Topic: SegWit losing Bitcoin Unlimited winning -> Moon soon - page 10. (Read 13510 times)

The problem some people have with SegWit is that it not pure protocol upgrade and Blockstream will try to appropriate bitcoin network using SegWit as a backdoor.

Bitcoin Unlimited main point is removal hard coded blocksize limit of 1 MB, and instead introduce soft limit, which can be easily be increased to 3MB, 4MB, and so on in the future.

Bigger blocks will have mainly 2 effects - it enables BTC to process more transactions per second and will lower transaction fees.

With a DASH shill in the background..

Lol, yes he had pain in his back. Before he start he did few back exercises.


They were talking about Bitcoin and nothing else. What his weakens you talk about. or you talk about Bitcoin weakness.  In OP you posted graph with totally identical support. How come you did that altho as you said one side finally totally won. Please explain.

Here's a snapshot of this week's debate regarding this new altcoin "SegWitCoin" that wants to become Bitcoin.

Johnny (of Blockstream) vs Roger Ver - Bitcoin Scaling Debate (SegWit vs Bitcoin Unlimited)



Body language doesn't lie. Johnny is aware of his weakness and is afraid that he is not able to defend SegWit well enough to please his bankster masters, rightly so.

Of course, I wouldn't base my decision only on that.  Unfortunately I'm hard pressed to find a rational argument in favour of Segwit over BU.  I thought surely there would be one since I would assume the group that is working on Segwit is full of highly intelligent individuals that understand the nuts and bolts of Blockchain and Bitcoin very well.  I usually end up reading the reasons to support segwit are:

-slanderous statements against individuals that are in support of BU
-claims of impending doom to the network should BU be implemented with no technical explanation or reasoning, or ones not based on facts.
-claims that BU creates a centralized model, but without explaining how increasing block size above 1MB does this?  At the same time not explaining how forcing the majority of transactions to be done by centralized off chain hubs with need for trusted third parties in the "dark" does not create more of a centralized system.
-claims that BU is bad because it incentives mining, even though that is how the blockchain and bitcoin maintain their security and strength and incentive to mine is core to the maintenance of the network.

I think that doesn't necessarily say a lot about the actual people who are in favour of SegWit.  There will always be people on both sides of anything who are nasty about the other, but this doesn't say anything about what SegWit itself is actually presenting to the public or about the majority of SegWit/BU supporters.

It is especially concerning that all the "coin news" blogs seem to be biased and in favour of SegWit. A news reporter/blog writer should generally remain neutral, research both sides and try to give an objective evaluation of the situation. What I see more and more are attempts to manipulate the public opinion in favour of SegWit. It's utterly disgusting. I know I know BlockStream would go bankrupt if SegWit is rejected. Their whole business model is to gain sole control over the Bitcoin network similarly to how Ethereum Foundation is a central entity having a private block chain they call Ethereum. So they reverse transactions just like that. No wonder we see censoring and brainwashing, it's all backed up by the money of Blockstream investors who were sold the promise of becoming the owners of the Bitcoin network.

This is one thing I noticed a lot of coming from the Segwit side.  From previous experience in other situations similar to this, it doesn't paint a pretty picture of what they have to give to the public.

Yes, this is a really nice feature. So block chain size in general is a non-issue. People should just stop spreading paranoia about it, it's embarrassing.

Core 0.14 allows manual prunning of the blockchain, to a minimum of 450 MB(<- that is the number that I remember).

Blockchain size is not a problem of the Bitcoin protocol. It is a technical problem that can be overcome by technical means. It is a full node implementation related issue and thus not even worth talking about. Block chain size is never going to be a problem because digital storage does not cost much at all and technically it is possible to store the block chain in a decentralized manner. Instead of every full node storing the whole copy of the block chain they could only store parts of it proportionally to their disk capacity. When every full node stores random parts of the block chain then the block chain will still exist but is simply spread over the whole network rather than duplicated on every device. We also have block chain available in the torrent network so don't worry, nothing is lost. It's just a technical issue and it can be solved. Right now there just isn't big enough incentive to solve it and for that reason full nodes are still storing full copies of the block chain.

SegWit is in control of a few banksters from BlockStream and their lap dogs (Johnny and other Core devs). Roger does not pay me anything. I am exposing the SegWit lies from my free time for free ever since Bitcointalk mods censored my free speech in here. I made a Bitcoin Unlimited topic under Bitcoin general discussion and it got moved to altcoin board. The censorship guys made a powerful enemy that day and I promised publicly to do everything in my power to expose the corrupt SegWit/Core devs. And censoring tells really a lot about the agenda of BlockStream/Core. It's a big red flag.

So what do I get out of this you may ask? I'm a bitcoin hodler since 2012 and I just happen to be technically adept enough to understand that SegWit is really bad for Bitcoin. It just happens that BU is currently the only good alternative. Ideally there would be many dev teams all around the world working independently on improving the Bitcoin protocol. Wallet implementations should also be decentralized and that's why we must ditch the Core team. Core team's bitcoin-core implementation does not equate to Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a protocol not a protocol implementation and a technical variable such as the block size does not belong to the protocol layer. Block size is already limited by network speed, it does not require an arbitrary limit imposed by a bunch of self-proclaimed Bitcoin-CEOs.

SegWit supporters are like Hilary Clinton supporters. They play it dirty and they are sore losers.

It's sad that so many bitcoiners are dumb enough to support B(F)U Chinacoin.

So you just admitted that the BU is just about block size increase for now  

You didn't answer on technical problematics : _What about the total blockchain size which will grow exponentially faster with a block size increase ?
                                                              _What will be the block size with BU ? By choice of miners ? So the security problems and immutability problems that will result ?
                                                              _I'm not saying that segwit is essential, i think it's the best solution for now but of courseall solutions could always be better   but if segwit will be rejected well i wouldn't think bitcoin is dead but if the chain split or if BU become the established chain i would reconsider my position on mid-term long-term investments due to the problematics that will cause

Roger Ver is buying up hashrate...just wait untill his ''social money'' runs out. He's also trolling in his latest interviews so i dont blame the ''blamers''.

I think it's laughable that Core supporters won't stop whining about Roger Ver, as if he were really some kind of Bitcoin Boogeyman.

The fact that one side has to engage in personal attacks & smear campaigns against the other side is really, really telling.

It is a sign of weakness if you have to slander your opponent with blatant lies and exaggerations.

what you just said is not true. stop spreading lies.

Bitcoin Unlimited is much more than just block size increase. They are implementing all the nice feature SegWit has slapped together except BU is doing it conceptually in a correct way --- one feature at a time. The most urgent one is block size increase. So basically what you just said is warm air, no content.

BU is in control of a few Cinese miners, i think this central mining cartel isn't so decentralised, right? How much does Roger Ver pays you to mine ChinaCoin?  While Satoshi's vision is already absolute, the majority of the whole economic infrastructure wants SegWitt, NOT BU, BU miners will eventually mine for a loss sooner ore later. Blockstream ore Core's behaviour is irrelevant, ceo's, Exchanges, walletproviders, merchants etc the all dont care about it, except BU supporters

That was my original plan, but I'm having a hard time finding anything objective and rational especially in regards to segwit. This is why I asked if anyone happened to know a balanced source of information on the two and the reasons for and against them.

BlockStream bankster maffia is no better, so this really isn't a valid argument you have there. If SegWit goes through BlockStream would have monopoly over Bitcoin development. Someone truly being the "Bitcoin CEO" won't be a joke then.