is BU an attack on Bitcoin? - page 3.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: jbreher on March 29, 2017, 01:15:27 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on March 28, 2017, 10:22:48 PM

I read that Satoshi wanted onchain scaling while Hal Finney wanted offchain. Is that accurate?

No. Hal convinced Satoshi to add a 1MB maxblocksize limit as an anti-spam measure. This in an era where most blocks were less than 1KB in size (1000x smaller than the limit), and most transactions carried no transaction fee.

Ok thanks for the clarification. But let me ask you, in this era of the 1MB maxblocksize, how much of today's average transactions per block is spam? I am looking at the mempool transaction count graph right now and it is hard to believe that the spikes are all real transactions.

https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-count

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: Wind_FURY on March 28, 2017, 10:22:48 PM

I read that Satoshi wanted onchain scaling while Hal Finney wanted offchain. Is that accurate?

No. Hal convinced Satoshi to add a 1MB maxblocksize limit as an anti-spam measure. This in an era where most blocks were less than 1KB in size (1000x smaller than the limit), and most transactions carried no transaction fee.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 27, 2017, 11:17:47 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on March 27, 2017, 11:13:14 PM

BU is not an attack on Bitcoin, it is an attack on the Core developers and an attempt to fork it all away from them. The article was written from a big blocker's perspective and it is a very biased one at that. Read the part "dissenters". The dissenters would depend on which side you are asking.

So be very careful and try to think for yourself and always listen to both sides of the argument.

I admire your objectivity in this whole thing. Most people (including myself) tend to get polarized to a position and then start to look for evidence to support their position while ignoring/denying evidence to the contrary.

Thank you. I also tend to get polarized too sometimes. But as an investor who is gambling most of his life savings in Bitcoin, I have to be objective and know when to go out of the investment. Now Ethereum Classic is looking more attractive to park some Bitcoins in while all this drama unfolds. It is not a good time to be a Bitcoiner right now.

Quote from: jbreher on March 27, 2017, 11:51:40 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on March 27, 2017, 11:13:14 PM

BU is not an attack on Bitcoin, it is an attack on the Core developers and an attempt to fork it all away from them.

BU is not an attack on core devs, so much as it is an end-around of the braindead policy of not doing a simple increase to maxblocksize. Last year even. Core devs get to set their own policy. But core is not the entirety of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is permissionless. BU has exactly as much authority as does core. Core devs can also be left bereft when the majority decides bigger blocks are what is needed now.

In the end, the market will determine the direction Bitcoin turns - toward core, BU, another, or on the path of status quo.

Maybe I did not post that right. I do not mean a direct attack on Core but an attack on its philosophy on how to scale the network. I read the problem can be traced back to Satoshi and Hal Finney. I read that Satoshi wanted onchain scaling while Hal Finney wanted offchain. Is that accurate?

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

16 users..

also
"We consider that any “neutral” or “absentee” stance on the hard fork is by default in opposition to the hard fork."

meaning less than that 16..
oh and they can post a statement to 5 million companies and by not getting a reply they can lie and say 5million oppose anything not core..
=fake stats are easy to achieve just by not having a return address on their request to ensure they get no response.

Quote

We encourage the development and use of alternative implementations of Bitcoin (e.g. bcoin, libbitcoin, bitcore, bitcoin knots) as long as they are compliant with the current consensus rules as defined in the Bitcoin Core reference implementation.

funny how they only want gmaxwell sanctioned implementations.. lol
=centralisation by subsidiary rebranding of blockstream(core) to pretend and fake independance.
also core 0.14 dont have consensus. node/pool/ or userbase.

so that means no one should be following 0.14 because 0.14 doesnt have consensus.

so far the rules of 0.12 have consensus.. not anything else.

OneUnderBridge

sr. member

Activity: 368

Merit: 266

Fake News!

OliynyK

full member

Activity: 149

Merit: 100

Quote from: Paashaas on March 27, 2017, 08:58:12 PM

At the start i was exited about BU but when time passed i see BU as a disgusting hostile take over.

They had a good theoretical view about how things must be but they lack in realistic approach and so is the reason they are meant to doom big time.They never had a competent enough team to write their codes and if they planning to take over they must atleast come up with a decent code rather than theory. Grin

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2970

Terminated.

Another blow has been dealt to the altcoin attack called BTU. Roll Eyes

newman7

newbie

Activity: 20

Merit: 0

Can someone explain to me what's all this chatting about Bitcoin and forks? Can you link easy articles to read and understand all of this?

iamTom123

hero member

Activity: 490

Merit: 501

Quote from: Vaskiy on March 27, 2017, 08:41:05 PM

From the article it's clear that the recent cause of price drop is just a planned attack. From every angle a perfect plan has been executed, which was also now overcome by the potentially growing bitcoin.

Yes, it can be true and we are on the same opinion. I am sure there are many people who got enriched along the way. This is just showing us that Bitcoin just like any other currency can be manipulated by a group of people who have the means to do so. Small Bitcoin holders can only sigh and yes sighing in relief that Bitcoin is now back in the upswing lol...

lionheart78

legendary

Activity: 2954

Merit: 1153

I do believe that BU is not an attack on Bitcoin but rather on Bitcoin Core. BU proposed a solution that is against the Bitcoin Core off-chain solution by going to bigger blocksize.. The truth is this is getting frustrating and confusing since every party attacking each others with a superlative accusation (exaggeration). Sometimes we never knew who is telling the truth.

Quote from: Kakmakr on March 28, 2017, 12:27:14 AM

Someone should make a comparison between the contributions that developers on both sides made to Crypto currencies and see who contributed the most.

It is not who contributed the most but rather who is willing to preserve the original vision of Satoshi in creating Bitcoin. But if there is no competent dev to preserve the original vision of why Bitcoin is created, there is no other way but to go to the more competent one. At least we are secure that Bitcoin will not fail in its new path.

BillyBobZorton

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1028

BU would kill the network effect of bitcoin, it would also kill it by a big bug, it would also kill it by miners screwing up via the control that BU brings to miners, it would also kill it by the crash it would deliver after the HF, it would also kill it by the inflation that BU needs to survive (21 million coin limit would be eventually lost).

BU is an abomination sold to idiots in hopes of onchain coffee.

stephanirain

sr. member

Activity: 756

Merit: 257

Freshdice.com

Quote from: Wapinter on March 28, 2017, 07:07:54 AM

Quote from: Vaskiy on March 27, 2017, 08:41:05 PM

From the article it's clear that the recent cause of price drop is just a planned attack. From every angle a perfect plan has been executed, which was also now overcome by the potentially growing bitcoin.

I do believe there are big whales behind this.It may either be individual or institutional whales.
They took the advantage of BU debate and helped falling price to buy more.

No it's not. As BU get launched, bitcoin's market would alsp widespread since it would help bitcoin. There is would be no competition against bitcoin.

Wapinter

legendary

Activity: 2688

Merit: 1026

Hire me for Bounty Management

Quote from: Vaskiy on March 27, 2017, 08:41:05 PM

From the article it's clear that the recent cause of price drop is just a planned attack. From every angle a perfect plan has been executed, which was also now overcome by the potentially growing bitcoin.

I do believe there are big whales behind this.It may either be individual or institutional whales.
They took the advantage of BU debate and helped falling price to buy more.

lottery248

legendary

Activity: 1582

Merit: 1006

beware of your keys.

Quote from: Wind_FURY on March 27, 2017, 11:13:14 PM

BU is not an attack on Bitcoin, it is an attack on the Core developers and an attempt to fork it all away from them. The article was written from a big blocker's perspective and it is a very biased one at that. Read the part "dissenters". The dissenters would depend on which side you are asking.

So be very careful and try to think for yourself and always listen to both sides of the argument.

+1 because most of the protocols are not in mind of BU IIRC, and you would understand the problem of transaction fee in the core.

unamis76

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

Interesting article. Bitcoin has indeed been attacked, by all of us and especially for people who can only push to their side and that deny to see what's good in the other camp.

Quote

In other words, this tiny minority of Bitcoiners wanted to completely rid Bitcoin of its raison d’etre by forcing people to use the very type of system Bitcoin was created to thwart.

Maybe a bit over the top, but it gets the point across regarding LN.

We can conclude from the article that the attack isn't being made by an implementation in particular, but by some of its users who tend to be a bit extremist. Unlimited is as much as an "attack" on Bitcoin as Core is. They both have proposals to keep Bitcoin moving forward, and those are stepping stones for Bitcoin and that's what will keep us moving forward.

buwaytress

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 3684

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

I wish both sides would be a little less dramatic, do away with the theatrical and get closer to the points they want to make.

Even the article quoted at the very first plays to the same stoking of sentiments. Almost every educated article is filled with rhetoric and unnecessary superlatives. Why can't they just tell us the pros and cons and be objective about it?

I just read yesterday on this forum of a user who's sick with both sides bickering and is diversifying into an alt. I suspect more will take this path.

amacar2

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1008

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!

Quote from: Viscount on March 27, 2017, 08:49:33 PM

BTU is atack on Bitcoin, that failed like Classic and XT before Tongue

Yes the only hidden agenda for current block size debate is just a financial gain for few whales who are actually behind BTU.

They created FUD about hard fork to dump the bitcoin price so that they can buy few cheap coins under $1000, now they will just pump price hard to sell for quick profit.

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1070

doesn't make sense, why i pool should sign support for a hard fork to attack core and reduce the value? it's all in their intent to have the value higher

therefore this is just another crap written by someone who have zero knowledge what this is all about

Kakmakr

legendary

Activity: 3542

Merit: 1965

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

This article is just another reason why you cannot trust everything you read. Some people are demonizing Core for going the soft fork route, but they knew how disastrous a hard fork can be. BU do not give a shit, because they just want to take control of Bitcoin at all cost.

Someone should make a comparison between the contributions that developers on both sides made to Crypto currencies and see who contributed the most.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2970

Terminated.

This article is bullshit and most likely a paid write up for BTU. There are far too many points to address.

Quote

The problem, however, is the malleability fix ― known as segregated witness or segwit ― is an incredibly complex change to the core protocol.

Bullshit exaggeration.

Quote

Typically such a change would need to be done as a hardfork, but the regime has spent years and enormous amounts of political capital propagandizing against hardforks in the name of trying to kill any and all attempts to increase the block size.

Complete lie.

Keep trying; the economy does not want your altcoin. Roll Eyes

Topic: is BU an attack on Bitcoin? - page 3. (Read 3430 times)