Electrum Developer Thomas Voegtlin: Bitcoin Unlimited Is Not a Good Idea

megynacuna

sr. member

Activity: 756

Merit: 253

Quote from: classicsucks on April 24, 2017, 02:10:32 PM

Quote from: OmegaStarScream on April 23, 2017, 06:16:57 AM

change in the structure of power in Bitcoin

That happened years ago when Satoshi quit because Gavin went to the CIA.

It happened again when Gmaxwell got rid of Gavin, Hearn, and Garzik.

Maybe it's Maxwell's turn to take a fall? Or maybe development is done?

Well I don't want to get into their politics but one thing that I know is that BU was a bad idea and shouldn't have been introduced let alone implement it.

classicsucks

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 504

Quote from: OmegaStarScream on April 23, 2017, 06:16:57 AM

change in the structure of power in Bitcoin

That happened years ago when Satoshi quit because Gavin went to the CIA.

It happened again when Gmaxwell got rid of Gavin, Hearn, and Garzik.

Maybe it's Maxwell's turn to take a fall? Or maybe development is done?

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: FiendCoin on April 24, 2017, 12:04:29 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 23, 2017, 04:45:05 PM

Quote from: FiendCoin on April 23, 2017, 04:37:49 PM

Don't you guys get tired of this constant battling back and forth? Its the same people bickering back and forth the same shit over and over and it gets us nowhere.

We need to come together and push for an agreement like Litecoin has for SegWit now and bigger blocks later when a certain threshold is reached with SegWit blocks.

Be it 50%, 75% full or whatever can be agreed upon.

The shilling needs to stop.

It's the miners you need to convince. I actually see progress because now 50% support for big blocks and looks like bip 100 making a comeback.

This is why I can't take you off my shill list (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18699636) yet, this single-minded, obsessive big block support.

That's the way Bitcoin was originally intended to be according to Satoshi. Big blocks, big nodes, and on chain scaling.

Sure with smaller blocks, node cost increases will be reduced, but you will be forced off the main chain and you'll instead be using KYC/AML LN nodes ran by AXA/Bilderberg funded Blockstream.

AngryDwarf

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 501

Quote from: franky1 on April 23, 2017, 04:09:13 PM

Quote from: anonymoustroll420 on April 23, 2017, 04:02:28 PM

Quote from: franky1 on April 23, 2017, 04:00:56 PM

Quote from: Lauda on April 23, 2017, 03:54:57 PM

I don't see >90% of the Core nodes being taken down within the same day. Therefore, this is just another example of the dishonesty of the franky1 troll.

because core didnt advertise how to attack their own..

but did advertise how to attack others.

major difference

Where did Core patch it then? or is it still vulnerable?

core ammended a few of them in 0.13 but didnt think to edit 0.12 with a patch.
core just release a new version but dont patch old versions. leaving older version vulnerable

Can you add any substance behind this assertion? When I first looked at the issue, there was definitely issues in the xthin code, which affected other versions which had ported it as well. I did wonder if the code could have been tightened up further upstream. Latest BU still doesn't seem stable though.

FiendCoin

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 263

The devil is in the detail.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 23, 2017, 04:45:05 PM

Quote from: FiendCoin on April 23, 2017, 04:37:49 PM

Don't you guys get tired of this constant battling back and forth? Its the same people bickering back and forth the same shit over and over and it gets us nowhere.

We need to come together and push for an agreement like Litecoin has for SegWit now and bigger blocks later when a certain threshold is reached with SegWit blocks.

Be it 50%, 75% full or whatever can be agreed upon.

The shilling needs to stop.

It's the miners you need to convince. I actually see progress because now 50% support for big blocks and looks like bip 100 making a comeback.

This is why I can't take you off my shill list (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18699636) yet, this single-minded, obsessive big block support.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: franky1 on April 23, 2017, 04:09:13 PM

core ammended a few of them in 0.13 but didnt think to edit 0.12 with a patch.
core just release a new version but dont patch old versions. leaving older version vulnerable

That's not the thing that crashed the BTU nodes. It was their own code. We are still waiting for you to link the fix.

Quote from: FiendCoin on April 23, 2017, 04:37:49 PM

Don't you guys get tired of this constant battling back and forth? Its the same people bickering back and forth the same shit over and over and it gets us nowhere.

That's what the other side wants to do. They want to "wear out" the people that are spreading the truth in order to manipulate more newcomers into their bullshit. It's kind of like Jehovah witnesses.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 23, 2017, 04:45:05 PM

It's the miners you need to convince. I actually see progress because now 50% support for big blocks and looks like bip 100 making a comeback.

Miners do not decide what Bitcoin is or isn't. Your % of support is useless considering that the users do not want it.

Harry Callahan

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 23, 2017, 04:45:05 PM

Quote from: FiendCoin on April 23, 2017, 04:37:49 PM

Don't you guys get tired of this constant battling back and forth? Its the same people bickering back and forth the same shit over and over and it gets us nowhere.
We need to come together and push for an agreement like Litecoin has for SegWit now and bigger blocks later when a certain threshold is reached with SegWit blocks.
Be it 50%, 75% full or whatever can be agreed upon.
The shilling needs to stop.

It's the miners you need to convince. I actually see progress because now 50% support for big blocks and looks like bip 100 making a comeback.

It is really hard to convince the miners ,especially big mining farms as they have spent million and they wants the mining industry and the whole bitcoin coin platform to favor their chances rather than the other way round and with the incentives really high in the case of bitcoin ,it is really hard to come to an agreement like litecoin did. The drama will continue and i am not even sure when and how a solution will be reached.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: FiendCoin on April 23, 2017, 04:37:49 PM

Don't you guys get tired of this constant battling back and forth? Its the same people bickering back and forth the same shit over and over and it gets us nowhere.

We need to come together and push for an agreement like Litecoin has for SegWit now and bigger blocks later when a certain threshold is reached with SegWit blocks.

Be it 50%, 75% full or whatever can be agreed upon.

The shilling needs to stop.

It's the miners you need to convince. I actually see progress because now 50% support for big blocks and looks like bip 100 making a comeback.

Mbokani

sr. member

Activity: 291

Merit: 250

Quote from: Hydrogen on April 23, 2017, 02:34:26 PM

Bitcoin Unlimited is an attempt to centralize bitcoin.
Its not what Satoshi would have wanted & its not what is best for crypto or those who use it.
People think that if bitcoin has larger blocks, btc will be able to achieve thousands of transactions per second like credit cards.
That's not the way things work. Btc was never built for that function & it will never achieve a higher transaction rate no matter how big blocks are.

You really cannot pin point who is at fault in this case,yes it will be centralized when bitcoin unlimited rolls in because the major investors had a major say and who is to complain because they have spent millions in mining activities and they are simply safe guarding their cash cow business,it might not be best for bitcoin but it is best for their business.Almost everyone was behind their bandwagon for some time and now they started realizing after the bugs they had in their software which i think mainly damaged their reputation.

FiendCoin

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 263

The devil is in the detail.

Don't you guys get tired of this constant battling back and forth? Its the same people bickering back and forth the same shit over and over and it gets us nowhere.

We need to come together and push for an agreement like Litecoin has for SegWit now and bigger blocks later when a certain threshold is reached with SegWit blocks.

Be it 50%, 75% full or whatever can be agreed upon.

The shilling needs to stop.

ImHash

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 506

You guys need to stop double/ triple posting.

What made someone to fork Core and create BU in 2015? back then there was no SW and as we can see in these 2 years Core managed to hold the entire network together.
I want the reason for BU in 2015 what was the reason? if answer is banks were trying to buy Core team then that's just another lie.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: anonymoustroll420 on April 23, 2017, 04:02:28 PM

Quote from: franky1 on April 23, 2017, 04:00:56 PM

Quote from: Lauda on April 23, 2017, 03:54:57 PM

I don't see >90% of the Core nodes being taken down within the same day. Therefore, this is just another example of the dishonesty of the franky1 troll.

because core didnt advertise how to attack their own..

but did advertise how to attack others.

major difference

Where did Core patch it then? or is it still vulnerable?

core ammended a few of them in 0.13 but didnt think to edit 0.12 with a patch.
core just release a new version but dont patch old versions. leaving older version vulnerable

anonymoustroll420

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 101

Quote from: franky1 on April 23, 2017, 04:00:56 PM

Quote from: Lauda on April 23, 2017, 03:54:57 PM

I don't see >90% of the Core nodes being taken down within the same day. Therefore, this is just another example of the dishonesty of the franky1 troll.

because core didnt advertise how to attack their own..

but did advertise how to attack others.

major difference

Where did Core patch it then? or is it still vulnerable?

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: Lauda on April 23, 2017, 03:54:57 PM

I don't see >90% of the Core nodes being taken down within the same day. Therefore, this is just another example of the dishonesty of the franky1 troll.

because core didnt advertise how to attack their own..

but did advertise how to attack others.

major difference

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: franky1 on April 23, 2017, 03:48:56 PM

lol try telling core how the 1mb was tested in 2012 when blocks could not surpass 500kb

if your saying EC is not tested.. then 1mb was not tested for 6 years

Emergent consensus has nothing to do with the standard block size limit of 1 MB. The former can and will lead to many chain organizations (or possibly even network splits).

Quote from: anonymoustroll420 on April 23, 2017, 03:50:55 PM

There were 2 assert bugs (actually there were WAY more than that as seen in the article I linked, but only 2 were 'exploited'). The other bug was 6 lines below the xthin bug. Neither of them affected Core....

I don't see >90% of the Core nodes being taken down within the same day. Therefore, this is just another example of the dishonesty of the franky1 troll.

anonymoustroll420

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 101

Quote from: franky1 on April 23, 2017, 03:50:20 PM

there were many assert bugs..
hense why core were real quick to advertise ways to attack it. because they knew of the issues in 2016

There were 2 assert bugs (actually there were WAY more than that as seen in the article I linked, but only 2 were 'exploited'). The other bug was 6 lines below the xthin bug. Neither of them affected Core....

Show me the proof the issue existed in Core
Show me where Core patched the issue

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: anonymoustroll420 on April 23, 2017, 03:48:21 PM

The assert bug was in "xthin", BU's block propagation system. That doesn't exist in Core.

http://blog.erratasec.com/2017/03/assert-in-hands-of-bad-coders.html

there were many assert bugs..
hense why core were real quick to advertise ways to attack it. because they knew of the issues in 2016 because of the issues within core

https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/43373/bitcoin-core-error-message-assertion-failed

google found thousands of results
"bitcoin core assertion failed"

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: Lauda on April 23, 2017, 03:41:31 PM

EC and the standard block size limit are two entirely different things. EC is untested, period.

lol try telling core how the 1mb was tested in 2012 when blocks could not surpass 500kb

if your saying EC is not tested.. then 1mb was not tested for 6 years

anonymoustroll420

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 101

Quote from: franky1 on April 23, 2017, 03:46:07 PM

the assert bug was part of core v0.12 in 2016

have a nice day

The assert bug was in "xthin", BU's block propagation system. That doesn't exist in Core.

http://blog.erratasec.com/2017/03/assert-in-hands-of-bad-coders.html

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: Lauda on April 23, 2017, 03:41:31 PM

Quote from: franky1 on April 23, 2017, 02:02:24 PM

the crashes were due to a core bug.

That is yet another outright lie. The bug was introduced by the BTU team.

the assert bug was part of core v0.12 in 2016

have a nice day

Topic: Electrum Developer Thomas Voegtlin: Bitcoin Unlimited Is Not a Good Idea (Read 2441 times)