Topic: SegWit losing Bitcoin Unlimited winning -> Moon soon (Read 13507 times)

The impression is that the price is rising As planned. I mean that Bitcoin always rose first before a sudden fall. This drop in the Bitcoin price of business is the friend of large whales who manipulate large volumes of Bitcoin on the market.

That is right. The price of altcoin has risen a lot. Now the bitcoin price is also rising.

Most people are tired of it, and they are voting with their feet. They are migrating to alts and this is pushing the market cap of alts back.
This cannot be good for Bitcoin.

No, Bitcoin unlimited is just 1 implementation of EC, you can have EC without BU.   
   
If you're going to call things childish names at least make sure you know the facts.

That is true, Segwit is not losing the fact that there are some that do not vote means they are okey of what are bitcoins now, they do not like the Bitcoin Unlimited either the Segwit though they are comfortable to what is bitcoin right now, I am not saying that even with the problems about the transaction and fees the users are still comfortable, I mean the way the bitcoins are used. There will be no fork and these debate must be ended soon.

EC = Bitcoin Unlimited. AKA BUgcoin Aka VerJihadCoin.

Who is responsible for EC? How good is their offering?

Anyone coming up with a Core alternative really shouldn't put their head above the parapet until it's A1. Anything will get scrutinised until it passes or pops.

Alts are running out of steam for now. Hopefully the heat of the last few weeks/months will inspire enough people to actually start taking some action.

No one is winning right now, and bitcoin is losing.   

The only one who profits from the current stalemate is altcoins.

Even if you think BU has too many bugs, then EC is still a good idea, and you can run Core with EC or Classic with EC, it doesn't matter, as long as the blocksize debate is resolved.

In my opinion segwit is not losing yet. In the long run though there's a high probability that bitcoin unlimited will lose since right now it got many flaws but btc will go up in price even if none of these two is implemented. I really do hope that block size problems be resolved soon, I want to see bitcoin again having fast transactions just like the old days where the block confirmations are fast and transactions are settled within less than 30mins.

I don't think the community is as divided as some people say. I also believe this will be resolved soon, most people are getting tired of it...

Just because BU is slightly ahead doesn't mean everyone should jump on the bandwagon and support it when Bitcoin's hard fork would not automatically make it a good choice for people to put their money in.

From what I read, it seems that miners are against segwit as this may prevent them from charging higher fees. But I don't get it, if segwit and lightning were able to bring greater adoption, the increase in the number of users would allow them to earn more money anyway.

Not quite. BU is doing a network-wide upgrade.


Of course they refuse. It is the only way to ensure that the upgrade takes. Besides, it is not the majority chain's responsibility to protect the minority chain. Especially as a significant existence of a minority chain ensures losses for one or more branches, while a dead minority ensures retention of value for everyone. Lastly, replay protection can be handled within the client. There is no purpose served by polluting the protocol with it.

Geez, it's like watching Libertards vs Trumpets.

BU is a BIP, just like SegWit. It is not a "second version".
Bitcoin was designed in a way so that it can be upgraded with hard forks. BU is about removing the block size limit, which was meant to be removed at some point.

Though such bugs shouldn't exist. BU developers are disappointing.

BU is doing a hostile takeover. They refuse to implement relay protection. The devs have stated their main reason for doing this is to attack the old chain. Also miners supporting BU have stated they will attack the old chain if there is a fork. It's not a "peaceful" fork, they're actively attempting to force people onto their chain.

SegWit on the other hand is optional, you are not forced to use it if you don't want to.

Currently running a small listening node needs ~2TB of bandwidth a month. This is way too much, and the people that say it isn't don't run a node. Increasing blocksize will only increase this even more and make it more difficult for people to run nodes. Many p2p file sharing systems in the past have failed due to nodes becoming too few thus too centralized due to prohibitively high resource consumption, making them vulnerable to DMCA takedowns etc.

Even at 72MB blocks (which is the largest the Satoshi codebase can currently support) Bitcoin still cannot scale anywhere near the size of visa. While increasing the blocksize may help with scalability in the short term, clearly increasing the blocksize is not a long-term solution.

After Napster was taken down due to having a centralized server tracking which nodes had which files, a fully decentralized p2p filesharing network called gnutella was created in 2000. This was a fully decentralized p2p file sharing network. It had some fairly advanced features for it's time, including a decentralized file searching system and TLS encryption between all nodes by default. It is in some ways similar to Bitcoin and Satsohi had mentioned this network before in his posts. Early versions of Bitcoin written by Satoshi included an IRC bootstrapping mechanism that seems to be lifted right out of gnutella. The gnutella network got huge media publicity and it grew very fast and eventually ran into scaling problems. The original dev team had abandoned the project, and so the community had to come up with scalability solutions. Many different solutions were pushed, including the use of "trusted" ultranodes. Concensus could not be formed by the community and eventually the network forked into hundreds of smaller networks, such as LimeWire, FrostWire, WinMX, Kaazaa, BearShare, eDonkey (developed by some Core developers IIRC). The large gnutella network had essentially been split into hundreds of smaller networks. Each network by in large didn't share files with one another, or if they did it was very buggy. Some networks such as WinMX got sybil attacked  because of their small size(funnily enough this attack went on for 12 years and only subsided a few months ago). Some networks such as LimeWire lived on for a while until the devs were sued by RIAA and the "trusted" ultranodes shut down, but the split kicked off the death of gnutella, which was basically replaced by BitTorrent, a much less decentralized network but one that doesn't have scalability issues.

Splitting and centralization are things we should avoid at all costs.

Compromise or watch someone else eat our lunch.  Chop Core into bite-sized pieces and find the right subset that appease BU et al.

Miners; sorry, but one way or another you are eventually going to lose your grip.

Wow u are ruthless! I like you!

Explain how Segwit will make miners lose profit? Lightning I can kinda understand but even here miners will make more profit due to much higher BTC price and there's nothing blocking miners from running Lightning nodes themselves and earn those fees. In the end more users will be using Bitcoin and this is also good for miners.


Everyone can run a Lightning node, I don't see what's centralized about it? And Segwit just fixes malleability and several other issues, plus it bumps up the maximum blocksize.