Topic: How the chinese BUcoin takeover will be destroyed (Read 1658 times)

you said what we all (users) are thinking.
and the funny thing is those who matter don't care or even read these shitstorm! the miners are doing their own thing and making their own decisions (whatever it is) and those who have an understanding of bitcoin protocol make up their minds on their own, topics like this are only annoyance for supporters of each team to fight each other with pointless arguments and scare away newcomers!

They are forcing it down our throat demonstrably by sticking with a 1mb block limit. They are using what originally was an anti-spam measure to literally force transactions off chain at the benefit of themselves and blockstream, and the detriment of everyone else.

How is core forcing anything down our throat if, for example, LN implementations become available? I can still pay the miner fee and do my TX on-chain. It's not like the bitcoin network is going to know who is who and blacklist anyone from making on-chain TX. Core is simply working on making LN available.

I'm not against layered solutions, off-chain, etc... as long as the market can decide for itself, not have it forced down our throats.

Core could have increased the blocksize long ago and chose not to.  imo, they thought they could control and dictate their roadmap.

in any event, here we are.

That's it? Seriously?

I'm not against moderately larger blocks (though I am more concerned than some about blockchain bloat); I wish core had pushed out a blocksize increase some time ago and then kept working on segwit and LN, etc., without skipping a beat. But you are not going to reach anything like mass adoption or meet the needs of bitcoin-friendly merchants with larger blocks in an era in which Moore's Law has long since ended.

Because raising the blocksize limit is the obvious move that everyone knows should have been done long ago.  It's the simplest and most robust way to scale Bitcoin in the short term.  It avoids the needlessly complexity and risk of segwit, which was promised as a way to 'avoid a hard fork'.  Furthermore, BU removes the centralized point of debate from the consensus layer, which is how we got into this mess in the first place...so it lets the market decide this and decentralizes development.

first of all..
LN doesnt need miners to agree on any rules that impact LN
LN can run right now, it doesnt need new 'features'
LN just needs to fix bugs that never had to do with any features of 'fixes'.
but in short people can set up a LN service now if they had the coding prowess. segwit would not have changed it one bit.

secondly
its blockstream that chose to avoid real consensus and push segwit to the pools to vote on instead of real consensus. knowing the pools wont push it without having the nodes to accept it.
its a self fulfilling stall tactic. whee blockstream get to sip margaritas and sit back playing innocent

dont blame pools. blame blockstream for the stall tactics.

also the fee's are on the rise due to blockstream by the the removal of priority, the removal of reactive fees. the addition of average fee(stays up even in low demand) increase and inclusion of fee filters and higher minimum relay fee.

they have removed logic, rules and code which would have kept costs down. and replaced it with economic notions of 'just pay more'

And if BU would give up their obstructionism we could have had Segwit months ago, and LN implementations coming soon that anyone can implement (leading to great competition and low fees). Both sides can whine the other side is to blame. But I keep looking (seriously) for evidence that the BU team has a competent plan and roadmap, something beyond a lot of shrieking that Core is the devil (and darned little else), and I am not finding it.  So help me out - why should any honest, basically neutral person with some knowledge of bitcoin take BU seriously at this point?

Do you not realize that the huge increase in fees we're seeing is entirely because of the 1MB blocksize?  When blocks weren't full you could get away with zero fee. 

BU wants to RAISE the blocksize.

Core are the ones who have refused to raise it for the very purpose of making money with fees...It was their business model the whole time...they even admit that tacitly now on their home page.

please wake up.

It looks to me like a sizable portion of the mining community is trying hard now to block things like the Lightning Network from taking hold, to keep TX on-chain (and thus maximizing fee revenue to the miners). Propaganda, FUD, strongarm tactics - they are going to do what they can to maintain their monopoly, as it were, over bitcoin TX fees.

The problem with this approach is not just that it stifles bitcoin. It's that the real competition is not Core or the LN. They are trying to make bitcoin grow and succeed. The real competition is the thousand altcoins that offer cheaper fees if the mining community has its way. And it is naive to imagine that people won't migrate to the major alts if this continues. With the rise in Dash, Ethereum and Monero recently I think it may already be starting, and would be even further along if it were not for the SEC/ETF excitement.

If the miners won't come to their senses, my hope is that they make their BU power-grab soon, and are crushed by the market as they are left mining near-worthless coins until enough miners defect back to bitcoin to cause the BU altcoin to evaporate once its chain is surpassed. Unfortunately one downside I foresee is a lot of miner bankruptcies and further centralization of mining, but that is certain to happen in the "tyranny of the majority" Bitcoin Unlimited model as well. (Because their ability to vary things like blocksize will lead to dominant miners choosing parameters that cannot be met by marginal miners, driving them out of business in one long game of survivor.)

TL/DR: I'm bullish in the very short-term because of the ETF, but gosh I wish there was a Dash ETF in the works. Because I think we are gonna need it.

Tell me about it. 

But its going to get better. I promise 

Bitcoin used to be fun. Now with all this strife I am just really, really tired of the shitstorm.

I think having 75%+ hash power will be enough.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5j9wmz/the_fatal_misunderstanding_of_nakamoto_consensus/

well they havnt done it in the last 2 years.. so that immediate debunks you and blockstreams myth of them actually wanting to do anything controversial or bilateral.

if the intention was to be controversial or bilateral. you better come up with a better excuse

Back at ya'.



Miner's protocol signaling and node versions aside, if the miners go against the economic majority, they will be mining worthless tokens.

Everyone pushing BU had better hope they have the economic majority on their side should they attempt a contentious fork.

Sorry but you lost the plot already.   XT is not and never was an altcoin.

https://www.hyperledger.org/about/members

general member - blockstream

Here's a fact for you:

Food for thought


I was unaware of this...

Ignoring the facts. You worshiped XT, an altcoin that wanted to be controlled by beneavolent dictator XT, and wanted to crack down on TOR users. Therefore, all of your arguments are invalid (not surprised you are dumb enough to support BUcoin)


Oh wow, the best coders on the planet are working on effective offchain scaling (off-chain being the ONLY way to scale to mainstream levels). You guys are a waste of time. I can't wait to see BU fail to see what the name of the next delusional big blocker wet dream is named like.