Topic: SegWit losing Bitcoin Unlimited winning -> Moon soon - page 12. (Read 13507 times)
my thoughts are that all this will lead to a hard fork. BU closes their eyes, but that's just what it is. the minute two BTC currencies are listed anywhere, we'll see which one will be dumped faster. my bet is BU-BTC will tank. followed by 1-2 years of black clouds over btc. well done roger ver!
Because i've heard if LN can steal the reward of the miners and it looks like terrible.
LN does not "steal" anything. Even with LN you must do some real transactions (at least two, to open and to close a payment channel). These transactions will have fees like now. It is only a way to "bundle" transactions.
And LN in my opinion does not fit all user cases. It's a better alternative for centralized online payment systems like Coinbase's wallet-to-wallet payments. With the same logic applied, these services also "steal" transaction fees from the miners.
...figure only 1 out of 20 odds of this being true...but BTC can still go pear shaped...
Do you realise that once 51% of blocks are signalling Unlimited (according to Coindance today it is 33.3%) then the very first block mined by an Unlimited miner who cares to create a block of any size above 1 MB, will create a fork. BU miners will be able to follow that fork. That fork will be invalid for Core miners.
The reasoning from some BU community members is that everyone will be sensible enough to wait until something like 75% of blocks support BU, before a miner creates such a block. I ask anyone following the whole scaling debate from both sides, are coordination and cooperation the hallmarks of this situation?
The moment we reach 51% of blocks signalling BU, a whole new opportunity opens up for manipulation, for example for a miner to take a short position on Bitcoin and then mine +1MB blocks, before a more sensible threshold is reached.
Bitcoin has always been about one chain, one history, no split, immutability. This is going to be the biggest paradigm shift since the genesis block.
For months the talk has been ETF, China, etc. Scaling is by far and away the no.1 critical issue - has been for two years. I don't think people fully understand what's coming.
For disclosure, personally I'm not heavily on one or other side of the debate.
We still Dont know what Will happen Tomorrow Guy's Lets wait And see
If this good news Will infect the btc price then iT was sky rocking already But iT isnt
Still waiting... we hope the best Ofcourse
If this good news Will infect the btc price then iT was sky rocking already But iT isnt
Still waiting... we hope the best Ofcourse
Ok so please correct me if I'm wrong, but 25% of BU and 25% of segwit blocks mined sounds like a whole lot of nothing!
With the community split right down the middle how will either way get the necessary support?
With the community split right down the middle how will either way get the necessary support?
There should have been a way to also signal an option like "SegWit, BU, 8M, any of them, just do something". It should have been designed to allow supporting one or more...
Of course, the pools can find their way! I see Slush Pool (on https://coin.dance) signals on some blocks BU and on some blocks SegWit
Both camps will get nowhere imho. Thus 1mb will stand...bitcoin core prefers that anyway...and eventually BTC will likely FORK ..just because if they have
not agreed to a compromise by this time..they likely won't.....wait for bitcoin core to push an alternative way to do this as a softfork and the BU miners
will fork...
As long as I'm talking doom here....the 'supposed satoshi' 'craig wright' continues to claim on Jan 1st 2020 he will get a big trust of BTC set aside for
the founders/him/etc...that would be annoying..the 'tweb' imho will flush most of it and currently is making patents on the supposed proof he is such
by getting into the supposed trust with satoshi addresses on that date
figure only 1 out of 20 odds of this being true...but BTC can still go pear shaped...
not agreed to a compromise by this time..they likely won't.....wait for bitcoin core to push an alternative way to do this as a softfork and the BU miners
will fork...
As long as I'm talking doom here....the 'supposed satoshi' 'craig wright' continues to claim on Jan 1st 2020 he will get a big trust of BTC set aside for
the founders/him/etc...that would be annoying..the 'tweb' imho will flush most of it and currently is making patents on the supposed proof he is such
by getting into the supposed trust with satoshi addresses on that date
figure only 1 out of 20 odds of this being true...but BTC can still go pear shaped...
The free market always finds a way. Once people understand how BU actually works instead of just parroting the propaganda it will be seen as a reasonable approach. Yes, it needs more testing. No, it won't cause an immediate fork once it gets to some magic threshold. What it does do is provide a mechanism for miners and exchanges to allow blocksize to be driven by the costs involved in processing transactions.
Both camps will get nowhere imho. Thus 1mb will stand...bitcoin core prefers that anyway...and eventually BTC will likely FORK ..just because if they have
not agreed to a compromise by this time..they likely won't.....wait for bitcoin core to push an alternative way to do this as a softfork and the BU miners
will fork...
As long as I'm talking doom here....the 'supposed satoshi' 'craig wright' continues to claim on Jan 1st 2020 he will get a big trust of BTC set aside for
the founders/him/etc...that would be annoying..the 'tweb' imho will flush most of it and currently is making patents on the supposed proof he is such
by getting into the supposed trust with satoshi addresses on that date
figure only 1 out of 20 odds of this being true...but BTC can still go pear shaped...
not agreed to a compromise by this time..they likely won't.....wait for bitcoin core to push an alternative way to do this as a softfork and the BU miners
will fork...
As long as I'm talking doom here....the 'supposed satoshi' 'craig wright' continues to claim on Jan 1st 2020 he will get a big trust of BTC set aside for
the founders/him/etc...that would be annoying..the 'tweb' imho will flush most of it and currently is making patents on the supposed proof he is such
by getting into the supposed trust with satoshi addresses on that date
figure only 1 out of 20 odds of this being true...but BTC can still go pear shaped...
Ok so please correct me if I'm wrong, but 25% of BU and 25% of segwit blocks mined sounds like a whole lot of nothing!
With the community split right down the middle how will either way get the necessary support?
With the community split right down the middle how will either way get the necessary support?
https://coin.dance/blocks
OMG!! i'm updating it right now and i've got suprised. Okay, let's imagine how the rogerver is laughing right now. There are less than a percent of the gap between the result of BU and SegWit.
So, BU is for real. But i've curious about how the BU it works. So, can the miners try to run a vote about the transaction fees?
Because i've heard if LN can steal the reward of the miners and it looks like terrible.
OMG!! i'm updating it right now and i've got suprised. Okay, let's imagine how the rogerver is laughing right now. There are less than a percent of the gap between the result of BU and SegWit.
So, BU is for real. But i've curious about how the BU it works. So, can the miners try to run a vote about the transaction fees?
Because i've heard if LN can steal the reward of the miners and it looks like terrible.
I added a Bitcoin Unlimited philosophy description to OP.
Also I find this explanation very good, also taken from BU's home page under FAQ section:
Quote from: https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/faq
Will unlimited size blocks actually result in no fee market?
No. Intuitively you can understand this by realizing that it will take a lot longer to propagate a gigantic block across the network than a small one. Therefore a gigantic block has a higher likelihood of being "orphaned" -- that is, a competing block will be found, propagated across the network and supplant the gigantic block. In this case the miner of the gigantic block will lose the block subsidy and transaction fees. Therefore miners are incentivised by limitations in the underlying physical network to produce smaller blocks, and incentivized by transaction fees to produce larger ones.
Finding the balance between these forces is where the free market excels. As underlying physical networks improve or fees increase, miners will naturally be able to produce larger blocks. The transaction "supply" (space in a block) therefore depends directly on the fundamental capacity, rather than relying on some centralized "steering committee" to properly set maximum block size. Bitcoin is all about disintermediation, and this is another example of it working.
No. Intuitively you can understand this by realizing that it will take a lot longer to propagate a gigantic block across the network than a small one. Therefore a gigantic block has a higher likelihood of being "orphaned" -- that is, a competing block will be found, propagated across the network and supplant the gigantic block. In this case the miner of the gigantic block will lose the block subsidy and transaction fees. Therefore miners are incentivised by limitations in the underlying physical network to produce smaller blocks, and incentivized by transaction fees to produce larger ones.
Finding the balance between these forces is where the free market excels. As underlying physical networks improve or fees increase, miners will naturally be able to produce larger blocks. The transaction "supply" (space in a block) therefore depends directly on the fundamental capacity, rather than relying on some centralized "steering committee" to properly set maximum block size. Bitcoin is all about disintermediation, and this is another example of it working.
Bitcoin Unlimited is a vote for free markets. SegWit is like a communist centrally planned economy.
https://coin.dance/blocks
OMG!! i'm updating it right now and i've got suprised. Okay, let's imagine how the rogerver is laughing right now. There are less than a percent of the gap between the result of BU and SegWit.
So, BU is for real. But i've curious about how the BU it works. So, can the miners try to run a vote about the transaction fees?
Because i've heard if LN can steal the reward of the miners and it looks like terrible.
OMG!! i'm updating it right now and i've got suprised. Okay, let's imagine how the rogerver is laughing right now. There are less than a percent of the gap between the result of BU and SegWit.
So, BU is for real. But i've curious about how the BU it works. So, can the miners try to run a vote about the transaction fees?
Because i've heard if LN can steal the reward of the miners and it looks like terrible.
As of today SegWit is losing to Bitcoin Unlimited. We can actually get done with this block size debate. Please spread the word and install Bitcoin Unlimited full node instead of Core. This debate has been holding back the price for too long now. It's time for change. Let's make Bitcoin great again.
Graph source: http://xtnodes.com/graphs.php
Graph source: http://xtnodes.com/graphs.php
Quote from: https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/
The Bitcoin Unlimited (BU) project seeks to provide a voice to all stakeholders in the Bitcoin ecosystem.
Every node operator or miner can currently choose their own blocksize limit by modifying their client. Bitcoin Unlimited makes the process easier by providing a configurable option for the accepted and generated blocksize via a GUI menu. Bitcoin Unlimited further provides a user-configurable failsafe setting allowing you to accept a block larger than your maximum accepted blocksize if it reaches a certain number of blocks deep in the chain.
By moving the blocksize limit from the protocol layer to the transport layer, Bitcoin Unlimited removes the only point of central control in the Bitcoin economy - the blocksize limit - and returns it to the nodes and the miners. An emergent consensus will thus arise based on free-market economics as the nodes/miners converge on consensus focal points, creating in the process a living, breathing entity that responds to changing real-world conditions in a free and decentralised manner.
This approach is supported by the evidence accumulated over the past six years. The miners and node operators have until now been free to choose a soft limit which, as demand grew, has always been increased in a responsive and organic manner to meet the needs of the market. We expect miners to continue in this tested and proven free-market way by, for instance, coordinating to set a new generated blocksize limit of 2MB and reject any blocks larger than 2MB unless they reach 4 blocks deep in the longest chain. As demand increases, the limit can easily be increased to 3MB, 4MB, and so on, thus removing central control over the process of finding the equilibrium blocksize by allowing the free market to arrive at the correct choice in a decentralised fashion.
As a foundational principle, we assert that Bitcoin is and should be whatever its users define by the code they run, and the rules they vote for with their hash power.
Every node operator or miner can currently choose their own blocksize limit by modifying their client. Bitcoin Unlimited makes the process easier by providing a configurable option for the accepted and generated blocksize via a GUI menu. Bitcoin Unlimited further provides a user-configurable failsafe setting allowing you to accept a block larger than your maximum accepted blocksize if it reaches a certain number of blocks deep in the chain.
By moving the blocksize limit from the protocol layer to the transport layer, Bitcoin Unlimited removes the only point of central control in the Bitcoin economy - the blocksize limit - and returns it to the nodes and the miners. An emergent consensus will thus arise based on free-market economics as the nodes/miners converge on consensus focal points, creating in the process a living, breathing entity that responds to changing real-world conditions in a free and decentralised manner.
This approach is supported by the evidence accumulated over the past six years. The miners and node operators have until now been free to choose a soft limit which, as demand grew, has always been increased in a responsive and organic manner to meet the needs of the market. We expect miners to continue in this tested and proven free-market way by, for instance, coordinating to set a new generated blocksize limit of 2MB and reject any blocks larger than 2MB unless they reach 4 blocks deep in the longest chain. As demand increases, the limit can easily be increased to 3MB, 4MB, and so on, thus removing central control over the process of finding the equilibrium blocksize by allowing the free market to arrive at the correct choice in a decentralised fashion.
As a foundational principle, we assert that Bitcoin is and should be whatever its users define by the code they run, and the rules they vote for with their hash power.
Jump to: