not met is then FORCED on the community (bip9 and UASF)= still no free community choice
and core too have their attack the opposition code, but core want to utilise it before consensus. not after. meaning attack not defence
yet core are not going to back off if the community dont want it. core are happy to wait until November as it helps push tx prices up to get their commercial hubs utility ready. (blockstream are $70m+ in debt afterall)
where as other dynamic nodes set no deadline made no first strike threats to initiate pre activation... and if any diverse/dynamic peer node wanted to split the network without consensus they would have done so already.
core poke the bear hoping bu/dynamic implementations throw the first stone.. just so core can play the victim card.
yet dynamic implementations will wait for consensus before doing anything.... unless core try attacking with pool ASIC killing algo changes.
whats funny though. if core actually did change the algo. all that PoW hardware will happily jump to the side that allows PoW. as theres no point letting good hardware go to waste afterall.. instantly making core super weak with whatever algo they choose.
sorry but core cannot play the victim card by poking the bear
Jump to: