Topic: Electrum Developer Thomas Voegtlin: Bitcoin Unlimited Is Not a Good Idea - page 2. (Read 2441 times)

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

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

Still wrong. What I was referring to is that BTU would destroy the network from within like a disease (in this case cancer).

segwit does fix/guarantee anything, the only thing you can expect it to do as a soft fork is create a tier network

I can never say this with 100% certainty but it does seem likely that Bitcoin was a project that was in semi-development for a while and then was ramped up after the 2008 collapse, or it was a concept which was rapidly developed following the collapse in 2008 and then released in 2009. There likely wasn't a ton of time to develop a ton of new systems like Segwit and they decided to release Bitcoin with the features it had at the time, offering an alternative to the regular system.
New technologies will always be something that are created, a single man only has so much creativity and time.

I actually wonder what he thinks about SegWit:

---

Which is expected of something that's based on thin air and doesn't have anything to do with Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies (and that probably had destabilization as one of its objectives).

Did Bill Gates create Windows 7, 8, 10 straight away in the 1980s? Could he have done it then? - Nope. All software starts small and new ideas appear over time, new development over time, new technolgies over time. Over time we get better software.

Satoshi can't be expected, at the start to programme what BTC will be in 20 years time. He, like Bill gate, started small. Those who think about Visa, or 1 bn txs a day are getting ahead of themselves. It takes time. It may work, it may not.

Anyone can replace that with "Bitcoin Core/Blockstream/LN is an attempt to centralize bitcoin."

Visualise Bitcoin as a circle supported by codes and protocols etc. Inside the circle are Users, Full Noders, Miners. This MUST be decentralise.

Outside the circle are Bitcoin related services such as exchanges, retailers, etc. Also developers, doesn't matter if all in one "organisation" or many "organisations" or individual. These are centralise by nature. Nothing anyone can do about it. They exist outside the circle. Those centralisers can only propose changes. It is the Users, Full Noders, Miners, inside the circle (decentralise) that has the final say.

I guess you haven't read Satoshi very carefully.

You might enjoy this thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/satoshi-nakamoto-bitcoin-can-scale-larger-than-the-visa-network-1391350

your reading the reddit "gigabytes by midnight" old scripts..

dynamic concepts are not about visa by midnight. ..
but instead natural growth over time

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.

LOL you need to go check
the crashes were due to a core bug.

also many nodes have limits of 1mb-8mb active right now.

much like core had the 1mb limit even when there was a 500kb issue that would have held things back at 500kb 2009-2013

EG are you saying that the cores 1mb limit was not active in 2009-2015 when blocks were only going upto 0.75mb

cancer=mutated cells, foreign cells that are rejected from the native body which need to be cut away from the main body to not cause harm..
sounds like segwit to me

It is always linked to a real identity when doing a deal (trading on an exchange, buying physical goods, ... ).  The problem with transparent ledgers is that this information propagates from transaction to transaction.  On an obfuscated ledger such as monero or ZEC, the knowledge that you bought coffee and got a change so the coffee shop owner knows who you are (the one buying coffee) and to whom belongs the change address, is not linked to how you use that change (say, for buying some pornography).  On a public ledger, that is traceable.

If you have evidence, yes. If not, then i will simply "bear it in mind." I don't reject what people say automatically unless what they said is 100% wrong.

That is news to me. Evidence please. If you have seen the code then please provide the link/codes whatever.

False. BU (EC) has been running for 0 hours on any live network. BU as the implementation of the current consensus is primarily Bitcoin Core with some faulty patches on top. That has been running for a while now (and crashing).

This makes no sense. If we were to go this deeply into analysis, we'd have to define each piece of the human body. You didn't understand my statement. It's the effect of cancer what I was referring to.

If I told you that he told me, would you believe me? It's safer to say I made a plausible assumption based on months of observation.

And you know this how? Because he told you or you are making an assumption.

you should check out blockstreams LN code

at code level bitcoin protocol measure people holdings in satoshi's. where there are 2.1 quadrillion units of measure.

LN wants 1000x more units of measure (millisats)

cap was 2,100,000,000,000,000
LN want 2,100,000,000,000,000,000

have a nice day

That can only happen if you sell your BTC. If no one sells their BTC cheaply then there is nothing cheap for Ver and Wu to buy.

Value is subjective. No one can say it will decrease the price 100%.

The scenarios can be played out like this. Example.
A - 95% of the miners support increasing 21m coins to 30m coins. 95% of the users reject it. Users keep their money in BTC and very little goes into AltBTC. Users fire up their mining equipment and the miners mine a worthless low value coin that very few will buy. Miners will realise the errors of their ways and stop mining AltBTC and support BTC.
B - 95% of the miners support increasing 21m coins to 30m coins. 95% of the users support it. BTC will now mine 30m coins. Crazy it may be but what can the 5% do? Dump their coins?
C - 95% of the miners reject 21m coins to 30m coins. 95% of the users support it. Users keep their money in BTC and very little goes into AltBTC. Users fire up their mining equipment and the miners mine a worthless low value coin that very little will buy. Miners will realise the errors of their ways and stop mining AltBTC and support BTC. One then realise the users do have power over their money and that what create value.

The idea that 95% of the users want to increase the coins from 21m to 30m won't happen because it will devalue their BTC, and users are not that stupid, so don't worry.

Now there is division over BU and Core. Both have made grievous errors. Both are proposing so many changes at once. This is a fundamental mistake.

Core - Segwit, LN
BU - dynamic block (EC), flextrans, sidechain.

Person -
A - Core
B - BU
C - segwit and sidechain
D - segwit and not LN
E - Flextrans and LN
F - Flextrans and sidechain
G - Flextrans and dynamic block but not sidechain
and so on. There too many combination of choices and thus many divisions. Therein lies the grievous errors.

I and many others (perhaps over 80%) support bigger block. Easy to raise 1mb to 2mb. Miners support 2mb in the Hong Kong agreement. Albeit with Segwit. Now that half the miners don't support segwit, common sense dictate that the only proposal on the table that will work is -

Z - raise blocksize to 2mb. See B above and it will becomes this -

B - 95% of the miners support increasing 1mb to 2mb. 95% of the users support it. BTC will now have 2mb limit. Everyone is now happy and the objectors will be happy when the value of BTC goes higher.

This could have be done last year or even 2 years ago. None of us would be here debating.

The moral of the story is that when dealing with $billions, one change at a time.

bu has been running for years
segwit 6 months

BU uses native keys (cells)
segwit wants to change the keys (mutated cells)

segwit changes the design of blocks and needs to cut off the cancer just so it wont be rejected by the native "body"

core have the body killing code

Cut the bullshit. Nobody has mentioned Core nor is there any kind of censorship.

If you fail to provide an academic link (this does not include BTU troll social channels), then you are a complete, and time-wasting troll. I have no intentions of wasting my time doing your work for you.

---

The conclusion of this thread, which you fail to admit considering you're a paid, is that BTU is to the Bitcoin network what cancer is to the human body.