Topic: is BU an attack on Bitcoin? - page 2. (Read 3430 times)

Irrelevant. Neither Blockstream nor Bitcoin Core has anything to do with censorship. Theymos & his mods moderate the sub against a predefined set of rules. Similarily, r/btc is censored in a somewhat different way.

It seems pretty clear to me that some people shouldn't be thinking for themselves.

---

Instead of writing code, the BU team is going around China trying to lobby miners.


https://twitter.com/bitcoinunlimit/status/848669483354935296

That would depend on a person's point of view. If you look at the hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited as a collusion of the Chinese miners and ASIC manufacturers and having an allegiance with the BU developers to become the stewards of the network and be the people in control then yes it is an attack on Bitcoin.

Hi,

It's not an attack.
Some people don't like SegWit:
https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-fork-too-far-87d6e57a4179

And think that a simple block size increase is better for Bitcoin.

Although I disagree with BU, I don't think it is an attack on Bitcoin itself. Remember the basic concept of Bitcoin - it's controlled by nobody!

I also do not think that a buggy hardfork worth it.  I would rather choose the "centralization" (as BU called it) of segwit and LN with stable softfork than supporting a buggy "decentralized"  network which can only worsen the problem of what Bitcoin is having at this moment worst is many people might lose their money due to exploit of the bug. 


Seems pot calling the kettle black to me.

How do you feel about the /r/bitcoin censorship?

There is no any evidence and we might could just speculate about spam transaction when the mempool was flooded, but it maybe true as we can see how much unconfirmed transaction on blockchain before and after ATH. Hal finney had proposed right thing to measure spam attack to the network, but we won't never know about it. For now, we should satisfy with 1Mb blocksize and hopefully SegWit could overcome this problem.

Stop reading the /r/btc propaganda and bullshit. BlockStream is everything but an attack to Bitcoin. Do I have to remind you again how the market reacted to the 'HF imminent' FUD?

If anything...BlockStream is an attack to Bitcoin. Stagnation.

Agree...if the BU backers simply accepted the majority and did a Seg witness upgrade etc.....THEN made their case....they might have more traction...no less dangerous then that
talk of a fork...imho....anyway how I see it (then again I'm not a dev whale in the midst of the epic battle and power over who controls bitcoin either ..just watching from the bleachers)

Ok but does it all really make the the hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited worth it? It is buggy and the developers behind it are not as good as the Core developers. I believe the answer to that question is "no". The miners are making a big mistake if they help implement the buggy BU.

https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/848049572668559362
Reminds me of OneCoin as well.

The article said that the attack was not really coming from bitcoin unlimited but rather the attack was done even before the problem on blocksize happened. There maybe some group or somebody that has been attacking bitcoin and blockchain for some time and that has led to the problem on blocksize and scaling. Satoshi had programmed bitcoin to be sufficient and that its blocksize and scaling can suffice the growth of transactions. But what happened today is that there is a crisis in scaling and blocksize that led to increase in mining fee. In my opinion, there is an attack to bitcoin so that they can increase the miner fee.

segwit isnt

its like retrofitting a planes cargo area into extra seating so that parents can throw their kids into the cargo area  so that more adults can fit into the main seating area.

issues.
1. it only works if adults volunteer to move their kids into cargo-hold by changing their tickets.(moving funds to different keypairs)
2. last year only obese people weighting upto 4000so of a 20,000so plane limit could get on. good for many weighing under 100so.. not so good for other passengers if 5 obese tried to get on
3. this year extremely obese people weighing 16000so of a 80,000so plane limit can get on. good for many weighing under 100so.. extremely not so good  for other passengers if 5 extra extremely obese got on

changing the design of the plane hoping adults will change their tickets rather than have their kids next to them and also foolishly letting even more bloated adultswithkids gets on does not help.

yes having a plane with more first class seating could seem hard..
but then the team calling it hard are the ones now forcing in their cargo-hold seating with empty hopes. and threatening to nuke the airport if they dont allow the new retrofitted planes to use the airport is even worse.
funny part is that it would require everyone to upgrade (hard) to achieve the threats.

so if the segwit PoW threat is needing community to upgrade either way. they might aswell do it the less violent way and let people have more first class seating. thus not need to threaten to nuke the airport.. rather than retrofit planes and nuke the airport..

in short saying hard is bad, lets trojan horse something.. and if trojan horse is rejected, go super super super hard. just to avoid hard.
the silly flip flopping tactics amazes me

Ok. But does it really justify that we all follow the risks that comes with the hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited? As I read more and more about the topic, it gets more complicated than a simple hard fork and then everyone ends up happy with the outcome. There is now mention of an upgrade on the Proof of Work algorithm making the miners equipment useless. Then there is also the risk of the blockchain splitting in 2 and a dumping war. Maybe we should all follow the compromise and Segwit is that compromise.

wondering if you have read this:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18377356

If that is the case then there is no answer for the flooding of the mempool. I doubt this will be solved by the dynamic block sizes the developers of Bitcoin Unlimited are proposing. It might only aggravate the problem.

Think about it. This is where an offchain layer makes more sense to pursue.

Well, that's a conundrum. There is no way of looking at a single transaction, and objectively classifying it as spam/notspam. My attitude is that 'Bitcoin is permissionless - if a txn is attractive enough to be included by a miner in a solved block, then it is a valid transaction'.

Good point ,we should look at both sides and not just contend on what these experts are feeding us,they are targetting newbies out there who just got in,it's always a good thing to keep a list of links of various opinions..

yes,this is my thought. They use this action to cover more bitcoins with cheaper price because the amount of bitcoins is only about 4-5 mil BTC for mining and now many many people want to hold bitcoin as safe assets in digital world and They need more threats for bitcoin .