Topic: Electrum Developer Thomas Voegtlin: Bitcoin Unlimited Is Not a Good Idea - page 4. (Read 2441 times)

yep censored

wow..hmm i guess the bip process is censored too much?

https://github.com/jgarzik/bip100/blob/master/bip-0100.mediawiki

What BIP100?

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips

i wonder what Thomas thinks of Bip100.

hard fork does not mean automatically making an altcoin

even going soft can result in an altcoin



learn high consensus(unity with no split , just minority nodes that cant sync(orphan drama))
learn controversial consensus(orphan drama with eventual with no split , just higher minority nodes that cant sync( higher orphan drama))
bilateral split. (intentionally having nodes not communicate to avoid consensus/orphaning mechanism (altcoin maker))

^ those scenarios can happen soft or hard

stop reading the reddit scripts
al you have seemed to have read is the narative of soft best case and hard worse case but not researched the whole picture or run all scenarios

I don't like bitcoin unlimited, it will decrease the price and make it become less valuable, and by making bitcoin to hardfork it will risk all of the investor to go away, this can lead to bitcoin domination to end and cause a lot of investor to lost their money, bitcoin should never being hardfork to maintain the investor trust level

I don''t like Bitcoin Unlimited In any form, Only BTC and other coin! May be!

ages ago i was going to jokingly put up a post where people pay me to shutup about my open opinions that i have.
(secretly donating funds to seans outpost cos i dont need handouts)

Of course I'm not paid for analysing the dynamics of crypto (*).  I'm open to discuss arguments with you (although you have forbidden me to post in any of your threads, and when you cannot have any arguments, you censor: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/how-lauda-censors-1879835 remember).

What people write in white papers, is not necessary a correct analysis of the dynamics of the system they set up.  Satoshi was, for instance, quite wrong in his public writings about bitcoin's dynamics.

You are right that most crypto currencies are highly centralized systems, at least on the protocol side: if only one group decides on the protocol (usually the original publishers of the white paper laying out the protocol, which are very often also the developers of a piece of software that implements that protocol), then by definition, the protocol is a centrally issued and steered thing.    It is only when nobody in the world is defining any protocol after it came out, and if there are many totally independent software implementations of said protocol, that one can pretend that the system is, on the protocol side, decentralized.  Bitcoin was first totally centralized in Satoshi's hands, and this centralization is still a lot the case in the hands of Core ; but it got lastly some modest counter wind from another part of the eco system, which are the miners.

As usual, in the battle between a centralized force (here core) and a distributed entity (the users and miners), the central entity wins, because it can play much more divide and conquer.  But what wasn't foreseen, was that another part of the ecosystem got sufficiently centralized, the miners, for them to defend their interest.  When core started to annoy them with LN and Segwit, these two "empires" fought their battle.  The funny thing is that this has, as a side effect, a better form of decentralisation, than decentralized users and miners on one side, and a powerful central control (core) on the other.  As such, bitcoin starts, ironically, to show some decentralized properties, of which immutability is the main sign.

In a truly decentralized system of non-colluding antagonists, the protocol is perfectly immutable on every economical aspect, because the slightest change to one of these aspects is in the disadvantage of sufficient of the players, that they will oppose it, and the antagonists are sufficiently non-colluding that they cannot propose anything coherent.

(*) ... but you give me an idea: if anyone wants actually to PAY me for me continuing to post, please send some funds to

LRcK7eiVzyTEG8s4scRKMvxdAm4kCpfUVu

(a LTC address, as BTC will soon be too expensive I guess ).

lol try reading the code and documentation
plus you are obsessed with the reddit bu vs.. debate. there are MANY dynamic block implementations.

i know your finally realising something i have said months ago. but things have moved on since.
but to address your issues with BU because you brought it up..

unlike it taking months to get core to update their issues when core moved from 0.12-0.13..
bu patched cores 0.12 issues in a quicker time. its just that segwit as a SF 2 merkle half gesture is a cesspit creating network so bu havnt just thrown in the 2 merkle segwit half baked code.



and thats a failure of using an opportunity to do a proper peer network upgrade..

maybe if you read code and documentation and the terms like hardfork consensus.. you would see that a peer network of a 1 merkle block where everyone is on the same level is possible due to everyone needing to upgrade

This is an outright lie and is far away from reality. Segwit without the base-to-weight ration is not the same proposal that we have today. Such a hard fork can't be called Segwit. The differences between SWSF and SWHF are as follows:
1) Activation (standard hard vs. soft fork).
2) Backwards compatibility (in the case of SWHF, people that do not update are cut off from the network).

---

In other words, SWHF does not imply a 4 MB block size limit (as opposed to the SWSF 1 MB base && 4 MB weight). It retains the same 1-to-4 ratio that the soft fork variant has.

try reading code and documentation

in a segwit HF there wont be any "upstream filter" tier network.
the blocks will just be blocks that everyone recieves.
EG just a upto 4mb block.
not
a 1mb block inside a upto 4mb block that gets stripped to 1mb.

everyone will get the upto 4mb block.
segwit done as a hardfork where everyone is part of the same level playing field peer network.. non of this soft fork tier network crap

Basically, Bitcoin Unlimited is of the opinion that the size of the blocks should not be related to the consensus of the Bitcoin network. The money supply, transaction history and protection against double costs and fakes are what are important properties of stable money. The size of the same block is not that, according to Unlimited.

Everyone knows that. Even those Chinese lunatics know that BU will only destroy the whole system. But sadly, they still ignore it and try to activate it as soon as they can. They always want to control Bitcoin

This is a common misconpcetion and lie spread by BTU fanatics. SWSF vs. SWHF is a very trivial different and SWHF does not fix any kind of "soft fork kludges" (as they don't exist in this context).

The only ironic thing here is that the UASF implementation is already much more advanced than BU is. BU is based on outdated Bitcoin Core code (0.12.x).

Of course you're going to meet those. There are some genuine people that have actual reasons for their stance, then there are those that are paid by various agencies to shill this belief (see my next remark).

In other words, your idea is complete bullshit and has nothing to do with how actual cryptocurrencies work in practice (maybe you need to read a whitepaper or two). Then again, you're being paid for this kind of nonsense so it doesn't come as a surprise.

My idea is that a crypto currency's protocol should remain as it was the day that it got started - I'm even convinced that a sufficiently decentralized crypto currency CANNOT change its protocol.  If it can change, it means that there is a form of leadership, and hence, is not a decentralized system.  If it can change, it is not permissionless, as we have seen with ethereum, and there is a "board of central bank governors" that proposes and decides, can censor, can print extra money, can modify the rules to suit them.

You are right of course that a given protocol, if it turns out to contain problematic features, will make people go away from it, but I don't think there's anything wrong with that.  Crypto currencies come and go, and each of them has a certain life time during which it has some importance in the market.  Bitcoin has the huge first mover advantage, which will take a long time before it erodes sufficiently away, but I wonder whether it will change. If it does, it means it is centralized.

I would like to agree with what the Electrum Developer Thomas Voegtlin said that bitcoin unlimited is not a good idea since if we really look at the hardfork it has many bugs and it not feasible for bitcoin at this moment. But later in time if bitcoin is ready for a hardfork then maybe that will be the time that bitcoin unlimited will come into the picture.

ok 2013
there was an issue with blocks getting over 500kb
are there now 2 bitcoins?? nope

A fork (Soft/hard) should happen no matter how long It takes, I never meet anyone who agrees that bitcoin should stay as it is right now. If bitcoin stays as it is then there will be a problem in the future and It's only going to make people stay away from it.

The point is however, that *undoing* a hard fork, is a soft fork, and undoing a soft fork, is a hard fork.

So while it may *seem* that a soft fork is "softer", in fact, going back is harder. 


Not really.  The community is divided between:

1) bitcoin as it is (immutability)

2) modifications, such as:
a) BU, XT, .... who undo the limit of 1 MB that Satoshi introduced as an anti-spam measure
b) segwit