Topic: My take on BU's long-term impact on the price of BTC - page 2. (Read 2478 times)

It's a tie. Segwit has won on every department, but the hashrate is still blocked by a centralizing actor, which is ridiculous but that's how the system works.
UASF is an option, to attack this ridiculous centralization.

IMHO, SegWit's won, not because it's been activated, but because its definitely stopped BU's momentum to a terminal degree.

Just goes to show that those who try to hijack bitcoin's good name will inevitably get burned.

I mean FFS Roger, come up with a more original name for your own damn coin.

As stated litecoin will surely serve as an testbed to know better about the impact of segwit on activation. Litecoin cannot dominate bitcoin even if LTC gains some market of the bitcoin. BU has lost its potential to segwit and as Litecoin won't suddenly gain capital bitcoin won't be impacted much.

There is no take long or short whatsoever, end of story. market has spoken already that if BU forks no matter if they run the longest chain or whatever exchanges will not accept/ trade/ list it as BTC what else you need to see to know for sure that forking is not the answer, not just that but then comes the chain split ETH/ETC drama, double spending the 16.3M bitcoins potentially. do you really think people pay $1200 for 1 bitcoin while another one with the same signature can be spend as well and pay $1200 for that as well?
Any hard fork without 95% miners/ nodes consensus will result in a disaster/ rejected blocks/ orphan blocks and miners will receive hundreds of thousands dollars loss of funds.
But now they have decided that 75% hash power agreeing on something should be enough and the remaining 25% must follow the majority which is still acceptable but hard forking with +51% hash power and maintaining the longest chain doesn't make any economical sense as why would they do that while keeping one secure and strong chain would benefit them most?

The best case scenario for Litecoin is to become a testbed for Segwit. It still remains to be seen if it gains an "edge" on Bitcoin. Maybe if the dark markets started accepting Litecoin then we should have something to be worried about. But right now, as is, everything is still ok. Maybe LTC might gain some of the market that BTC has but it will not wholly dominate it.

Core devs have done nothing but to waste time all the time.   

if they just took satoshis advice to write a blocksize increase in the code that activates at block X then none of this would be a problem.   

But no, they stall for time.   

Before blocks were full, they were holding conventions to make agreements behind closed doors, to waste even more time and centralize bitcoin even more.

Here's a different article I recently wrote about the whole triasco:

SegWit Adds to the BTC Civil War

Last week we talked a little bit about Bitcoin Unlimited and its attempt to secede from the bitcoin network by creating something akin to a hostile takeover of the bitcoin blockchain. Since bitcoin is decentralized and no central organization can truly control bitcoin (most major updates are made via consensus of Core developers), it’s not a hostile takeover in the classic, corporate sense, but it is a revolutionary effort that has split fans, users and experts alike right down the middle.

Recap of BU

Bitcoin Unlimited proposed to solve the problem of ever-slowing transaction times and increasing transaction fees by allowing for an increase in bitcoin block size. If miners could decide the size of the block they wanted to mine and add to the blockchain, they could theoretically collect more transaction fees while simultaneously helping transactions get pushed through more quickly. Critics are quick to point out that this would make the size of the blockchain even more unwieldy than its current size of about 120 GB. Having the bandwidth necessary to download and update an even larger blockchain would further remove the average person’s ability to operate a full bitcoin node and thus maintain a Core client-based wallet.

The Second Fork in the Road

So, what will bitcoin users be stuck with: high fees and sluggish transactions, or having to run and maintain a program that will likely be far larger than bitcoin’s already-110 GB blockchain? Enter Segregated Witness, or SegWit, a coding tweak first proposed by bitcoin developer Pieter Wuille in 2011. With a doctorate in computer science from the University of Leuven, Peter has been part of the bitcoin core development team for longer than most other developers, and his solution is currently being highly considered as a way to bridge the gap between bitcoin Core and Unlimited camps. (The “Core” camp preferring to leave the block size at 1 MB for the moment and the “Unlimited” camp preferring to dynamically increase block sizes.) The term “Segregated Witness” refers to the idea that it is possible to remove (or segregate) certain identification data from bitcoin transactions in order to make them smaller in size, which would allow for more transactions to be squeezed into a single 1 MB block. The bitcoin network could still function as normal if data related to signatures (“witness data”) was removed from bitcoin transactions. Transaction IDs, which are dauntingly long strings of characters, would be shortened, each transaction would therefore consist of less total data, and the need for bigger block sizes would be relieved.

Much like Bitcoin Unlimited, proponents of SegWit are attempting to implement their coding changes via a consensus-based soft fork, meaning nobody would have to upgrade their client to be SegWit compatible if they didn’t want to, and their bitcoins would still be safe and compatible with nodes running the SegWit implementation. In order for SegWit to be activated, 95% of miners must be using the SegWit version of the bitcoin client, which would signal the network to incorporate the change into the bitcoin protocol for good.

The Limitation of Bitcoin Unlimited

SegWit poses two problems for Bitcoin Unlimited supporters. First, it draws away potential miner support that BU needs to reach their own activation threshold. As this “third party candidate” enters the ring and gains increasing favorability, it is near certainly spelling the doom of BU’s activation hopes by splitting up the miners into a third camp. In this way, you can imagine SegWit to be the Ralph Nader, Ron Paul or even Bernie Sanders of bitcoin political camps. With over 30% of the miner vote now signaling support for SegWit, this week it passed Bitcoin Unlimited in terms of miner popularity for the first time, effectively removing BU as a serious contender in the race to be the savior of bitcoin. On top of that, SegWit has already been named as the culprit behind a crash of BU-running servers, most likely due to software incompatibility issues on the part of BU. Obviously, Roger Ver, early bitcoin adopter and lead investor behind the highly-publicized and contentious push for BU, can’t be having a good week. Of course, SegWit is not without its own detractors, though they may have come too little and too late to derail SegWit’s impact on BU’s chances of success.

The Resurgence of Litecoin

Last but not least regarding SegWit is the fact that the world’s second oldest cryptocurrency, Litecoin (LTC), is on the verge of signaling SegWit activation in their own network, spurring a boost in new mining software aimed to take advantage of the likely event of its activation. Litecoin has always been touted as the more environmentally-friendly version of bitcoin since not nearly as much computing power is necessary to keep its network running and blockchain secured. This has pushed the price of LTC to fresh highs on speculation that lower fees and faster transaction times provided by SegWit may give it an edge over bitcoin in terms of future user adoption. Still, if anything’s certain, it’s that the future of cryptocurrency is always uncertain. A mantra heeded to potential speculators hoping to capitalize one way or another on last week’s events could best be put in terms of an ancient axiom: “change is the only constant.”

Maybe but do not underestimate the Chinese miners. They will keep on fighting and try to fork the network away from the Core developers because Bitcoin is about the one which has more hash power securing the blockchain. They know they have some leverage on the network. They also know they have the financial power to attack the other chain if it comes to that.

I think so too, it seems the miners are trying to take over the network, and while they are key to the existence of the network at all it is incorrect to think they are the only ones that matter, the average user is even more important because with us bitcoin is worthless.

Well this is going to fail. Either we change the POW or UASF will be used to continue core's roadmap if they continue blocking SegWit.
If miners think they are the ones in charge they will have to learn it the hard way. Millions of $ in invested mining rigs and asic developemnt might be worthless soon.

I do not think so. The truth is slowly showing that there is a conspiracy with the miners and the Bitcoin Unlimited developers. Its like the Chinese miners have hired their own set of developers to take control and do with Bitcoin any roadmap they want.

I think this was all a coordinated plan to get the price back to sub $1000 so whales can buy. Same thing with LTC, they crashed the price so they can buy sub $10.

BU is good for the homeless population : - D

I see what you did there.

Why not partly post your blog entries directly here in the forum and post the link in the end like what everyone is doing in the forum.

Anyway I will take a look at your blog later and then post what I think.

Extension block is an untested proposal, We have some tested proposal and why we need to go to the untested proposal? We are having SegWit become the successful proposal to be implemented on the bitcoin.

Can you tell the reason? We are not wanna waste our time just for an untested proposal.

Honestly, Extension blocks are supporting all of the features by SegWit and emergents consensus.

But there is a wrong thing, SegWit was offering the blocksize increase to 2MB.,

i see your point mate, and LN and other shit are not bitcoin to me too, blockstream also it's centralized crap, what iw ant is that everything is done with bitcoin alone, not any other party, in the bitcoin discussion, there are other proposal to the block solution, which don't go away from decentralization too much, it's called extension blocks

But segwit coming up with time being solutions and with no long term view on scaling capabilities ? One day or other we may be forced to hard fork by considering the adoption rates of bitcoins ? How long it will be possible to shrink the transactions further and further to make it enough to fit within 1 MB block itself ?

I just wonder why not segwit itself stand up for a long term solutions and empathizing that as a final solution to have one bitcoin system like adopt it or get out of business.

I guess this time segwit will win, but how long they can hold it.

We really have recovered from the last dump that happen and it is meant to happen after all BTU I think is made by Roger and Johan not just to earn more money but to get cheaper bitcoin themselves. I really do hope that it will get into an all time high again soon so that we can see bitcoin price reach new highs. This recovery in price just proved that bitcoin is strong now compared than 2013.

The price at the time I’m writing is close to 1200 so it seems we have finally got over the nasty rumor of a fork and finally the price has recovered , it has not reached the previous all time highs but we cannot ask that of bitcoin every day, don’t you think?

I invested in bitcoin to get away from centralized banks, not to be controlled by it.

I don't want AXACoin, I want bitcoin.

A decentralized, P2P currency.

Bitcoin Core will turn it into a centralized settlement layer with 3rd parties.

Nothing of that is bitcoin.