Topic: SegWit vs Bitcoin unlimited - page 4. (Read 4767 times)

Recently I saw the quote in which satoshi talked about changing the block size as a possible solution to such problems.

The point is, this quote was made in 2010. At that time there was no SegWit.
So, in fact, perhaps larger blocks were the best solution at that time. However, it's hard to know what satoshi would say these days...

BU in short removes a single mostly unimportant line in the bitcoin protocol.

SegWit is a brutal hack into many places of the bitcoin protocol that is still not understood fully how it finally plays out and now litecoin tries to test it in real live soon.

You decide whats a bigger risk and could be called an altcoin.

I think both sides are over complicating the issue and this leads to confusion. Satoshi would most probably just up'ed the block size a tiny bit,

and addressed all the other issues on their own. Now Blockstream added all these extra features/fixes to make it more attractive, and people

got confused. Most developers make this mistake.... over engineering the solution.   ....The answer is simple, keep the protocol clean and

secure and do off-chain payments for scalability... Oh, but that is what Blockstream is trying to do, or not... see, now I am also confused.  

Probably not, and what makes things even worse is the fact that, according to some comments, he has a large percentage of hashpower.
I read that a 95% consensus is required for SegWit activation. Does anyone know how much of that Roger Ver has?

"Antonopoulos Supports SegWit, Opens Doors For Lightning and TumbleBit"
Bitcoin experts including Andreas Antonopoulos believe that the activation of SegWit offers more improvements apart from scalability, as it opens the door for alternative solutions such as the Lightning Network (Lightning) and TumbleBit.
“Ironically, people who object to [Lightning] are vehemently against [trusted party custodial] but by resisting SegWit are actually encouraging and feeding centralization into more counterparty-risk through centralized intermediaries. Demand is already pushing us that way. The lack of a trustless alternative leaves only one alternative,” said Antonopoulos.

Bitcoin expert Antonopoulos also emphasized that the failure to active SegWit and Lightning pushes bitcoin users to rely on on-coinbase transactions, which are worse.

Ultimately, in consideration of the opportunities for second layer solutions which Bitcoin's upgrade can provide, Antonopoulos states that he supports the activation of SegWit.

One is a hardfork and only tries to increase blocksize.Nothing excited about that.
The other, SegWit, fixes txn malleability and opens the door for many other great possible implementations.
Furthermore it's just a softfork.
I would like to see both happening in the long run.However when you ask me what should happen first I say SegWit!

And why the DAO happened? Becouse several lamers decided that they are great programmers and make shit code.
With unlimited we have the same situation. Who will fix bugs in unlimited? Roger Ver?

you have no clue, try reading the code.
run simulations. research and learn


it doesnt. segwit is a one time temporary boost of tx count, that only boosts if people use segwit keys.
later that boost is taken away when future core features re-bloat the blockchain.

again try reading the code. run simulations. reseach and learn.

LN (later feature) is not a be alll-end all solution. its just a side service that puts peoples funds into permissioned contracts.
these contracts are not suitable for everyone.

but i hazard to guess you care and are more imagining the profits you can make from being a hub(commercial service), rather than thinking about bitcoins permissionless no barrier if entry ethos

Well, I would assume with changes like Segwit, miners would wait for a critical percentage of all nodes to be capable of handling witness blocks. Which you would assume would be 50%, so maybe we'll see more change soon, seeing as that milestone was reached recently. Activating before then would've invited messy chain re-orgs and unintended forks, so it's better to keep those risks low. We'll see how these "deadwit" claims stand up once that number moves definitively past 50%

If segwit solves the scalability issue then there's no nessesary to make dynamic blocks. What for? Just to gratify 3 weepers?

You don't mention that Unlimited splits network if it reaches only 51%.

best unbiased option

a real consensus release where core include dynamic blocks and segwit.
starting with 2mb base 4mb weight.

where nodes upgrade and show desire for and then at a certain point. pools then vote for when they see that nodes can validate their blocks
meaning pools dont see the big risks if they see node majority acceptance.

that way everyone gets what they want
and brings core back onto a level playing field with the network.. rather then the dictator path they want.

decentralised diverse consensus driven code updates is what bitcoin should be about. not dictator dev driven code that bypasses consensus.

Lol. There's literally few people on this forum who understand both segwit and unlimited and those have somewhat informed opinion. The rest is just cheering for the camp they feel is right.

Anyhow, segwit support stuck at 25%, you can hardly blame 'some forum trolls' for that.
Apparently, to get things moving one way or the other, you have to organise few closed-door meetings with the miners, because that's how decentralisation works nowadays.

and thats why all consensus using proposals have gone with "overwhelming support" before even thinking of activating.


also for the silly people comparing it to ethereum.
ethereum was not a consensus proposal it was a intentional split. (some call a bilateral split)where by extra code was added to intentionally ignore the opposition rather then find mutual agreement.

google: ethereum --oppose-dao-fork

no other bitcoin implementation wants an intentional split. but some devs on segwits side want those not supporting segwit to split away. by calling anything not supporting segwit an altcoin... even though the nodes not supporting segwit are actually running on the mainnet so are not an altcoin (showing how misinformed and desperate segwit enthusiasts are getting)

---

core actually advised non segwit supporters to intentionally split.. non supporters laughed and refused

again only core, who have stated core would do an intentional split to get segwit added, if things got desperate enough

the real funny part..
if it reached 90%.. instead of activating it and just causing a bit of TEMPORARY consensus orphan drama risk.. they would prefer to split the network.. (foolish knee jerk plan)

core do not trust or want consensus, its why they decided against nod consensus and instead skipped to a fake (consensus emulating) pool vote

Well it adds complexity, esp. as softfork. Its also not a blocksize solution per se, it just happens to have that as a side effect. It solves malleability though and allows and more easy introduction of new transaction types in the future.


I dont know what reasons other may or may not have, it often boils down to petty politics I dont really care about. Unlimited tries to give node operators more control over how large blocks can be. Whether or not that actually works or is just a placebo and miners are still in control I cant say.

---

Just leave this thread open for a bit and the comments about how this side or that side is evil and leads to damnation (centralization) will come.

So everybody understands that Segwit is inconceivably better, but some trolls on the forum, whose posts I've read, keep getting on the way.  
What possible reasons may they have, backing unlimited against Segwit?  

Every hardfork without overwhelming support can cause a network split. In order to increase the block size a hardfork is needed and it was (and might be again) on the core roadmap as well. As Carlton Banks said, the difference is who controls the code, both projects plan (or at least planned) to do a hardfork to X MB.

In my opinion a hardfork will seriously damage bitcoins reputation and could send us back years to main adoption (if it dosnt kill the project)  And it is a cert that some people will continue to mine the old chain which could create competing bitcoins.  it would be a disaster, can we not just activate segwit and LN and then increase the block size over a defined period ?  

What happened with Etherium was due to the DAO hack and then the hardfork ultimately divided the community.
This won't be the case at all with Bitcoin unlimited, if it ever comes to fruition.

SegWit is the way to go.