Topic: SegWit (26.8%) vs Bitcoin Unlimited (32.2%) - page 3. (Read 8430 times)
If that BIP proposal forcing segwit activation goes through, we can expect market attempts at resolution before the end of summer.
When a proposal wins a vote, it becomes dominant. BUcoin won't survive the markets, the vast majority of commercial and private players actually using Bitcoin are publicly rejecting it
only the "markets" that are VC funded by DGC, http://dcg.co/portfolio/
which are in blockstreams pocket
hence why BTCC is the loudest pool supporting segwit..and flagged segwit support within minutes of the october start, rather than take the time to assess things first... oh look DCG->BTCC
And lots of their miners already moved out - the % of BTCC has dropped sharply
When a proposal wins a vote, it becomes dominant. BUcoin won't survive the markets, the vast majority of commercial and private players actually using Bitcoin are publicly rejecting it
only the "markets" that are VC funded by DGC, http://dcg.co/portfolio/
which are in blockstreams pocket
hence why BTCC is the loudest pool supporting segwit..and flagged segwit support within minutes of the october start, rather than take the time to assess things first... oh look DCG->BTCC
BU is more voted, what does this tell you?
That it's not a vote, lol
When a proposal wins a vote, it becomes dominant. BUcoin won't survive the markets, the vast majority of commercial and private players actually using Bitcoin are publicly rejecting it
If only C rated Banks reject I'm fine with such poor predictions....
BU is more voted, what does this tell you?
That it's not a vote, lol
When a proposal wins a vote, it becomes dominant. BUcoin won't survive the markets, the vast majority of commercial and private players actually using Bitcoin are publicly rejecting it
Where are the BU privacy solutions, like Confidential Transaction or Mimblewimble?
maybe bloating up a tx from say 450bytes to 1.4kb by adding commitments is less important than keeping transactions lean.
maybe mimble and other 'confidential' matters should be left for second layer solutions like LN or sidechains. and to keep bitcoin lean is more practical
Where are the new more efficient tx encoding formats?
well if core want to change tx encoding for minimal tx efficiences, but then bloat tx's with in-efficient bloating commitments for the sake of confidentiality. results in no beneficial efficiency trade-off.thus by just keeping things lean actually becomes more efficient, than the bait and switch of gaining then subtracting efficiency.
Keep in mind that ironically, almost no miner (besides Bitcoin.com) is actually running BU. They are just signalling it. 
There are also substantial performance improvements in core 0.13 and 0.14 that haven't made their way into the BU code so miners would lose all those benefits by abandoning the core client.... and still : Not voting for SW because of all that nice little core goodies -> BU is more voted, what does this tell you?
I should imagine other niceties, such as IBD improvements will be an 'on the back-burner' issue until the future network direction is resolved.
an idea...
IBD concerns are less about time of IBD but actually of..
(subtle difference of psychology(nodes function-ability vs users utility))
time to get it synced to have a full UTXO set to see their uptodate imported key balance and actually start spending.
by simply (much like a liteclient) downloading a UTXO set first as a temporary measure. it then allows people to see their upto date "balance" to then start spending. making the IBD still important, but in practice something that becomes more of a background matter and atleast not have people "waiting".
then as the IBD works in the background. it just makes any changes to the UTXO as it gets updated.
then IBD becomes less practically tiresome to the user
There are also substantial performance improvements in core 0.13 and 0.14 that haven't made their way into the BU code so miners would lose all those benefits by abandoning the core client.
BU has had its own network propagation improvements for quite some time, which have been tested on the live network:
https://medium.com/@peter_r/towards-massive-on-chain-scaling-presenting-our-block-propagation-results-with-xthin-da54e55dc0e4#.57yryf5um
...and they had to rely on the Core developers to point out the serious flaws in their design.
Have core solutions have been implemented that surpass this? (compact blocks? fibre?)
Yep.
The other improvements miners will care about relate to block creation time. BU might have optimisations in development that we don't know about.
I should imagine other niceties, such as IBD improvements will be an 'on the back-burner' issue until the future network direction is resolved.
I should imagine other niceties, such as IBD improvements will be an 'on the back-burner' issue until the future network direction is resolved.
The Bitcoin developers have made IBD and block propagation improvements, and released them in 0.14. Maybe BU do have unreleased ideas that they've not announced yet, guess who else with a larger team, who've proven to be consistently more competent team, also has the same
Where are the BU privacy solutions, like Confidential Transaction or Mimblewimble? Where are the new more efficient tx encoding formats? The reason BU does zero development along those lines is that they're entirely focused on creating the most disruption to the Bitcoin ecosystem as possible, not on improving it at all. It's literally trolling software, made for the sole purpose of trolling the Bitcoin network, and is unsurprisingly promoted using actual internet trolls using trolling tactics
Keep in mind that ironically, almost no miner (besides Bitcoin.com) is actually running BU. They are just signalling it.
Is there any fool proof way to tell exactly what node a miner vote is running?
Some articles would indicate that more pools (e.g. ViaBTC) are mining on BU nodes, but then we all know a phoney war is part of the cold war.
There are also substantial performance improvements in core 0.13 and 0.14 that haven't made their way into the BU code so miners would lose all those benefits by abandoning the core client.
BU has had its own network propagation improvements for quite some time, which have been tested on the live network:
https://medium.com/@peter_r/towards-massive-on-chain-scaling-presenting-our-block-propagation-results-with-xthin-da54e55dc0e4#.57yryf5um
Have core solutions have been implemented that surpass this? (compact blocks? fibre?)
The other improvements miners will care about relate to block creation time. BU might have optimisations in development that we don't know about.
I should imagine other niceties, such as IBD improvements will be an 'on the back-burner' issue until the future network direction is resolved.
Keep in mind that ironically, almost no miner (besides Bitcoin.com) is actually running BU. They are just signalling it.
There are also substantial performance improvements in core 0.13 and 0.14 that haven't made their way into the BU code so miners would lose all those benefits by abandoning the core client.It's also expensive to switch and then have to switch back if the fork doesn't happen but SegWit does.
There is no technical reason to run BU on a mining node now except for testing, and you do not need to move a majority of your nodes to test.
Right now it is just about the signal, so it is wise to only signal.
Once 75% consensus is reached for a difficulty period, if that ever happens, there is a span of two difficulty periods before the fork takes place and that is plenty of time for them to actually upgrade the client itself.
Keep in mind that ironically, almost no miner (besides Bitcoin.com) is actually running BU. They are just signalling it.
There are also substantial performance improvements in core 0.13 and 0.14 that haven't made their way into the BU code so miners would lose all those benefits by abandoning the core client. legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-unlimited-reaches-almost-40/
Bitcoin Unlimited Reaches Almost 40%
You can watch the current signaling here: https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools?resolution=24h. You don't need to rely on any news articles for such. Keep in mind that ironically, almost no miner (besides Bitcoin.com) is actually running BU. They are just signalling it. Bitcoin Unlimited Reaches Almost 40%
Probably because they are waiting for 75% to diminish the impact of a contentious fork.
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-unlimited-reaches-almost-40/
Bitcoin Unlimited Reaches Almost 40%
You can watch the current signaling here: https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools?resolution=24h. You don't need to rely on any news articles for such. Keep in mind that ironically, almost no miner (besides Bitcoin.com) is actually running BU. They are just signalling it. Bitcoin Unlimited Reaches Almost 40%
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-unlimited-reaches-almost-40/
Bitcoin Unlimited Reaches Almost 40%
Bitcoin Unlimited Reaches Almost 40%
Let them be new altcoin like XT Classic , who cares about them now ?
Mining will be centralized over time IMO.
Over time few people will own pools / hardware factories and we will and like FED but miners FED.
Once few people have monopoly at mining they can force even 1% inflation if they want.
They will just say we will stop mining with 99% of machines and what you can do to me
?Shitcoins had solution for that with fast recalculating blocks if time-limit is not reached.
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-unlimited-reaches-almost-40/
Bitcoin Unlimited Reaches Almost 40%
Bitcoin Unlimited Reaches Almost 40%
Shaolin Fry has committed a bip-segwit-flagday draft that may be useful.
Interesting development: (Definitely worth reading)
-------------------------
Status: Draft
Type: Informational
Created: 2017-03-12
Motivation
Cause the mandatory activation of the existing segwit deployment before the end of midnight November 15th 2017.
--------------------------
Shaolin Fry has committed a bip-segwit-flagday draft that may be useful.
At the moment there has been no announcement that native UTXO sets will become invalid if segwit activates. Leave your coins unmoved in your desktop or paper wallet and you will have an equal stake in both coins should a bilateral split occur.
David Rabahy's had this demonstrated to him in the past, and still behaves as if he doesn't understand this blindingly obvious "subtlety".
David, do people actually take investment advice from you? On Bitcoin? They are incredibly unwise to take advice from a financial adviser one who states
"I'm lazy and don't want to have to do anything"
Jump to: