Topic: Electrum Developer Thomas Voegtlin: Bitcoin Unlimited Is Not a Good Idea - page 5. (Read 2441 times)

Since old nodes are clueless about segwit and are filtered manipulated data, it is about as backward compatible as a Peel P50.

In this practical application of a hard fork it would.

I wouldn't really call it an "altcoin" but it's basically a different coin, in the same way that ETC and ETH are separate coins.  It was my understanding that in a hard fork without a very, very high consensus (which Bitcoin won't achieve, it's most likely that BU will have less than 80% miner support and possibly only slightly over 50%), a split would occur and that would cause uncertainty.

If you can explain to me in reasonable terms why that wouldn't be the case, I'm definitely listening.  But from anything that I know so far I don't see it happening, especially when hard forks aren't backwards compatible.

lol the only bug of BU was the one that was part of core 0.12 and only fixed in core 0.13.
yet BU fixed it before core devs publicly shouted out exactly how to attack nodes that didnt upgrade

but anyway dynamics and a 1merkle segwit (which MANY independent implementations) can run with is something that core really should have as their august 2017 backup plan

then atleast the community can be united.

Bitcoin Unlimited is a dead meme, it has failed. Only paid shills keep shilling it. Buggy Unlimited's Emergent Consensus is technical nonsense. We'll get segwit in Bitcoin one way or another, meanwhile Litecoin is about to go to mars as it eats Bitcoin's lunch demonstrating the efficiency and functionality of segwit and full working lightning networks. ATH is incoming, but a couple miners with interests (ASICBOOST) will not make it happen in BTC.

Hard forks allow for cleaner code fixes than soft fork kludges.

The ironic thing is, the UASF force currently have to use their own implementation of a bitcoin node:

https://github.com/UASF/bitcoin

The question should not be asked. If an hardfork proposition, once known from everyone does not catch many positive feelings toward it in a short timespan, it is a bad idea and should be avoided, whatever is its content.

Why is he so afraid of a hard fork?
I don`t think that a hard fork is such a disaster.It`s just like democracy.People vote with their money for the better option and move on.

change in the structure of power?
i guess he doesnt understand diverse decentralised peer network
lol

sorry but many independent implementations are ok with it. and if core pulled their thumb out of their behinds they too can run on the same level playing field with many other implementations

its what bitcoin is , a  diverse decentralised peer network.

however segwit is the creation of a TIER network (upstream filter nodes).
here if you cant read the guide maybe a picture from the guide will help

---

secondly hardfork does not automatically = altcoin creation..
hardfork is an umbrella term just like soft fork.. where many possibilities belw each can occur.
just mentioning softs best case scenario and hards worse case scenario is not being informative, its creating a false narative.

---

thirdly even 'going soft' not only could create altcoins. but if you run scenarios using soft segwit. it does not fulfil ANY promises. and the expectations are not much better, even if it reached 100% utility

take the capacity "promise"..
to get 2.1mb blocks requires everyone not only running segwit but also moving their funds to segwit keys. emphasis on the second part. and guess what that 2.1mb is.. yep 7tx/s..
we wont get 100% moving over to segwit keys so just like the expectation of 7tx/s in 2009-2017.. we still will not get 7tx/s if segwit activates.

nor will quadratics be 'fixed' due to spammers who love to quadratic spam will still quadratic spam after segwit is activated simply by not moving funds to segwit keys.

same goes for malleability. oh and malleability 'fix' which meant to fix the trust of unconfirmed tx's not getting messed around with. yet the "promise to fix" the unconfirmed tx messing with, became a broken promise because now we have RBF, CPFP, and CSV which all means you still cant trust unconfirms. along with ofcourse those that wont move to segwit keys because they prefer to contin malleating tx's

in short
its all empty temporary gestures wasting time upto 2019 for things the community will not really get massive utility of.

---

lastly
if segwit not showing positive chance by august. and thus becomes UASF (real un buzzword translated to hardfork) we should use that oppertunity to do a proper 1 merkle segwit + dynamic blocks plus other features peer network consensus. not wast august 2017-late 2018 pushing the half baked soft and empty gesture that is the current 2 merkle segwit

Bitcoin unlimited = Hardfork
Hardfork is quite risky if there is so much debate between community like we have right now.

Community is divided between two distinct solution BU and Segwit, so hard fork may quickly lead to loads of attack on both chains which doesn't give good impression among bitcoin holders who don't know much about technological side of bitcoin and about all this forks.

It is not a good time to split the bitcoin network, so BU is not a good solution.

“I don’t think [Bitcoin Unlimited] is a good idea,” Voegtlin said during the interview. “It’s really a big change; it’s a change in the structure of power in Bitcoin. It’s a very risky hard fork.” He went on to suggest that since the recent AsicBoost scandal, “a lot of people have changed their mind on this” and no longer support Bitcoin Unlimited.

The interview can be found here: https://epicenter.tv/episode/179/
The article: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/electrum-developer-thomas-voegtlin-bitcoin-unlimited-not-good-idea/