Topic: Electrum Developer Thomas Voegtlin: Bitcoin Unlimited Is Not a Good Idea - page 3. (Read 2441 times)

well you wont find it then the core censor cabin..
time for you to look beyond core and do some research.

prove you can do research without being spoonfed.

ill give you time and then maybe ill help you. but i hope you can actually do the search yourself without insults and without replying with empty comments.

start researching. show your research abilities and not your insult replying ability. if you can find it without being spoonfed then you will gain some rep.
P.S it does exist, its not a trick

My statement has nothing to do with Reddit.

Another irrelevant straw man attempt.

Where exactly can one find this SWHF proposal?

The reason for this exact usage of language is because he wants to avoid getting trolled and attacked by r/btc fanatics.

It means that he's leaning towards it being a bad thing, and chances are a guy like this knows what it is and has done his research, so he's going to have an opinion formed. If he said "I'm not sure if it's a good idea", that would be way more indicative of him being on the fence. I would want to hear how he said "I don't think [etc]" because tones mean a lot more than just text. If he's really unconfident in it, he can make it easily known.

“I don’t think [Bitcoin Unlimited] is a good idea,” Voegtlin said - he never said he as 100% sure. "I don't think" implies one isn't 100% sure but somewhat on the fence so to speak.

It was only a matter of time before advanced blockchain explorers and trackers will evolve to pinpoint exactly who is in control of specific address and who send money to whom.
AFAIK unless your gateway point is not compromised i.e. address is not linked to your real identity what does that change? This is what you will get when you deal with fully transparent ledger.

you got it the whole wrong way round
anything thats not core want consensus diverserse peer network of everyone on the same level playing field.. not an altcoin
core want a TIER network of control and then everything blindly following their dictation

look at core begging for them to make an altcoin to go get REKT, to BUgger off, to fork off..

its core code that is pushing up fee's and causing the drama. its core code with all the ban node rules and the PoW killing code.

atleast stop reading reddit and you will start to see passed the scripted narative.

Actually i am starting to think this whole block size debate is being made up artificially by Ver&WU to suppress the bitcoin prices and get cheap bitcoins from us.

Because a hard fork doesn't make sense in the first place, as you said, it will end up like another scam coin.

If their product was so good, and if they lost hope on bitcoin; nobody's stopping them to dump their coins away and start their own. They can't dump their coins because they love bitcoin so much <3  

They know nobody will give a fuck about their scam coin so they are spreading FUD to get cheap coins. There isn't any other explanation to these recent stuff going on.

the ethereum event was an intentional split..
those wanting a peer network which is what bu wants too. dont want an intentional split.

however if BU gets the threshold to activate consensually, .. core will not join the peer network of consensus majority.. and core will be the one with the banning of communications on their minority by initiating their own split to form their own altcoin

its already been begged and pleaded by the core group that other implementations should split away. and they all refused.. its core that are the ones that want the split..

but they want it to happen before consensus is reached so that they are not left with a small minority. this is why core have made so many threats and why implementations that are not core have just plodded along letting the community decide

Well well finally someone speaks something sensible, there have been so many of us saying that we do not need hard folk and keep Bitcoins as it is but so many of us were ridiculed that it was right and good for Bitcoins and this article once again proves we were right. Hopefully the hard folk shall never ever take place. And this shall help people to finally take a stand.

We all know BTU will result in an altcoin that vanishes overtime just like ETC did. It will be a way to make some free money while it lasts. Just look at the futures on bitfinex or whatever exchange did the BTC-C BTC-U tokens, BTC-U has been dumped already. Market will not trust amateurs with their money, and most big players have already rejected BU. Nobody is talking about anymore except the usual suspects.

For your thoughts to be confirmed they must match the right criteria:

 

I wouldn't say so.  My opinion that bitcoin's economic parameters (number of coins, emission scheme, and now also block size because the scarcity feeding the fee market) are immutable is empirically confirmed since 2013, and even since 2010, when the first attempts at changing it started, and especially since 2015 when the heated debate started.

I would actually think that all that is a good idea. You see, what attracted me to bitcoin when I learned about it, was its anarchist character.  Money that can be used in an uncensored way to *pay for things and services that states don't want you to, or steal heavily from* was to me, a great idea.  My problem is NOT with banks.  My problem is with the subjugation of banks to the law.  I'm against state and law, at least in the form it is in most "democratic" countries.  I want my economic freedom back, which is to be able to exchange value with an agreeing counterparty, without anyone obstructing, or putting his nose in.   Until not so long ago, normal banks made this possible.  It is only after 2001, that terrorism was used as an excuse by states to crack down on banks, and turn them into state agents, having to spy on their customers, and restricting what their customers can do with their money.  And I thought that bitcoin was going to do, what banks were stopped from doing.

But bitcoin turned into half a nightmare.  When I realized the traceability of bitcoin, and its privacy nightmare, it is far worse than fiat money.  So I now only consider anonymous crypto as something that makes sense.  Bitcoin was intended to be pseudonymous, but chain analysis has broken that privacy.

The other thing why bitcoin is half a night mare, is that its market cap is essentially sustained by greater-fool speculation, and hoarding, and that the "money on the internet" has only a very tiny part of its market cap coming from the demand to actually buy stuff on the internet ; most of it is speculative HODLing.

I set out to try to find out why.  So I studied the thing.  I'm now convinced that bitcoin is a very problematic system, and is an obstacle to progress for crypto-anarchy.  It became too big, it has attracted too much attention from finance, law enforcement and all that, while not even being a very much used currency and it has become a huge greater-fool bubble that has now a "community" of greedy speculators, instead of people that wanted an underground money hidden from state, taxes, and law enforcement.  Hell, to protect their gamblings, sorry, investors, they want bitcoin now to be "regulated".  I think I understood the "flaws" in bitcoin's design that rendered it useless and even counter productive for a crypto anarchist.  Of course, one can say that it was designed ON PURPOSE to become what it is, a rich-man's speculator tool pumping money from greater fools into their fortunes, and allowing them to conduct their sleazy business.  I don't know if that was the idea, and if we have been lied to from the start, or whether it is simply bad design.  My guess is the latter.

My hope, but also my expectation, is that its design flaws will sooner or later lead to its demise, to make room for better.  However, when I see the scammy stuff that is waiting in row (ETH, DASH, RIPPLE...) to overtake its role, I think crypto currencies have screwed up too much for this to become useful for underground economy in any near future, and that a lot of damage has been done to the possibilities of setting up such a system now.

Your opinion has been unconfirmed for so long, it has been dropped from the free speech pool.

Ah, OK, I didn't think of that.  But I like posting here, so in order for me to shut up, the amount needs to be significant
(and it is open to me doing a Sybil attack, and posting from a new account ).  Nope, after all, my free speech is (almost) priceless.

you need to look passed the reddit stories

there are more than 2 implementations..
look at bitcoin as a whole. not the reddit stories of narrow minded rhetoric.

then you will see that SWHF has been proposed as a single dynamic block (1 merkle) with features like segwit and dynamics and lowtxsigop count and other things ontop. all in one go. not the tier network your reddit rhetoric want

Another straw man argument. This is how you deflect the actual argument instead of admitting that you were lying about the differentiation between SWSF and SWHF. Classic shilling.

I'm now entirely convinced of my previous assessment of you. You show zero signs of reading any kind of research on blockchain consensus. Maybe start at Princeton.

Wait, so you're trying to imply that BU is essentially dead. Now we are going back to BIP100?

Big block support (BU + bip 100 + 8mblocks) is now at 56.9% for the last 144 blocks.

www.coin.dance

Chinese lunatics want it because it will provide them more money. SegWit will eliminate a ASICBoost, this is the only reason main Chinese pools live in self-delusion.

Op, said that Bitcoin Unlimited is no loger supported and people are facing away from it. So why do we see more than 40% support for BU?
As long as I am not mistaken it is the highest hash support BU received, ever.

I challenge every miner to put WHAT?BIP100 in their coinbase string.