Topic: Let's assume I'm a moron...explain Bitcoin unlimited. (Read 1705 times)

maenwhile core forced the vote on the pools and bypassd the node community
meanwhile core forced the deadline
meanwhile core is planning to force the UASF 'it will push through no matter what'
meanwhile core is even willing to force an algo change.

meanwhile core ass kissers say core is utopian code thats not brok, yet core are offing elements/segwit altcoin total rewrite as a fix for bitcoin code

see the hypocrisy

After the BU fails, what is the chance of a HardFork really happen?

@ImHash

Yes, there is a downside to that proposal (you're not the first to think of something along those lines, but at least you're thinking). The downside is sufficiently serious to rule it out.

No room for m*rons here in the first place, NO ONE wants the future of humanity to be a bright and striving benefiting from a technology it was Satoshi's dream may God rest his soul. people now just see money and want money, BU if I want to explain in short is just another attempt to manipulate the price and profit greatly from it, why can't you all see this as I'm seeing it crystal clear?
At some time it was PBOC
At some time it was ETF
At this time is BU HF
I'm just surprised why didn't Satoshi think about some mechanism which could automatically increase the block size after a certain amounts of transactions per second with certain fee per size was achieved. it really should've been in the protocol something like the difficulty re-targeting every 2 weeks, if fees per byte increased more than for example 300 sats then block size would've increased 25KB.

Or maybe I'm the m*ron here hoping for any solution even though I have no knowledge about the risks and down side of such an implementation.

Bitcoin Unlimited is nothing but a split that has been put up as a proposal in front of miners by some Roger asking them to scale the network with bigger block size as well as increased mining fees. However, even after the biggest mining pool AntMiner's support, Bitcoin Unlimited failed to win the hearts of everyone due to many bugs that are being found on daily basis. It is just another bitcoin with the same value, like 1 BTC = 1 BTU atm based on what exchanges are speaking.

It will still be bitcoin however dont forget that most trader are fork-phobia therefore the price will be gradually getting lower and lower when the news about fork is getting bigger. In essence once it drop down it will take perhaps atleast the next halving for the price to get back to where it is right now

Is no one going to give him an assessment that isn't blatantly biased?

I'm a Core supporter but I'll give the OP a real explanation so that he can make up his mind.

Bitcoin's current developers are from a group called Bitcoin Core.  The developers of Bitcoin can change as it is open source code.  The way that the team changes is by a majority of the work from miners (called hash rate) "signalling" in support of another solution, and it can be implemented if a large enough majority support it.  There can also be updates from the same team.  Keeping that in mind, Bitcoin Unlimited is a new development team proposing an update to Bitcoin's consensus which suggests increasing the block size (the amount of data that can be fit into each group of transactions, which is currently 1MB).

This has happened before at a smaller scale and is nothing new.  However, recently the current developers Bitcoin Core have proposed a scaling solution which doesn't involve increasing the block size as some people disagree with repeated or exponential increases in the block size for various reasons.  This is called Segregated Witness, or SegWit, and I won't bother explaining that as you didn't ask for it.

The key distinction between SegWit and BU, besides the increase in block size from BU and other solutions from SegWit, is that BU is a "hard fork".  For practical purposes, this means that it will branch off from the network and be traded separately from the coin which is run by the current development team - the new coin will be a Bitcoin Unlimited coin abbreviated to BTU.  However, as it's run on the same kind of system, people who own Bitcoin will automatically own an equal amount of BTU to the amount of BTC that they own, if the hard fork happens (which it will when they have a large majority of miners' support, as I previously noted).  Therefore, were a hard fork to happen it would then essentially be a trading competition between BTC and BTU, so the economic majority would decide which coin and which team was successful.

The reason that some people call it an "altcoin" is because it is separate to the previous BTC, but it is based on the same principles and is an update so it's not just an altcoin, it's a bit more complex than that.

TL;DR:  Bitcoin Unlimited is a development team which increases block size in a new coin which is linked to BTC and arguably would take over BTC if they received enough support, Bitcoin Core is the current development team who control BTC.

This is by far one of the best explanations that keeps it simple.

While there are a number of power structure things that also come along with the use of BU, this is one of the major components and really does aim to gain support from people who believe that all BU seeks to offer is just faster and cheaper transactions than what we have now.

If the BU crowd wasn't trying to co-opt bitcoin and capitalize on its success, it would have come up with a different name altogether. If the fork does happen having both bitcoin and Bitcoin Unlimited will pose a confusion problem for average users and merchants. Bitcoin isn't going to just fall to the wayside if a fork happens. It will continue to be the bitcoin everybody knows and is familiar with. Then you will have this confusing Bitcoin Unlimited that claims to also be bitcoin, hanging out and waiting to vulture business away from bitcoin.

Let the fork happen. BU will fall to the wayside, and become in essence just another altcoin.

I gonna suggest you to troll around and active on replying to the threads here and posts comments if you are really confused to some other thing.
You do not need to go back when you dont know nothing,

We want and promote scaling

You want and promote blockchain bloating and hostile takeovers



Remember your libertarianism, jonald: if you need to use force against someone to make them do what you want, it's because they think it's a bad idea.

Quit trying to force people to choose something they don't like or want. If you initiate force, expect to get your ass kicked. Again. (this is like the 3rd time with you punks now)

yeah nothing is broken, we're just having this scaling debate for no reason. how silly  

Lol I wish I could be a shill or a zombie. Certainly would ease the pain of my actual life.

BU isn't going to succeed. Its just another attempt to capitalize on the good name of bitcoin.

Why fix something when it ain't broken?

yea but they have be corrected or they will continue their cabin fever rhetorical scripts until they get their blockstream corporate closed network of only blockstream kings on the top TIER

summarised and FTFY

Frankie,

you do realize we're mostly talking to shills and zombies right?

By the original purpose, people created BU because of its speed, it was thought that it would bring the speed of the transaction, in other words, it was the solution to the current fault of Blockchain, which has happened frequently over time (transactions are not confirmed). However, behind that goal, it's the greed of the miners, they want the potential for unlimited birth, they want to exploit more of them, but they do not think of the effect of the miners. It, BU appeared to make the value of bitcoin seriously diminished, currently <1000$. BU is like an alt coin, and its nature is deception.

And this is how Bitcoin died sweetie.  Lol... This was good

bitcoin is a decentralised and open network of MANY implementations.

bitcoin implementations can be wrote in many languages too
but they all have to run on the bitcoin network to be part of bitcoin.

core did not invent bitcoin
no one owns bitcoin.

core came around in 2013 and then the main devs of the core implementation incorporated in 2014.

do not assume core owns bitcoin or you are already calling bitcoins open decentralised ethos non-existent anymore.

as for those saying xt, classic and bu, bitcoinj and others are altcoins or desiring to cause drama/split the network.. funny part is they are all still running on bitcoin now, made no threats made no demands to change the mining algo..

but core have. core have bypassed community node votes by intentionally going soft and giving pools the only vote and now core is shifting the blame of no community vote to somehow be pools fault.
cores proposal have not let nature take its course of acceptance or not... core have included network splitting code and even worse , they have made threats for pools to accept core as centralised leader or get attacked..
but then tried pointing the finger like its the diverse networks fault for core to need to nuke the network.

meanwhile bitcoinj, bu, xt, classic btcd, bitcoin ruby and several other implementations just keep running and being a voluntary no deadline option to keep the network decentralised.

in short. its core that has the big red nuclear button should core not get their centralised TIER network they are begging to get. but they really want to blame someone else for having to press the button, to play the victim card

you conveniently left out the part where BU will be supported by a hashpower majority... so yep BU is bitcoin.