Topic: SegWit losing Bitcoin Unlimited winning -> Moon soon - page 7. (Read 13507 times)

How so ? In bitcoin miners can have all the power and they can do whatever they like. And probably not even 1 out of 100 miners can further develop the protocol. And what iamnotback meant by that is generally true in crypto space because there aren't really too many alternatives in a programming niche at it's inception. Imagine replacing vitalik. Who better to understand what he created if not him ?

IMO miners are working perfectly

there is a large % of the community that wants bigger blocks, and now we see that being reflected in hashing power.

make no mistake, poeple aren't looking at BU "because miners", miners are looking at BU "because people!"

Then that open source project has failed, whatever it is.

Depending on miners is probabil bitcoin's biggest flaw. But people think satoshi is modern jesus so they will fight you for saying otherwise. He who left us the 10 commandments cannot be wrong. It is said.

As a full node operator I have a power to reject blocks larger than my threshold of confidence. Core does not even provide the users with such an option which is incredibly selfish of them. It puzzles me how you are quite reasonable with constructing the arguments backing up your own philosophy but when trying to undermine the opposing philosophy you suddenly lose the way of reason and give in to emotion. As a market equilibrium expert you should know that miners are definitely not going to increase block size to infinity. Even if they wanted to it would be physically impossible due to orphan rate.


That's right. You cast your vote and I'm casting mine. But those who have so far been neutral in this debate will most likely choose the side that does not censor opposing arguments (which by the way is a big red sign of weakness).

Sometimes a key developer is not fungible and not replaceable.

But miners are fungible and when the token has a value, then the miners come. Miners are just paid fungible slaves. They better accept their role and STFU, unless they want to 51% attack BTC but I am hoping they don't start that war (and I think they know it wouldn't make much sense to do it).

thats what core wants us to think!

devs provide options, nodes(users + miners) pick and choose the best options.
thankfully the devs do things like signaling so we can see who's willing to accept what so we can work toward consensus.

believe it or not devs to not get to force consensus.

we are all kind of nessary to the consensus process.

we need devs to provide the code
miners must be willing to run it
nodes must also be willing to run it
and most importantly ( but the easiest to sway ) , the economic majority must be willing to go along with it.

Consistency of blockchain state within the protocol is an orthogonal concept to decisions to change the protocol, which only the token users have the power to decide. The miners are just the paid workers for the former activity. They have absolutely no power to change the protocol. For example, a 51% attack is not a change in the protocol.


Afaik, there is nothing in BU's protocol which insures that the block size can only increase "a little". Your third quoted sentence above is not even wrong.


Well those who make the wrong decisions end up bankrupt. So let's hope we all get a chance to decide whether to hold BTU or BTC. Because I understand BTU is incompetent and its supporters don't understand blockchain technology.

BU is not an altcoin, it is a proposal to solve the Bitcoin's block size issue. Bitcoin's consensus is working as originally intended by Satoshi Nakamoto (miners vote with their hashing power). Right now miners increasingly prefer Bitcoin Unlimited. BU does not actually mean unlimited block size. It means unlimited potential.  Doing nothing hurts Bitcoin more than increasing the block size a little.

@iamnotblack

Long text = shit text. If you can't deliver your arguments reasonably briefly then your arguments might not be worth reading. Conventional rhetoric does not work in the Internet whether you like it or not. And believe me, you wouldn't want to raise your annoying voice in the jungle either. Those who need long paragraphs to explain a simple idea are basically executing a Denial of Service attack on the readers. My response to your DOS is simply to ignore it.

You have this unreasonable paranoia of potentially unlimited blocks and then you have this wild fantasy of how you imagine market equilibrium playing out. You refer to "smart people" and you think you have nailed it. Don't make me laugh. If you're so smart then why aren't you rich yet? Because everyone else is too stupid to believe your ideas and see the light? Let me tell you something about online debates. You can't win them. So if you are writing long texts and I am refusing to read them then you are the jackass DOSing yourself while writing stuff that no one bothers to read. At the end of the day I believe even more in the Bitcoin Unlimited project and you will probably believe even more in this new altcoin called SegWitCoin that innovates by introducing Proof-of-BlockStream where consensus is dictated by the best interests of the BlockStream company.

But Bu is just an altcoin. does it mean that bitcoin will become just like any other altcoin?

I have no idea. Wasn't there originally a compromise offered at 8MB by some group? I haven't been following the ongoing wranglings.

But unbounded block size was a proposal that killed my trust in their competence. And having Roger Ver as their spokesman making incorrect statements about for example 0-confirmations security makes me not trust BU's competence.

Currency is about confidence. I don't have sufficient confidence in their competence (nor do I trust that their intentions are totally sincere and good because unbounded size blocks is a weapon against smaller and non-cartel affiliated miners).

@iamnotback
what is the current max block size BU miners are willing to accept

Only to those who lack the intellect/patience to comprehend/contemplate the point. I've had numerous smart people (very highly respected members of this forum but I won't name them) peer review this and tell me in private messages that @Peter R's thesis is flawed.


Sorry if math and blockchain game theory and economics can't be reduced to a sound bite. I think you'd prefer Twitter.


Then they better not create a protocol with unlimited size blocks, because then they will end up fighting a war between themselves for winner-take-all. But you didn't understand my explanation of the game theory. And these BU miners apparently don't either. But actually I think they do understand and they must know that they do want a winner-take-all control. And so they are trying to take what they think they own from us the owners of the actual tokens (but then later it turns into a battle between themselves and that is one humorous irony of it).

Hey I also want a larger block size. It is ridiculous we are still stuck at 1 MB. There needs to be some reasonable balance between fees and block size. But unlimited (unbounded) size is a different thing entirely.

It is Roger Ver who doesn't understand technology and game theory issues as well as he thinks he does, who is messing everything up by going around putting incorrect lies into the minds of n00bs such as yourself.

I realize that Core is also probably doing something sneaky as well. And I realize that they put things in SegWit such as the ability to softfork version changes which can basically given them unlimited power in the future. I understand there is likely evil going on there. But as a holder of BTC tokens, I don't want chaos. I want continuity. And I also don't want people who propose broken ideas, to have the power to create chaos. If you want to challenge Core, you shouldn't be promulgating an incorrect white paper which was not peer reviewed.


I empathize. The 1 MB block is holding back Bitcoin and thus harming miners' investment. I am not saying that I agree with the 1MB block. There is this battle between Core and miners for control apparently. If you wanted to upend Core, then you should have more competent people who would have advised you that unbounded block size doesn't have an equilibrium.


Fact is that if no one wants to buy tokens from their unbounded size blocks protocol, then they can burn their excess hashrate at a loss until they go bankrupt. That is the reality. Excess hashrate supply doesn't force demand for tokens. It is demand for tokens that determines the supply of hashrate. You've got that backwards.

The polls I've seen and the policy of the exchanges seems to show that your mining cartel buddies are going to lose. But we'll have to see how this plays out.

My popcorn is ready. I don't really have any vested interest in this fight (I had planned to ride BTC to $2000+ until this fight with BTU came on to the scene and forced me to look into this and diversify a bit). I am more of an observer, except that I wanted to set the record straight on whether unlimited size blocks are a solution (they are not).

Yes I am making a shitcoin where "miners" have no power at all to do shit like this. But that is not here nor there relevant right now.

@iamnotback

you write a lot of text and you fail to deliver your point. please go rant somewhere else or learn to explain your thoughts more briefly. yes, there are a lot of cool words in the English language and I'm sure you'd like to use all of them but if you want people to bother to read your texts then keep it short. I believe this is not a poetry subforum. I've seen your kind in the university, you have a lot to learn how communication works on the Internet. I'll bet you're not good with girls either.

I guess your fallacy lies in the fact that you assume everyone else is as egoistic as you are. You're probably also an atheist. Well, here's a big shocker for you --- people are not as egoistic as you think they are. Miners care about the future of Bitcoin and since they have invested a lot in mining equipment they will most likely defend their investment. If miners vote for bigger blocks then so be it, that's Nakamoto consensus and it's the Bitcoin I signed up for in 2011. If you don't like it GTFO and start your own shitcoin with a different ruleset.

Much to contemplate...

Im also looking at how to profit from the BTC/Bucoin situation and I was considering ETH, but im not sure what % should I move on there.

Where are you holding your ETH? even if it's short term holding, I don't trust poloniex.

Also, you claimed Core will eventually win and BTC will see $2000 because BUcoin is fundamentally flawed and compared it to the ETH/ETC situation.

Seems clear there is a good chance to potentially double your BTC holdings for free (minus the % you move to ETH in case BTC actually becomes a mess... let's hope this does not happen)

My problem is: ETC never had any relevant amount of hashrate, BU has 40%+ already. Hashrate is supposed to follow price, but im worried it will be the opposite: people will get scared and move to BU if we see a bigger hashrate.

Then we also have Roger Ver loaded with up to 300,000+ BTC ready to dump to crash the BTC price and trigger fear and get people buying BUcoins in a DASH pump style (in fact he may crash DASH in the process, to make it look everyone is moving into BUcoin)

Interesting poker game.. if it wasn't for the fact that my entire fucking portfolio is on the line. And I can't move to FIAT because as soon as I move to FIAT i'll be raped by the taxman, that is if I don't get my bank account frozen if they see I dealt with crypto... ffs.

There's also the option to simply hold in USDT (Tether) but im not sure if you can hold this safely outside of poloniex.

Edit: bonus option... there's also the possibility that Jihan Wu backpeddles and doesn't hard fork. But I think his ego is too big and he will go to the end, assuming he isn't being paid to try to kill bitcoin that is.

So if I understand you correctly, you assert that the fact that not everyone is willing to pay the same transaction fee rate in BTC/B, this is somehow demonstrative of a failure of free markets? Cause that's what it looks like you are claiming.

You seem to have successfully demonstrated the central argument that each miner is incentivized to include as many high-BTC/B transactions up to the point where transaction fee = marginal orphanage cost. So what is the problem? Why do you consider this as 'not free market'?

I see nothing in this that suggests BU is worse than core in this regard. Help me understand.

I'm looking at a range of $950-980 and anything consistently below that falls into very dangerous territory. I think a split would lead to a major shift into Ethereum with a period of decline and consolidation for Bitcoin.

Unlimited block size may not be a technological solution, but I think the end-game would be reasonably far off - at least a year or two. Personally I'd rather risk choosing the BU team since they can learn and add to the team, whereas core is so sclerotic that it would be game over immediately.