Topic: SegWit losing Bitcoin Unlimited winning -> Moon soon - page 2. (Read 13510 times)

With Segwit an off-chain transaction will be enabled making miners lose profit.  If  you look at this at a miners perspective, it really is a foul since they are the one securing the network and is competing with one another to get the reward.  they had been like this ever since.  We can say miners  gone greedy now a day skipping low fee transactions,  but I think it is the senders fault because they feed the miners greed by adjusting their fee higher to confirm easily.  I am not a pro BU, but with segwit and LN, isn't it centralization already? If it is not, care to explain to me why it isn't?

BU will fork regardless of the voting outcome.Anyway if you read the whitepaper and look at some of his posts here Satoshi said Bitcoin would need to hard fork when this scenario of Bitcoin congestion arrived.I believe he thought it would happen before now.

Guys we really need to stop fighting, it's obvious that there are powers interested in keeping us divided so BTC development will stall and it will not be able to scale. SegWit is here now and it will bump up the blocksize to 2-2.5 MB. This is what Classic wanted a year ago so why reject it now? BU requires a contentious hard fork and thus has no realistic chance to succeed or if it did it would be catastrophic, but SegWit actually has a chance to be activated if we stop this infighting and move forward together. Miners need good information about SegWit and realize that it's also in their best interest to activate it. If we are able to come together and activate SegWit it would be a major positive signal for Bitcoin and it will lead to more transactions per block, lower fees and a much higher Bitcoin price. If we do neither then we'll stay stuck in the current deadlock, another bear market will begin and the manipulators and social engineers get their way. Maybe this is what needs to happen before miners wake up, but I'd prefer we not go through this difficult period at all.

satoshi hated BUgcoin

false


false


false


false


false


false


false


speculation. faulty speculation


faulty speculation


false

I think there will be a consensus about the increase of the block size. So Most hash will go to one chain and there will be very short time with two chains.

Ok, you are calling me a liar. I would like to see you disprove what I have written.  I accept that "Bitcoin will lose 90+% of its value within 2 years, people will move to independent alts. Who wants a company managing Bitcoin, might as well use Visa" is my opinion based on what I know. Im pretty sure the rest is truthful.

I think that larger blocks have some merit, but I do not think that BU has any merit at all.

I'm impressed how many bald-faced lies you are able to spew in a single post.

I think you have chosen the wrong side for decentralization lol.

BU is a centralized company trying to do a hostile takeover of Bitcoin. Core are a bunch of volunteer developers (some of whom are paid by MIT and Blockstream) but any developer can volunteer to work for core and help make Bitcoin better. BU want in install a president of Bitcoin, not all the BU code they release is reviewed, not all the code they release if visible for anyone to see, and all developers are paid employees. So if BU ever manages to take over the Bitcoin chain, Bitcoin will lose 90+% of its value within 2 years, people will move to independent alts. Who wants a company managing Bitcoin, might as well use Visa.

BU's bigger blocks can also mean smaller blocks, the miners decide on the blocksize, so in theory they could vote for smaller blocks and thus higher fees. The other issue with larger block is the larger the block the more decentralized the miners become. If the blocksize went much larger quickly only data centres would be able to mine as no one else would have the bandwidth or storage needed. If the blocksize were to hit 4mb in the next year or 2 then the whole of Austrialia and Africa would be unable to process the data needed to mine due to bandwidth. So that is 2 continents without any possible mining.

No matter which side ends up winning, a conclusion to this debate would be good for bitcoin either way.

Personally I'd prefer it if BU wins though, because I want bitcoin to remain decentralized.

When I can start double spend on both chains?

Perhaps I should start my own wallet implementation and name it Bitcoin-Hyena (BitCH) with black jack and merged mining

I hope ALL the BTU Chinacoin shills join Hyena and move to classic.

Merged mining LOL

Given up on your beloved BU after a few weeks?



Did Classic offer you more money to shill & FUD than BU were willing to? Like the draft so you were transferred?

Forget about BU, Bitcoin Classic is going to fork!

I'm with Bitcoin Classic, they have really nice conservative philosophy about the development of Bitcoin. No bullshit SegWit soft fork hacks.

i've just searched long and hard and i can't see one single sign either in my room or anywhere on the internet.

It won't fork, there's no chance. 

BU hard fork will happen this incoming week too many signs to ignore

So less btu equals more price. That ain't exactly surprising.

The unlimited people had a chance but they blew it with crappy coding and authoritarian overtones.

All they had to do was be a better bitcoin in every way.