Topic: SegWit losing Bitcoin Unlimited winning -> Moon soon - page 9. (Read 13534 times)

~
Can you explain how miners increase profit by increasing the block size, this doesn't compute for me. Currently miners are gaining the most out of everyone from the current status quo because of the rising fees. They could be thinking long term ie lets not make $1 on 100 transactions, let's make $0.001 on a Million transactions, but that's a long long way off and might not ever happen.
~

Bitcoin Unlimited (BU), which has been touted as being the fix to Bitcoin’s blockchain transaction backlog, has suffered a blow after attackers unleashed a new bug that crashed the system.

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.

BUcoiners are at an all time high in terms of denial. BU's developer incompetence got exposed again, and not only that, all the fake nodes got taken down at once.

http://bitcoinist.com/bu-critical-bug-millions-fork/

If someone was stupid enough to consider BU, after this is definitely over. The price didn't even move because no one cares about BU, yet delusional BUcoiners will make up some story on their mind justifying the BU's shitshows time after time lol.

What's even more shocking is, they steal 99.99% of code, add 00.01% and still manage to fuck up at such level.

This is small, the biggest bug in BU has still not been fixed and is not even recognised as such.

i.e. Emergent consensus failure bug

The 'emergent consensus' mechanism means miners can increase profit by increasing the blocksize.

The only thing stoping increasing the blocksize is the increasing cost of bigger blocks due to orphan rate.

To optimise for profit miners will have competitive pressure to reduce orphan rate and that is easily done by centralisation of  mining.

With centralised mining Bitcoin is led to a permanent failure mode as it devolves into a fully centralised system. Centralised mining and centralised nodes.

This is a massive, massive, catastrophic bug that would slowly kill Bitcoin if the network would run on BU (unlikely). This still has not been fixed by Bitcoin Unlimited.

Yeah - miners thought they are in control here - but they forgot that they need devs (and exchanges also - but that is for another argument).

BU is bugged.

Bitcoin Unlimited doing good. We can make this altcoin bubble burst, just keep supporting the good stuff.

Bitcoin Unlimited doing good. We can make this altcoin bubble burst, just keep supporting the good stuff.

this isn't quite right.
BU does not remove the limit.
BU isn't even much of a change for the status quo
BU keeps a limit.
the only real difference as that it doesn't require a 1 line edit + recompile to change that limit.
ofocure the code is more involved then this, BU clients take EB and AD and such into consideration, but thats besides the point.
the point is, BU doesn't remove the limit, it just makes it user define instead of hardcoded.

I believe the biggest plus to making this blocksize limit "market driven", is that it will allow for a stable TX fee market to form.

with a static limit the size of blocks will never be optimal and always lead to a screwed up fee market, either their is simply to much blockspace ( 8MB ) in which the fee market dies and all BTC TX get in a block with no fee at all, or the blocksize is to small (1MB) and miners loss out on potential fees of including a few more TX on each block.

with this market driven limit we will not see 1MB 2MB 8MB blocks.... Nope, miners will quickly realize that its in there best interst to have a blocksize limit which creates SOME fee pressure. besides the whole "bigger blocks will hurt decentration"  rhetoric, there will be a real economic incentive to agree on a minimalistic blocksizelimit.

we'll see block size incress at rate which keeps fee pressure at an optimal rate, and honestly i just dont see TX demand going up 10X  in a year. what is more likely IMO is seeing blocks grow like  1.1MB 1.25MB 1.4MB .... up to 8MB 4 years from now once fee paying BTC TX demand has increased about 8x

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.