Going by node count, BU's chances of a soft fork are all but done by this point.
Roger Ver owns bitcoin.com
https://www.whois.com/whois/bitcoin.com
If he were to hardfork BU and change the content of bitcoin.com to information about his altcoin, it certainly would be a massive "fuck you" to the entire BTC community.
Topic: My take on BU's long-term impact on the price of BTC (Read 2478 times)
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.
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.
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 was a proponent of UASF BIP 148, but upon further analysis, I think it's a suicide mission. Think about the impact of an UASF without miner consensus. The split is guaranteed. Jihan controls several pools, the hashrate is a big weapon in the PoW world, like it or not.
As a result, this leads us to an inevitable PoW change, killing every miner's business. It's a chaotic situation.
How are we supposed to solve this smoothly? I don't think there's a way. Maybe having a price crash to get rid of Jihan and enable segwit is a good thing, but we risk a lot in the process.
Not really. Segwit support is slightly going up, yes but it is not something to celebrate over. We should give it more time.
Like I said, I'm not a SegWit supporter per se, I'm just glad that miners are using it as an excuse to fight BU.
Do you really think that will happen after their investment in ASIC and very large mining farms? They will impose their will on the network and use dirty tactics to get what they want.
Well, so far you've been wrong. Let's hope this continues to be the case. BU will hardfork before it gets activated, that's a near guarantee by this point.
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.
UASF is an option, to attack this ridiculous centralization.
It is slightly bonkers that a handful of people can do this. Look at what Litecoin's getting up to with the prospect of Segwit and they don't have the slightest scaling problem either.
It just goes to show how little vision the average miner who isn't enjoying asicboost has.
That's why BTC will get segwit with either hashrate or UASF because what the people want, we didn't sign up for Jihan Coin where a single person gets to block everything else. So signal what users want or get UASF.
you got things all backwards, Jihan isn't a threat to bitcoin. Blockstream is.
SegWit is a poison pill to bitcoin, and I'm glad litecoin is being a good labrat (because that's all they're good for) and takes the poison pill for us.
maybe that will safe bitcoin.
but blockstream might just blame the death of litecoin on something else.
What is the worst thing which could go wrong with Litecoin implementing Segwit? Nothing.
It could only prove whether Segwit is scalable or not.
In the end, we need some method to increase the transaction capacity of Bitcoin.
As we can see, LTC got hyped a lot thanks to the possible SegWit implementation, what is a very good event. We may see at least how SegWit will work with litecoin, for me it is something like an experiment.
If SegWit will work good for litecoin, then im one hundred percent sure that the support for SegWit among the miners will increase.
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.
UASF is an option, to attack this ridiculous centralization.
It is slightly bonkers that a handful of people can do this. Look at what Litecoin's getting up to with the prospect of Segwit and they don't have the slightest scaling problem either.
It just goes to show how little vision the average miner who isn't enjoying asicboost has.
That's why BTC will get segwit with either hashrate or UASF because what the people want, we didn't sign up for Jihan Coin where a single person gets to block everything else. So signal what users want or get UASF.
you got things all backwards, Jihan isn't a threat to bitcoin. Blockstream is.
SegWit is a poison pill to bitcoin, and I'm glad litecoin is being a good labrat (because that's all they're good for) and takes the poison pill for us.
maybe that will safe bitcoin.
but blockstream might just blame the death of litecoin on something else.
What is the worst thing which could go wrong with Litecoin implementing Segwit? Nothing.
It could only prove whether Segwit is scalable or not.
In the end, we need some method to increase the transaction capacity of Bitcoin.
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.
UASF is an option, to attack this ridiculous centralization.
It is slightly bonkers that a handful of people can do this. Look at what Litecoin's getting up to with the prospect of Segwit and they don't have the slightest scaling problem either.
It just goes to show how little vision the average miner who isn't enjoying asicboost has.
That's why BTC will get segwit with either hashrate or UASF because what the people want, we didn't sign up for Jihan Coin where a single person gets to block everything else. So signal what users want or get UASF.
you got things all backwards, Jihan isn't a threat to bitcoin. Blockstream is.
It depends on whose side you are trying to be with. You have the right to argue for one side but it does not make it automatically right. Let us leave history to the judge of that.
Quote
SegWit is a poison pill to bitcoin, and I'm glad litecoin is being a good labrat (because that's all they're good for) and takes the poison pill for us.
Would care to explain why? It is easy to say one thing without fully understanding the situation. That is the reason why I ask a lot of questions so that I will learn the real issues and have the knowledge to make comments on them.
Quote
maybe that will safe bitcoin.
but blockstream might just blame the death of litecoin on something else.
but blockstream might just blame the death of litecoin on something else.
Death of Litecoin? That is funny.
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.
UASF is an option, to attack this ridiculous centralization.
It is slightly bonkers that a handful of people can do this. Look at what Litecoin's getting up to with the prospect of Segwit and they don't have the slightest scaling problem either.
It just goes to show how little vision the average miner who isn't enjoying asicboost has.
That's why BTC will get segwit with either hashrate or UASF because what the people want, we didn't sign up for Jihan Coin where a single person gets to block everything else. So signal what users want or get UASF.
you got things all backwards, Jihan isn't a threat to bitcoin. Blockstream is.
SegWit is a poison pill to bitcoin, and I'm glad litecoin is being a good labrat (because that's all they're good for) and takes the poison pill for us.
maybe that will safe bitcoin.
but blockstream might just blame the death of litecoin on something else.
Not really. Segwit support is slightly going up, yes but it is not something to celebrate over. We should give it more time.
Like I said, I'm not a SegWit supporter per se, I'm just glad that miners are using it as an excuse to fight BU.
Do you really think that will happen after their investment in ASIC and very large mining farms? They will impose their will on the network and use dirty tactics to get what they want.
Well, so far you've been wrong. Let's hope this continues to be the case. BU will hardfork before it gets activated, that's a near guarantee by this point.
I am almost in the same opinion as you but I believe if Bitcoin Unlimited support reaches 50% and stays there, the hard fork will be inevitable. Everyone should start preparing for replay attack protection.
Not really. Segwit support is slightly going up, yes but it is not something to celebrate over. We should give it more time.
Like I said, I'm not a SegWit supporter per se, I'm just glad that miners are using it as an excuse to fight BU.
Do you really think that will happen after their investment in ASIC and very large mining farms? They will impose their will on the network and use dirty tactics to get what they want.
Well, so far you've been wrong. Let's hope this continues to be the case. BU will hardfork before it gets activated, that's a near guarantee by this point.
Not really. Segwit support is slightly going up, yes but it is not something to celebrate over. We should give it more time.
Like I said, I'm not a SegWit supporter per se, I'm just glad that miners are using it as an excuse to fight BU.
What? You confuse me. Is it not the other way around? The miners support BU and are using that to oppose Segwit and Core.
Do you really think that will happen after their investment in ASIC and very large mining farms? They will impose their will on the network and use dirty tactics to get what they want.
Well, so far you've been wrong. Let's hope this continues to be the case. BU will hardfork before it gets activated, that's a near guarantee by this point.
I thought you said support for Segwit is going up and the support for Bitcoin Unlimited is going down? Now I am really confused by you.
Not really. Segwit support is slightly going up, yes but it is not something to celebrate over. We should give it more time.
Like I said, I'm not a SegWit supporter per se, I'm just glad that miners are using it as an excuse to fight BU.
Do you really think that will happen after their investment in ASIC and very large mining farms? They will impose their will on the network and use dirty tactics to get what they want.
Well, so far you've been wrong. Let's hope this continues to be the case. BU will hardfork before it gets activated, that's a near guarantee by this point.
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.
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.
It can be also seen in reverse. The miners having their support behind Bitcoin Unlimited has neutralized the activation of Segwit and they also see this as a small victory for themselves. Segwit opens up the possibility of the LN which reduces their bonuses collected in fees. The status quo is ok with them because of the "fee market" structure. Maybe this is what the miners really want all along. Higher fees.
Except for the fact that SegWit support has been going up while BU support is going down. So, it can't be seen in reverse. Besides, SegWit isn't trying to present themselves as a hostile takeover of the network.
Not really. Segwit support is slightly going up, yes but it is not something to celebrate over. We should give it more time.
Bitcoin Unlimited support go down but it has been ganing its losses lately. You can check the graphs of both.
https://blockchain.info/charts/bip-9-segwit
https://blockchain.info/charts/bitcoin-unlimited-share
Quote
I agree that the fee problem is a bitch. But here's the thing: if the miner isn't happy with the fees they are getting, they can quit and that will make room for other miners willing to settle for less. That's the beauty of the system.
Do you really think that will happen after their investment in ASIC and very large mining farms? They will impose their will on the network and use dirty tactics to get what they want.
Except for the fact that SegWit support has been going up while BU support is going down. So, it can't be seen in reverse. Besides, SegWit isn't trying to present themselves as a hostile takeover of the network.
From the looks of it we can tell that both support for SegWit and Bitcoin Unlimited decreased recently. Week ago SegWit was backed by more that 30% of hash power, today it is 28.5%.
Same with BU, it was supported by 38%-39% miners at its peak, now it is 36.9%
Miners are waiting for some other solution and are tired of SegWit vs. Bu never ending debate?
https://coin.dance/blocks
What kind of a pattern do you think this chart looks like its about to follow to you?
https://coin.dance/nodes/unlimited
A chart that is shooting to the moon or a chart that has plateau'd after a tremendous pump and is about to fall on its knees.
We'll know for sure in about 2 weeks, if not less.
And for the record, I'm not pro-SegWit necessarily, I'm just anti-BU
Except for the fact that SegWit support has been going up while BU support is going down. So, it can't be seen in reverse. Besides, SegWit isn't trying to present themselves as a hostile takeover of the network.
From the looks of it we can tell that both support for SegWit and Bitcoin Unlimited decreased recently. Week ago SegWit was backed by more that 30% of hash power, today it is 28.5%.
Same with BU, it was supported by 38%-39% miners at its peak, now it is 36.9%
Miners are waiting for some other solution and are tired of SegWit vs. Bu never ending debate?
https://coin.dance/blocks
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.
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.
It can be also seen in reverse. The miners having their support behind Bitcoin Unlimited has neutralized the activation of Segwit and they also see this as a small victory for themselves. Segwit opens up the possibility of the LN which reduces their bonuses collected in fees. The status quo is ok with them because of the "fee market" structure. Maybe this is what the miners really want all along. Higher fees.
Except for the fact that SegWit support has been going up while BU support is going down. So, it can't be seen in reverse. Besides, SegWit isn't trying to present themselves as a hostile takeover of the network.
I agree that the fee problem is a bitch. But here's the thing: if the miner isn't happy with the fees they are getting, they can quit and that will make room for other miners willing to settle for less. That's the beauty of the system.
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.
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.
It can be also seen in reverse. The miners having their support behind Bitcoin Unlimited has neutralized the activation of Segwit and they also see this as a small victory for themselves. Segwit opens up the possibility of the LN which reduces their bonuses collected in fees. The status quo is ok with them because of the "fee market" structure. Maybe this is what the miners really want all along. Higher fees.
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.”
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.
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.
If we had a blatant miner hijack then I for one would be long gone. It would basically be Chinese miners versus the rest of the world, as there really isn't very much going on China itself and never has been.
They could theoretically gather the grunt to steer Bitcoin in the direction they want. They'd be left selling them to the few hundred people left on Chinese exchanges as everyone else would be shopping elsewhere.
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.
UASF is an option, to attack this ridiculous centralization.
It is slightly bonkers that a handful of people can do this. Look at what Litecoin's getting up to with the prospect of Segwit and they don't have the slightest scaling problem either.
It just goes to show how little vision the average miner who isn't enjoying asicboost has.
That's why BTC will get segwit with either hashrate or UASF because what the people want, we didn't sign up for Jihan Coin where a single person gets to block everything else. So signal what users want or get UASF.
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.
UASF is an option, to attack this ridiculous centralization.
It is slightly bonkers that a handful of people can do this. Look at what Litecoin's getting up to with the prospect of Segwit and they don't have the slightest scaling problem either.
It just goes to show how little vision the average miner who isn't enjoying asicboost has.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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?
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 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.”
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.
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.
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.
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
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.,
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
The disclaimer is that I'm a core fan -- I believe bitcoin should remain named bitcoin and that all changes should be done within the system. Everything else is mutiny. Ergo, BTU will fall to the wayside, just as Classic and XT did after a bunch of crying and much ado about nothing.
In any case, my blog also has some decent beginner's guides to bot trading and arbitrage if you'd like to take a look. The main theme is hot to capitalize on BTC investment groups in the most prudent manner possible:
http://bitcoinautotradingreview.com/
Thanks for taking a look!
In any case, my blog also has some decent beginner's guides to bot trading and arbitrage if you'd like to take a look. The main theme is hot to capitalize on BTC investment groups in the most prudent manner possible:
http://bitcoinautotradingreview.com/
Thanks for taking a look!
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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 disclaimer is that I'm a core fan -- I believe bitcoin should remain named bitcoin and that all changes should be done within the system. Everything else is mutiny. Ergo, BTU will fall to the wayside, just as Classic and XT did after a bunch of crying and much ado about nothing.
In any case, my blog also has some decent beginner's guides to bot trading and arbitrage if you'd like to take a look. The main theme is hot to capitalize on BTC investment groups in the most prudent manner possible:
http://bitcoinautotradingreview.com/
Thanks for taking a look!
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? In any case, my blog also has some decent beginner's guides to bot trading and arbitrage if you'd like to take a look. The main theme is hot to capitalize on BTC investment groups in the most prudent manner possible:
http://bitcoinautotradingreview.com/
Thanks for taking a look!
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.
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.
until now bitcoin unlimited not release
not real coin, you can't withdraw bitcoin unlimited balance, so this now still not effect to bitcoin price
not real coin, you can't withdraw bitcoin unlimited balance, so this now still not effect to bitcoin price
The disclaimer is that I'm a core fan -- I believe bitcoin should remain named bitcoin and that all changes should be done within the system. Everything else is mutiny. Ergo, BTU will fall to the wayside, just as Classic and XT did after a bunch of crying and much ado about nothing.
In any case, my blog also has some decent beginner's guides to bot trading and arbitrage if you'd like to take a look. The main theme is hot to capitalize on BTC investment groups in the most prudent manner possible:
http://bitcoinautotradingreview.com/
Thanks for taking a look!
Ill go take a look it seems like bot trading and arbitrage is yet one interesting thing to do for me. I think too that BTU will fail and I think it is just a fud started by whales or something started just for them to buy cheap bitcoins. I think that Jihan wu himself is a whale in bitcoin which is why I think that he proposed BTU just to scare some new holders and for them to dump their coins so that he can buy cheap ones. I could be wrong since there is no real proof to what I said this is just my opinion but I might be right. In any case, my blog also has some decent beginner's guides to bot trading and arbitrage if you'd like to take a look. The main theme is hot to capitalize on BTC investment groups in the most prudent manner possible:
http://bitcoinautotradingreview.com/
Thanks for taking a look!
It was never about number of Nodes as they don't hold any serious power. We were always had more than 75% nodes supporting Core.
That is no determinant at all, the system we have now is focused on hashing power as only way to determine scaling solution.
So the real difference in BU vs. SegWit support is not that high: https://coin.dance/blocks merely 7 percent.
The real dark horse is the army of undecided. I would assume the undecided are stupid, lazy, perfectly content with things as they are or afraid. In all cases BU will be even more of a turn off than Segwit.
Wonderful to hear. Now, don't bother telling us, tell the developers that are planning the mutiny! Tell the miners who are playing traitor in this game!
How do we get people to stop fussing about this mess?
How do we get people to stop fussing about this mess?
Actually it would seem that the BU scare is already coming to an end. The number of BU nodes seems to have topped off and the greatest extent of the push has been reached. I'd say this is a perfect time to buy bitcoin.
https://coin.dance/nodes/unlimited
Number of nodes is no determinant at all, the system we have now is focused on hashing power as only way to determine scaling solution.
So the real difference in BU vs. SegWit support is not that high: https://coin.dance/blocks merely 7 percent.
Wonderful to hear. Now, don't bother telling us, tell the developers that are planning the mutiny! Tell the miners who are playing traitor in this game!
How do we get people to stop fussing about this mess?
How do we get people to stop fussing about this mess?
Actually it would seem that the BU scare is already coming to an end. The number of BU nodes seems to have topped off and the greatest extent of the push has been reached. I'd say this is a perfect time to buy bitcoin.
https://coin.dance/nodes/unlimited
Wonderful to hear. Now, don't bother telling us, tell the developers that are planning the mutiny! Tell the miners who are playing traitor in this game!
How do we get people to stop fussing about this mess?
How do we get people to stop fussing about this mess?
The disclaimer is that I'm a core fan -- I believe bitcoin should remain named bitcoin and that all changes should be done within the system. Everything else is mutiny. Ergo, BTU will fall to the wayside, just as Classic and XT did after a bunch of crying and much ado about nothing.
Jump to: