Topic: @RogerVer lets make a deal. At least 60k, my BTU for your BTC. - page 12. (Read 64924 times)

Lets stay on topic here! 
Roger ver the guy that does not believe in his own bitcoin unlimited coin , its getting more fun by the minute!

I would sit in as a witness - have good standing in the community and across all social media.

Franky1 is the biggest noob/troll and paid shill at Bitcointalk.

That's a damn hilariously smart idea.
In case this is actually not a complete hoax and BTU eventually does pull it through this could set a big precedent for both of the coins. Still routing for BTC though lol.

Gentlemen this thread is about making a deal for BTU to BTC - not a fucking debate about CORE vs BU - keep it on track or you spam up the thread with FUD.

I'm trying to trade my BU for BTC here lol

It IS
And the simple fact that ROGER ver did NOT sign yet on his challenge tells everything about him a does not believe in bitcoin unlimited him self!!!!
I agree move it out but give it a link so we can easy refer to it.
if trolls want to change the topic.
 

Now thats a good idea, hilariousandco is online now, send him a PM and see if he can split the thread and leave this purely for the bet discussions.

I thought this thread was about a deal between Roger Ver and Loaded.

Is it possible to move the infantile and useless discussions to another thread, where nobody has to see them?

Just LMAO!

First if you have unstable software and miners please split of! , that's what I said in my other post!
Your bitcoin unlimited network will crash in no time leaving bitcoin core + segwit alone!
Evrybody is dumping UNLIMITED for the reason iam stating here.
https://coin.dance/blocks but I don't see a clear trend up sorry
Its more like one person desperate placing miners to break the downfall!
reality everbody is dumping unlimited because of the bugs last 2 weeks!
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/2017-03-29why-canadian-companies-unanimously-rejecting-bitcoin-unlimited-1846568
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EEluhC9SxE
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Etyjc1JdmFU

Ils all about buggy code nobody wants! a 20.000.000.000 market cant have these bugs!




 V 0.8 is NOT made by bitcoin core , it was made before bitcoin core came to live  
https://bitcoincore.org/en/releases/ Bitcoincore started at 0.11
V 0.8 was made by the old guys AKA roger ver! the guys who are angry at core
So its tere own bugs they are refering  too!!!!
and Thats makes BTC-U a JOKE.... the programers of old bitcoin are removed by bitcoincore
and are blaming bugs to NEW bitcoincore! ,while keep makeing them in BU code!

Annyway the claim of core :



Is TRUE!

Not quite you say? Look at that chart. Bitcoin Unlimited clearly is going up and Bitcoin Core is clearly going the opposite direction. There will be small daily changes but the trends are clearly already established by just looking at that chart. Dont underestimate it, thats where you lose sight of what to do in case the hard fork really happens.

blockstream president - adam back - no elections
blockstream CTO - gmaxwell - no elections

as for bugs
core multiple hour blockstain stall V0.8 2013 (berkely - leveldb update bug) = lots of orphaned blocks

other issues tagged as bugs:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9881
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9883
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9988
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9997
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10001
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10034


P.S
having bugs is actually a good thing.
1. it shows people are using/testing it to spot it
2. if something is never buggy its either a lie or the devs prefer to not care/deal with it by denying bugs

in short.
core are just another of MANY implementations. not the utopian dream that should dictate bitcoin no implementation should become the dictator.
so stop crying that core is being attacked.

act like you actually care about a diverse decentralised PEER network. and stop acting like you want centralised FIAT2.0 with core as the IMF

The president hand picked those members after self-appointing:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-unlimited-membership-join-us.208/

Yes, in "modern" Bitcoin, there have been no zero-day attacks, at least none that have been made public.

I would point out that Bitcoin Core has been the "client of record" of Bitcoin for quite a while now, so there are unique incentives for a larger number of eyes to look at the code before it is put into production verses something like insight.

I would also point out that since bitcoin is very valuable, there are few incentives to crash a large number of nodes, but are more incentives to engage in things that result in being able to steal bitcoin.

I would also note that the exploits in the BU code were really not zero-day exploits, but were rather exploits that the devs pointed out to others once they patched the relevant issues -- it was just that the patch was not distributed to node operators prior to the bug being exploited. 

If it was closed source, then the source code would not be freely available to all. But it is. Accordingly, the claim that BU is closed source is quite simply a lie.


Hyperbole much? There was no point where all BU clients crashed. Accordingly, whether or not BU was the entirety of the network, 'whole bitcoin' would not have crashed.


orly? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10130 Six hours ago.

Of course I have read them. And by your silly post, I see that you have read them too, but are incapable of understanding clear language.

First off, there is no equivalency between the BU project and the Bitcoin network. Much like the fact that there is no equivalency of the Blockstream project and the Bitcoin network.

Second, the articles of federation clearly enshrine a vote by the members as the binding decision making process. The president of BU clearly does not have sole power over even the BU project.

You'll have to lie better if you want to tarnish this.

Closed source https://themerkle.com/bitcoin-unlimiteds-closed-source-development-puts-community-on-edge/ and buggy code come on who are you fooling!
The client crashed 2 weeks ago! if core was not running whole bitcoin would have crashed!
BTC is a 20.000.000.000 marked you cant have bugs like that to be taken serous.
ONLY CORE is bug free since 0.11! you have had 3 bugs since 1-1-2017 so please! get real here!
BTC UNLIMITED IS A JOKE! face it!

I didn't lie, and I backed up and sourced my claim.  The BU articles of federation gives the president sole power over the entire network/project.

Have you read them?

The president did not pick all the initial members. Just one more in a string of lies. The organization was collaboratively planned in an open fashion that was available to anyone who wanted to participate. Further, your article is tripe that misrepresents the reality of the situation. Fortunately, you at least provide the text interspersed with your blathering, so your misrepresentations are exposed for all to see.


...and another bald faced lie. What is it with you core-sycophants that leads you to lie in order to cast aspersions onto other implementations? Are you that insecure in your wish of technical superiority?

that was more then 5 years ago!
last Unlimited bug was 2 WEEKS ago!
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-15/divisive-bitcoin-unlimited-solution-crashes-after-bug-exploit
Thats exactly what I say with this picture....
BU can cry like a little kid it was hacked , but in bitcoin you have one live.
Getting hacked is not an option!
that's why I posted the pic.


Btc unlimited is a closed source buggy joke , that will crash the first time it runs on its own.


https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/846819297695600641


The fact that  Roger ver did not sign his bet challenge yet shows that he does not believe in unlimited him self!
So only fools will.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EEluhC9SxE





So what exactly was the lie here?
Bitcoin core exists since bitcoin 11.00 https://bitcoincore.org/en/releases/

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_overflow_incident

The Value overflow incident was in 2010!

References

Block 74638. Value overflow incident bad chain. 2010-08-15. Hash 0000000000790ab3f22ec756ad43b6ab569abf0bddeb97c67a6f7b1470a7ec1c. [ Block]
Transaction 4a5e1e4baab89f3a32518a88c31bc87f618f76673e2cc77ab2127b7afdeda33b.
BitcoinTalk thread 822. Strange block 74638 2010-08-15.
http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2010-5139
"Fix for block 74638"
Satoshi Nakamoto
Block 74691. Main chain. 2010-08-16. Hash 00000000005c22d199706df1c38b38d76f8401920dcbe91edf3417f8847da707. Block explorer
Transaction 237fe8348fc77ace11049931058abb034c99698c7fe99b1cc022b1365a705d39.

The overflow bug was in the times Roger Ver was commiting with the source code!
https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/tree/master/src

This was way before bitcoin core  was formed!
 
so whet they say it is RIGHT they had 0 bugs , 0 downtime , and 0 exploited zero days!!

That's why I say search and you will find who is lieing!!

BU is one big joke ,  if you look a bit deeper you see true the facade.


 

Ah yeah I thought thats what you were referring to.

Just to note that the bug could only create 92233720368.54277039 BTC per block, no more or less, as thats the max value for a UINT_64 integer.

It's also difficult to know whether it was purposely exploited, as the bug could trigger under normal circumstances.

Well I would argue that around this time period, the Bitcoin client contained a popup warning saying that Bitcoin is not ready to be used for financial transactions. It was essentially a "testnet" during the early period. Satoshi actually refused to remove this warning for a long time, he wanted Bitcoin to grow slow in the early days so that it would be "battle hardened" and capable of handling high capacity. Perhaps a scalability solution would've been put in place way before it was needed if people had listened. We're at least a year behind on a solution. This is all WikiLeaks' fault for promoting Bitcoin too soon