Topic: SegWit (26.8%) vs Bitcoin Unlimited (32.2%) (Read 8430 times)

Gavin's done extensive testing on 8mb blocks.  If EC allowed miners to use 8mb blocks, would be fine while research continued.

2mb + segwit would be better than nothing but Core is not even giving us that.  Pretty sure I read that Greg recently vetoed that idea.

It seemed implied considering that Ver et. al. seem to use it as "proof". You should point this out to anyone who does attempt to use it then.

Read this thread. We were discussing an approach post Segwit (considering the quadratic hashing problem is quite a risk without) for quite a few pages. Claiming it is just "Segwit vs. BU" is radical. BU is 'emergent consensus' and this is nowhere scientifically proven to be safe (you can't argue against this). It is an change of similar complexity at least on a scale equal to Segwit. I'm not even going to comment of the possible consequences of chain reorganizations (I'll remain neutral).

I never screamed though that this was any kind of proof.  Glad you agree it doesn't mean anything all that important.
 

What are the several different scaling proposals and approaches that you're open to?

I did, in the past, and it was discredited by you and the likes of. That's why I mentioned it as being hypocritical.

This website and its voting has nothing to do with UASF.

Said the person deeply entrenched in one view, to the person open to several different scaling proposals and approaches? Completely logical statement indeed.

The funny thing Lauda, is we all know how loud you would be screaming that the users have rejected BU/big blocks, if the votes favored your position.

Of course the votes are meaningless -- you don't even need a whale.  Someone who really wanted to vote multiple times could just keep moving
their coins and the only way to mitigate that would be sophisticated taint analysis.   That's why UASF is a joke.

I would say that I am the one using logic and valid reasoning while you're the one resorting to heinous tactics, but I guess people can make
up their own minds.

You seem to be either shilling or extremely close minded and attached to your position.  Might have to put you on ignore soon.  You radiate negativity.

What benefits are you expecting from this? Basically, in the event of a hostile/contentious fork (which this obviously is, since there is zero consensus on it) suceeding it shows that Bitcoin can be covertly "hijacked" and further centralized. If the tiny fish that are Jihan & Ver can do it, how would you expect Bitcoin to resist a state sponsored attacking (assuming that Bitmain is not influenced by China at all)? If it does succeed, I expect the following: 1) The majority of Bitcoin Core contributors continue to work on their own chain (POW change & Segwit). 2) The majority of Bitcoin Core contributors drop Bitcoin development all together.

Yes, an poorly educated (?) and ignorant one that is. I'd expect educated and well aware people not be resorting to these heinous tactics of yours, but rather use logic and valid reasoning.

There are no user votes, and most certainly not from the economy. These are Ver votes.

Bitcoin Unlimited is going to be more centralized with roger ver as the new satoshi nakamoto who going to rekt everything with his greed and ego .
He supported and invested in Qtum which was an outright scam thus can not believe in btu also bitcoin as more accessibility with e-commerece and site and now convening them to use  btu would be another uphill task

A baboon. lolllll...   i like that.

no, you're right.  the user votes don't really matter all THAT much here.  I'm just saying that a lot of people would economically support a bigger block coin if/when the network does split.

Have a great day!

While I think many of us are aware of the negative impacts, I'd like to hear if you see the potential for any positive impact on Bitcoin Core if Bitcoin Unlimited forks. 

Variance and irrelevant. Miners can create their own shit altcoin if they want to.

Here comes the hypocrisy. Back on the original Bitcoinocracy, where the votes were majorly in favor, it was being completely dismissed as valid. Now you're using the same *thing* as your own argument. Ironically, Ver has more coins than the maximum found on any of those votes. Therefore, this is representative of nothing and makes you a mere baboon.

BU + classic is 45% of hashpower right now.  thank god all we need to do is convince miners not a bunch of forum fan boys. 

but wait you say, what about economic power...what about the users... miners wont mine a coin that no one wants right?

right.
https://vote.bitcoin.com/

to correct you both
a) lauda for the last year+ have you even bothered to read passed the 30 second elevator pitch and glossy images of what segwit actually does and HOW its suppose to achieve its promises (hint: it has nothing to do with activation day)

b) dynamics may take a long time because they set no agenda, deadlines, have no nuclear red button. they are simply offering an open option of consensus. it is blockstream(core) and the centralist defenders over dramatising it because of fear. eg if there is nothing to fear then why scream that splits are bad and then scream that they should split off.. hypocriticising yourselves in the process.

c) once you have done (a) you will realise that all the promises are half-baked gestures. you realise the complete rewrite is not good nor guaranteed and nor superior. all you are left with as an argument to defend is WHO wrote it not what was wrote. which then leads you later to realise that devs too are temporary. so no point defending devs.

d) if you stop caring about devs and think only about the bitcoin diverse decentralised peer network. and take just half an hour out of your lives to care just about bitcoin, not brands, not devs. but maintaining a diverse decentralised peer network. you start to see that blockstream(core) CODE is turning the network into a TIER network that DOES cause splits and oppositions and centralising the network and more importantly dilutes the full node count far more than any other implementations proposal does.

so take your time. dont hit the reply button straight away. actually take some time to run scenarios. read code, learn consensus learn diverse independent network ethos. really think about it without the "protect the employed dev" hat on. and truly understand bitcoin. without just replying with the empty rebuttles thus far.

and if your rebuttles are 'its been tested'.. well so has litecoin, screw it so has many other alts. far more then segwit has. imagine litecoin code being dropped into bitcoin by november and people not even yet seeing if a litecoin keypair will or wont break bitcoins mainnet or lose peoples funds until after activation

Read my post again. I've stated that it will not negatively impact Bitcoin.

On the other hand, this would negatively impact Bitcoin.

Correct. While Segwit isn't perfect, it is far superior than the proposal(s) from the others.

I can think of plenty:
1) Stupidity.
2) Lust for power.
3) Lobbying.

At this point they are only signalling support for BU through their minted blocks. Large farms know exactly that it isn't profitable to mine an altcoin that might have a value probably below the 10% mark of the real Bitcoin. I think it's more some sort of a warning to trigger Core devs to agree to a mid-way solution. Or they must have such a hidden agenda, that they will take the risk and force through a hard fork anyway. I think the first mentioned is the case. Either way, it's a nasty situation as the uncertainty is the main factor that is causing all this panic among people.

For some reasons, It looks like SegWit is making some progress and BU is stable enough for the moment. I still don't understand how miners could continue to support it though, I mean a lot of exchanges and wallet already made statements about not supporting BU as the original BTC, instead it they will support it as an alt or not support at all.

But it doesn't look like Segwit is going to be activated.  Bitcoin unlimited is also taking a long time, I am not convinced that it will fork.
It is almost worse now that we are hanging under the cloud of a hard fork, without knowing if or when it will happen.

Segwit would be a better solution, I agree completely there, but I think we might end up with BU and BTC, the worst of both worlds!

Correct. The massive price decline is directly related to Antpool signalling BU & the fears of an imminent hard fork. Almost nobody who knows how to use Bitcoin (hint: Consolidate outputs on time) really cares about the fees. There were times where the spam attack was quite massive and delays occurred, but that was only a minor annoyance. The mempool is currently empty, considering that the attack has subsided for now.

Indeed. Bitcoin is fine either when:
1) Segwit is activated (soft fork; no split).
2) Segwit is not activated; no fork either.

Ironically, the same "free market" proponents from the BTU folk want to attack the Core chain after a split (if it came to that).

The loss of confidence comes from investors and holders being spooked that the alternatives proposed, both of which are a downgrade to what bitcoin is today (which bitcoin is an amazing store of value), are appearing to pose a someday threat in undermining the integrity that is bitcoin.

Those who want change can create an alt-coin, or goto litecoin, goto (permissioned, central-authority by foundation) ethereum, or implement such change to another coin.

For anyone new or simply wanting to expand a bit more about bitcoin, I try to touch on a few of these points (and others) on post titled
"Hacks & puppets & forks - how to destroy bitcoin" https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/hacks-puppets-forks-how-to-destroy-bitcoin-1834310

Who should be voting ?  surely only the votes of major miners counts, isnt that how a fork debate would work ?   I'm kinda lost why disagreement cant be resolved/tested without risking loss of confidence

all these chats about the contingency plan. are not highlighting the main words enough

contentious hard fork


knowing that dynamics wont go contentious and is and always has for the last 2 years just patiently wanted consensus. never pushing for splitting, never setting deadlines. thus showing no intent to rock the boat.

meaning if dynamics activates. they will have majority and it would be consensus not contentious. thus dynamic block prosals community will be the bitcoin. and the contentious minority that orchestrate a bilateral split to keep thir minority alive will be the altcoin. namely SWCoin