Topic: SegWit losing Bitcoin Unlimited winning -> Moon soon - page 11. (Read 13507 times)

...it is your job to read more on the subject...i am not writing a dissertation here on a message board post.
In simplest terms: linear increase the size of the block does not equal new technology, but segwit combined with LN does mean NEW technology, hence the comparison with modems vs cable/fiberoptics.
Re Jihan, please educate yourselves on "monopoly".

That is not true, that solves temporary i'm agree (short term) the problematics of high fees and increases the capacity of number of transactions /s but the total blockchain size would become exponentially faster a problem than with little blocks, this isn't elegant at all this is just basically a brutal short term approach, with that said the code of BU would cause many security problems and uncertainties on the immutability of Bitcoin now and that will mean the end of the project and would mean a big NON SENSE for investors who are searching a mean of storing value via a secured and immutable system.
And by the way The Core blocks represent still 73.4% of the blocks, BU is a minority which want to spread political rhetoric and non-scientifics argues to divide the Bitcoin community and kill bitcoiin because of their greed and their egocentralized point of view

From what I've read, there is no reason why side chains can't happen without Segwit implication so I'm not sure that that is a valid argument.  

To me it seems forcing transactions to side chains is a form a centralization.

It also seems to me that incentivizing mining is a key component to the stability and security of the network.

It also seems to me that no one is precluded from having an "empire" on mining, since anyone can start mining.  Perhaps this Jihan person has the most miners, but I would assume it is because Jihan invested a lot of resources into achieving these miners, which is also investing in the bitcoin network, helping to secure it and creating its worth.

The equation of X(mining) is profitable and Y(Jihan) is doing a lot of mining so Z(we must create something that disrupts that) doesn't make sense except if you were looking at it from the point of view that you wanted to find away to profit  but didn't wanted to bypass the free market competitive process of also mining.

Mind you coming up with an improvement of the network or system that benefits everyone on average and finding a away to derive profit from that is totally fine.  But the reason that X+Y should equal Z (from above paragraph) does not validate its usefulness or benefit to the community.

Please show me anywhere that I am wrong, I definitely won't pretend to see all the ins and outs of this.  But please refrain from using unsubstantiated statements like:
This doesn't tell me anything besides your opinion on the matter.

I don't care about attack surfaces, but i DO care about not falling under a PBOC-driven cabal, present company excluded.

I'm a life long software architect and a programmer. Having said that, as a specialist in my field, I can say the following:

Bitcoin Unlimited is a clean and elegant way how to upgrade the Bitcoin protocol one step at a time. It is philosophically sound, it is simple and effective. This is how software should be developed.

SegWit is an abomination to all self-respectful software architects. Shortly put --- it is a really ugly hack. It tries to accomplish many goals all at once. This drives up code/protocol complexity and increases the attack surface on the Bitcoin network by an order of magnitude. What is more, it will scare away open-source programmers from the Bitcoin project because no one enjoys working on a codebase that has become a labyrinth due to all these hacks and quirks. Does anyone remember the Heartbleed vulnerability discovered in OpenSSL? Well that's the kind of stuff you will get for code that no one enjoys reviewing. I don't want OpenSSL Heartbleed analogy to happen to Bitcoin and that's why I reject SegWit.

Those who keep saying "SegWit because of LN, TX-malleability, quadratic hashing fix" are demagogues. By saying this they make it seem as if Bitcoin Unlimited is not going to solve those issues. This is brutally wrong. You will get Lightning networks, a fix to TX malleability and a fix to quadratic hashing with Bitcoin Unlimited or even with Bitcoin Classic. You will get those features the way software is ought to be developed --- modularly, so that different features are logically separated and can be individually reviewed.

You have to look at  a list of who would benefit:

BU-chinese party apparatchiks and their deciples in form of Jihan and Roger. Why?
Because it precludes second layer privacy inducing protocols that ALSO will compete with Jihan's mining "empire".
Chinese communists don't want privacy and don't even want bitcoin to be used in goods trading (see latest PBOC statements).
Case closed.

Segwit/LN-practically everybody else would benefit. We can see now where BU is heading-linear increase of blocksize and fees. Maybe good for some near-sided miners (only in a short term), bad for EVERYBODY else.

BU=improvement from 14.4baud modem to 28.8 baud modem to 56k modem.

Segwit/LN/privacy enhancements=going from telephony to cable to fiberoptics equivalent.

It is all crystal clear to me (for now).

Is there some where someone can find a good objective review of the pros and cons of both BU and Segwit and legitimate reasons why people are so viscously apposed to one or the other? 

I've so far seen some coherent reasons for why people are not a fan of Segwit, but I really haven't seen much a rational argument from Segwit supporters. 

I'd really like to make an informed decision on which one I support.

When BU gets near 50% things are gonna get reaaally interesting. What crazy things will Core do? Will they accept defeat? Will they create their own minority hashrate altcoin?

Whatever happens, the Bitcoin hodler wins. This stagnation has been a cancer.

That is not how BU works.  Miners have an "excessive block" (EB) setting.  They will not produce or mine on top of a block that exceeds this setting.  If an excessive block gets more confirmations than their acceptance depth (AD), then they will mine on top of it, but will still not produce their own larger blocks.  99% of miners signaling for BU have a EB setting of 1MB.  At 51% you still can't cause a fork unless you can mine enough blocks to exceed the AD of half the miners, which is highly unlikely since most have an AD of 6.

So, I'll repeat myself and ask people to put some effort into understanding how BU works instead of continuing to spread false information about it.

It's simple, OP does not know how bitcoin unlimited works beyond the promise of solving the "scaling problem once and for all" which is a vapid concept.

BUcoiners do not understand game theory. They don't understand tradeoffs. All BUcoin will do is centralize the network even more, miners will be kings.

Anyone not supporting Core + segwit + LN route is an idiot in 2017. If you can do better than them, let's see the code.

So far I gather that

-Segwit is making BTC more efficient, so transactions consume less bytes
-BTC unlimited allows miners to set a block size but ALL US IDIOTS still need to download the super-bloated blockchain to our harddrives

Why does OP like Unlimited and hate Segwit? U selling harddisks?!

I wish i was able to understand what those half-wit and non-limited things actually meant...

BU supporters sayin SW is evil and SW supporters say the opposite.

Can someone explain the basic differences between them? Not anything technical. Just basic.

For example; will BU lower the transaction fees?

BU is far closer to activation than Segwit so if anybody is blocking anything its Segwit supporters

Schizophrenic delusional Hyena is back at it with the "wow BU up = price up" nonsense.

How about the other day when Jihan Wu mined some BU blocks the price insta tanked from 1250 to low 1100?

Get real, BU = doesn't work, it's trash, will never get anywhere notable.

Utter bilge.

People are using alts to make more BTC apart from a few weirdos. That's never going to end. And you're telling me there are millions of potential users checking GitHub hourly waiting to pile in?

Merchant acceptance is a dead end at present no matter what the blockchain's functionality looks like. Most people don't want to spend it.

No, you're just dumb.

Think about it. If blocksize were higher, bitcoin could immediately have 2-3x the # of users it currently has. Marketshare would STOP flowing into altcoins almost overnight. Bitcoin would regain its utility and businesses would be able to start accepting it again.

This would almost undoubtedly put us in the 2-3k per bitcoin range

Which is why, when BU overtakes Core - it will be even bigger for the price than the ETF

For those of you that want cheap coins, you should actually be thanking Core - they have kept the price down significantly

Just goes to show how fatally warped mining has become. I've not been impressed with how Core has addressed the grievances of others, but I really won't be impressed if one Chinese penis pretending to be multiple mining pools manages to blow up Bitcoin. That doesn't really feel much like a free market to me, more like economic thuggery.

The all time high was 2-3 days ago!  I don't think the price is really being held back ba anything!
BU sounds great, until you consider the size of the blockchain, which means that full nodes will become rare and dominated like mining is already.

It would be good if small transactions could be resurrected by BU, but I still think a limited (but bigger than 1mb) block size would be best.