So do you still support BU? - page 2.

tournamentdan

member

Activity: 118

Merit: 10

Quote from: European Central Bank on April 09, 2017, 02:55:56 PM

never for one second did i support it. that's not because i disagree with big blocks, it's because i disagree with ulterior motives and incompetence. and the absolutely relentless fud and shilling tells me this was not an effort worthy of anyone's respect.

Why not have a problem with cores ulterior motives. They want to make a lot of money off chain for them selves.

AngryDwarf

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 501

Quote from: Peter R on April 09, 2017, 02:34:23 PM

Are you running any node right now? I'd love to see more nodes running on the network with the block size limit completely removed, as you suggest. I think the "Infinity Patch" for Core is an initiative to do this. I'm not sure how far along it is (not that it would be hard to do).

At the end of the day, nodes either accept blocks up to X MB or not. Whether they are running BU, Classic, Core+∞, Bcoin or Btcd doesn't matter.

I'm currently running a Core 0.14 node for its mempool saving feature, since I switch between Windows and Linux. I want to keep an eye on the mempool size so that I can combine UTXO's during low demand. It seems some pools are still using the coin amount * coin age feature, and I've managed to combine a few two UTXO's into a larger one for just 1 sat/byte; one confirmed in the next block, and all confirmed within two hours despite higher fee tx's being in the mempool! It's kind of an insurance policy against protracted block size limits and potential sky rocketing demand/fees. I can run quite relaxed mempool settings using this feature:

Code:

maxmempool=4096
mempoolexpiry=8760
minrelaytxfee=0.00000001

The bitcoin infinity patch sounds interesting, any links? Also I wonder how many alternative node implementations are adding the mempool saving feature that Core 0.14 has. I can fire up a second node under Linux to try a few different implementations out.

tournamentdan

member

Activity: 118

Merit: 10

Quote from: Genedarner123 on April 09, 2017, 02:34:05 PM

Quote from: tournamentdan on April 09, 2017, 02:16:52 PM

Quote from: FlamingFingers on April 09, 2017, 08:19:51 AM

After the Bitmain's ASICBOOST exploit that Jihan Wu used to get an additional 30% (more or less) efficiency for his mining hardware, and the real reason behind Bitmain's attempts to block implementing SegWit has been exposed, do you still support BU after all? If so, why?

Why do core sheep continue to spread lies when not one of the core sheep has posted any data that asic boost has been used?
It's simple to prove or disprove. Yet still no data from the sheep.

Its not about whether they used it or not. The point is such an exploit dose exist and they tried to patent it without making it a public knowledge.

Actually they did make it public knowledge. Just not to the general public. Information about the asicboost was given out to Multiple pools not affiliated with Bitmain.

There isn't any proof that asicboost works. The only thing they may be guilty of is patent trolling. Yet I don't hear many people complaining about core patents for off chain transactions. Which by the way would make them shit tons of money.

European Central Bank

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1087

never for one second did i support it. that's not because i disagree with big blocks, it's because i disagree with ulterior motives and incompetence. and the absolutely relentless fud and shilling tells me this was not an effort worthy of anyone's respect.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: AngryDwarf on April 09, 2017, 12:34:27 PM

I ran a BU node for a while, but now I consider it Bitcoin Unneeded. It's complexity just isn't required. I believe the block size limit should simply be removed altogether (as per the original bitcoin design). I think the right approach is dynamic block size generation, based on transaction pool demand factors, network propagation factors, etc.. Low fee paying transactions can be artificially delayed if required.

Are you running any node right now? I'd love to see more nodes running on the network with the block size limit completely removed, as you suggest. I think the "Infinity Patch" for Core is an initiative to do this. I'm not sure how far along it is (not that it would be hard to do).

At the end of the day, nodes either accept blocks up to X MB or not. Whether they are running BU, Classic, Core+∞, Bcoin or Btcd doesn't matter.

Quote

Previously, pools used to up the block size as a soft limit (until they hit the hard limit). This unfortunately does not keep up with moments of high demand, and provides no fee market pressure during periods of low demand. Unfortunately, when the demand cap is exceeded, the function of the bitcoin network starts to fall apart. That is, zero confirmation transaction risk changes from a disadvantageous double spend propagation attempt to one where the transaction does not confirm at all due to transaction pool forgetfulness, and selective transaction relay from nodes.

Here's a related graph:

Genedarner123

newbie

Activity: 78

Merit: 0

Quote from: tournamentdan on April 09, 2017, 02:16:52 PM

Quote from: FlamingFingers on April 09, 2017, 08:19:51 AM

After the Bitmain's ASICBOOST exploit that Jihan Wu used to get an additional 30% (more or less) efficiency for his mining hardware, and the real reason behind Bitmain's attempts to block implementing SegWit has been exposed, do you still support BU after all? If so, why?

Why do core sheep continue to spread lies when not one of the core sheep has posted any data that asic boost has been used?
It's simple to prove or disprove. Yet still no data from the sheep.

Its not about whether they used it or not. The point is such an exploit dose exist and they tried to patent it without making it a public knowledge.

tournamentdan

member

Activity: 118

Merit: 10

Quote from: FlamingFingers on April 09, 2017, 08:19:51 AM

After the Bitmain's ASICBOOST exploit that Jihan Wu used to get an additional 30% (more or less) efficiency for his mining hardware, and the real reason behind Bitmain's attempts to block implementing SegWit has been exposed, do you still support BU after all? If so, why?

Why do core sheep continue to spread lies when not one of the core sheep has posted any data that asic boost has been used?
It's simple to prove or disprove. Yet still no data from the sheep.

mindrust

legendary

Activity: 3276

Merit: 2442

Quote from: FlamingFingers on April 09, 2017, 08:19:51 AM

After the Bitmain's ASICBOOST exploit that Jihan Wu used to get an additional 30% (more or less) efficiency for his mining hardware, and the real reason behind Bitmain's attempts to block implementing SegWit has been exposed, do you still support BU after all? If so, why?

I stopped supporting them way before this asicboost shit came up. It was decided when i watched dsh/ver utube video conference. I saw there how clueless he is. This ASICBOOST thing made everything just worse. Bitmain shouldn't survive this mess. If they want BU so bad, why don't they start their own shitcoin anyway?

cigaLeider

sr. member

Activity: 390

Merit: 279

Quote from: amacar2 on April 09, 2017, 01:29:33 PM

I have never supported BU before and will not in future. There is no reason to keep supporting a group of people who want to centralize and add inflation on bitcoin. That is completely bullshit, they want to split the network by blocking segwit activation. Angry

Indeed!! Completely bullshit without sense Cheesy

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: AngryDwarf on April 09, 2017, 12:34:27 PM

I ran a BU node for a while, but now I consider it Bitcoin Unneeded. It's complexity just isn't required. I believe the block size limit should simply be removed altogether (as per the original bitcoin design). I think the right approach is dynamic block size generation, based on transaction pool demand factors, network propagation factors, etc.. Low fee paying transactions can be artificially delayed if required.
Previously, pools used to up the block size as a soft limit (until they hit the hard limit). This unfortunately does not keep up with moments of high demand, and provides no fee market pressure during periods of low demand. Unfortunately, when the demand cap is exceeded, the function of the bitcoin network starts to fall apart. That is, zero confirmation transaction risk changes from a disadvantageous double spend propagation attempt to one where the transaction does not confirm at all due to transaction pool forgetfulness, and selective transaction relay from nodes.

Funny how there's 14 shit posts with signature campaigns , raging against the machine, and there's AngryDrawrf,
the only guy without a paid sig, the only guy saying something smart.

Dynamic Block Sizes are a great idea.

amacar2

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1008

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!

I have never supported BU before and will not in future. There is no reason to keep supporting a group of people who want to centralize and add inflation on bitcoin. That is completely bullshit, they want to split the network by blocking segwit activation. Angry

buwaytress

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 3684

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: Hazir on April 09, 2017, 10:55:38 AM

I never supported BU, I consider emergent consensus mechanism which is part of BU as too risky solution which can create other unforeseen problems in the future.

But this argument that ASICBoost is root of all evil (money, duh) is starting to be a bit overplayed IMO.
AFAIK AsicBoost was never used and it it will be clear who are using this tech if activated.

Bitmain's statment: https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/

For whatever reasons I had (I had few that were technically sound, and suspect there are many like me) BU wasn't something I liked and had hoped to fail, so yes, I'm pleased at the current developments. But, like you, I also never bought this latest ASIC nonsense... it's just more of the same vitriole and rhetoric from both sides.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know or have any stats on how BU support has been affected if at all?

BingoDog

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 505

Quote from: JanpriX on April 09, 2017, 12:57:25 PM

I don't really support BU in the first place. I just wanted this scaling debate to get into a decision and just stop this pissing contest. Lets get over with this and just have a compromised decision to find a solution for BTC's problems. We need to move forward. Problems will just keep on piling if let this run for too long.

My opinion exactly. This just doesn't lead to anything. We need quality solution for problems that have appeared and could become even biger if we continue to ignore them and waist time on argues that leeds us to nowhere. And many bitcoin users are very confused and just don't know what to think.

AngryDwarf

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 501

Quote from: 7788bitcoin on April 09, 2017, 12:47:32 PM

I think many people, including myself, support proposal that increase the capacity and reduce the fee- which is what BU seems to promise...

However, being someone with zero knowledge about how BU & Segwit work, I will just leave the inspection to the coding experts. Of course we will need something that will not adversely affect the security of the network.

I think a lot of people would be a lot happier with segwit implemented as a hard fork, along with removal of a hard blocksize cap. In fact, I wonder how much more could be achieved if this irrational fear of a high consensus hard fork is removed.

Monero is about to HF again. I doubt we will have two Monero chains as a result. Probably no drama either. But we will see.

Code:

status
Height: 1285035/1285035 (100.0%) on mainnet, not mining, net hash 75.02 MH/s, v4 (next fork in 5.0 days), up to date, 8(out)+17(in) connections, uptime 0d 19h 50m 58s

Code:

hard_fork_info
version 5 not enabled, 10080/10080 votes, threshold 0
current version 4, voting for version 5

JanpriX

hero member

Activity: 1708

Merit: 606

Buy The F*cking Dip

I don't really support BU in the first place. I just wanted this scaling debate to get into a decision and just stop this pissing contest. Lets get over with this and just have a compromised decision to find a solution for BTC's problems. We need to move forward. Problems will just keep on piling if let this run for too long.

7788bitcoin

legendary

Activity: 2282

Merit: 1023

I think many people, including myself, support proposal that increase the capacity and reduce the fee- which is what BU seems to promise...

However, being someone with zero knowledge about how BU & Segwit work, I will just leave the inspection to the coding experts. Of course we will need something that will not adversely affect the security of the network.

ololajulo

sr. member

Activity: 2240

Merit: 270

SOL.BIOKRIPT.COM

Quote from: FlamingFingers on April 09, 2017, 08:19:51 AM

After the Bitmain's ASICBOOST exploit that Jihan Wu used to get an additional 30% (more or less) efficiency for his mining hardware, and the real reason behind Bitmain's attempts to block implementing SegWit has been exposed, do you still support BU after all? If so, why?

Sorry I didn't get to know the reason behind bitmans blocking segwit

AngryDwarf

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 501

I ran a BU node for a while, but now I consider it Bitcoin Unneeded. It's complexity just isn't required. I believe the block size limit should simply be removed altogether (as per the original bitcoin design). I think the right approach is dynamic block size generation, based on transaction pool demand factors, network propagation factors, etc.. Low fee paying transactions can be artificially delayed if required.
Previously, pools used to up the block size as a soft limit (until they hit the hard limit). This unfortunately does not keep up with moments of high demand, and provides no fee market pressure during periods of low demand. Unfortunately, when the demand cap is exceeded, the function of the bitcoin network starts to fall apart. That is, zero confirmation transaction risk changes from a disadvantageous double spend propagation attempt to one where the transaction does not confirm at all due to transaction pool forgetfulness, and selective transaction relay from nodes.

oktana

sr. member

Activity: 1680

Merit: 288

Eloncoin.org - Mars, here we come!

Quote from: batang_bitcoin on April 09, 2017, 11:44:19 AM

Quote from: BillyBobZorton on April 09, 2017, 10:36:13 AM

Quote from: pixie85 on April 09, 2017, 10:29:56 AM

This proves again that the real motive is always money. The pools started supporting BU because they hoped to gain more cash from it. They didn't do it to support the network or to make it easier for everyone to use Bitcoin, and as Roger Ver proved by not taking the bet, they don't believe in what they're preaching. It's just a means to get richer.

Of course, what did you expect? Miners don't give a fuck about bitcoin other than milking it for more fiat money lol. Also miners don't want a bigger block size in any shape or form, this is all a way to keep bitcoin as it is for as long as possible, they don't care about BU or about segwit or about anything that drives fees down for obvious reasons. Sure there are some that actually care and want to take bitcoin to the next level with segwit + LN but most (chinese) don't care.

We all know the attitude of Chinese people, they are always go for the money as long as they can get much on a particular thing, they will going to push whatever they want on it. And I didn't became a supporter nor a fan with this crazy BU and these people. All of them are selfish, just like billy said, they really don't care with the real function of crypto/bitcoin.

There is nothing wrong with BU, can we compare with capitalism and intervention in Fiat who continue to support continuity of currency. If you want bitcoin shouldn't be monopolized mean you have to think twice when blocksize in future is already finished. Competition and monopoly will be more brutal than the BU concept.

batang_bitcoin

hero member

Activity: 3080

Merit: 603

Quote from: BillyBobZorton on April 09, 2017, 10:36:13 AM

Quote from: pixie85 on April 09, 2017, 10:29:56 AM

This proves again that the real motive is always money. The pools started supporting BU because they hoped to gain more cash from it. They didn't do it to support the network or to make it easier for everyone to use Bitcoin, and as Roger Ver proved by not taking the bet, they don't believe in what they're preaching. It's just a means to get richer.

Of course, what did you expect? Miners don't give a fuck about bitcoin other than milking it for more fiat money lol. Also miners don't want a bigger block size in any shape or form, this is all a way to keep bitcoin as it is for as long as possible, they don't care about BU or about segwit or about anything that drives fees down for obvious reasons. Sure there are some that actually care and want to take bitcoin to the next level with segwit + LN but most (chinese) don't care.

We all know the attitude of Chinese people, they are always go for the money as long as they can get much on a particular thing, they will going to push whatever they want on it. And I didn't became a supporter nor a fan with this crazy BU and these people. All of them are selfish, just like billy said, they really don't care with the real function of crypto/bitcoin.

Topic: So do you still support BU? - page 2. (Read 2101 times)