Topic: So who the hell is still supporting BU? - page 15. (Read 29824 times)

You are confusing Competition with Stealing.

LN Locks BTC in Place ONCHAIN, once locked there can be no future transactions fees for the miners on that amount of BTC until LN releases the lock.
However LN can makes an infinite amount of transaction fees OFFCHAIN on that locked amount, while for the miners it is frozen.

Stealing is an accurate description of what LN will do to the miners.
They are stealing the ability of the miners to make transaction fees from the Locked BTC.

To get a Competition you need Litecoin or another Altcoins, because at no time , does one directly block the other from receiving transaction fees.
(They are competing against each other.)

 

Then I would like to see Off-Chain TX and Sub-Chain TX rather yesterday than tomorrow. Competition is better than the current centralization with 5-10 miners!

I love the semantic hair split between "issue" and "problem" that you start off with.  Great spin.  Very Comical Ali of you.

But how can you predict exact future scenarios like that?  Are you psychic?  Do you have visions or hear angels?

The rest of us simply don't know the specifics about the situation (which seems to be both empirical and theoretical!) you are describing.

Doesn't the percent of total mining power the putative attack block creator determine the likelihood of his attack fork will be reclaimed by the defending chain?

Doesn't variance also play a non-computable role in determining whether the attack block-based or defending chain-based side will win?

If the quadratic hashing issue is a truly a "non-problem" then why did Gavin write an unforgivably kludgy, quick and dirty, non-futureproof workaround for it?   

There is no "Optimistic mining" in Bitcoin Unlimited (not that I'd be against adding it as an optional feature). 

LOL, This is my Happy Face.  




 

Except that 'slim block submission' (I assume you mean Xthin?) absolutely does not lead to 'every single miner starting to mine empty unverified blocks'. The two are completely orthogonal.

Xthin and Expedited Relay are both benefits to he network as a whole. Optimistic Mining is a benefit to each miner that existing incentives ensure will be implemented by miners whether they run some BU derivation, some Core derivation, or any other.

Interestingly, Xthin reduces the percentage of block interval over which Optimistic Mining is beneficial. Thereby working exacly opposite to your claim.

So what are you complaining about, again? You've certainly not articulated anything probative.

No need to get ugly about it all.

Remember

Bitcoin vs. Bankers

Not

Bitcoin vs. Bitcoin

Miners will lose profit from ONCHAIN transactions fees, due to LN taking the majority of transactions OFFCHAIN.

Are you blind or just stupid, where you can't understand that.

LN will Steal Transactions fees from the Miners.

or are you another Dufus , that thinks Offchain is more trustworthy than ONCHAIN.


 

Yeah, as I said. the truth is is his holly book. (or in this case holly code)

meanwhile over 60% are smarter and on neither side. yet some troll want to throw anyone not kissing blockstreams ass.. into a BU camp

MEGA FAIL if bitcoin understanding.

time you learned
consensus.

also even without killing the parent.. a child can be a orphan just by being rejected. real world orphanages are not just places whre kids whos parents have died are placed. (learn real world logic)

you can play with buzzwords and rebrand things all you like. but to real people that look beyond the buzzword games of twisting the narative. the truth speaks for itself

Apologies for not being explicit then: The combination of "Xthin" "Expedited Relay" and "Optimistic mining" that BU explicitly is pushing since you want to be pedantic about terminology, and he links the articles that describe it himself, so I'm rebutting not only what's in the article, but his own linked articles within it.

2years ago. You really have to dig out really history to make a point.
A lot can happen in 2 years
Seems like the BU people are working with the theory "repeating a lie makes it true" since they are spamming the same bs in every thread.
Often with quotes. Nice way to raise your post-count without really typing anything. Its just copy/paste and move on.
_______________________________________________
Miners will loose profit..
gmaxwell is part of the "new world order" or something like that
BU is really leading and core is blocking while the statistic is showing something else
China supports BU, and they are over 50% of the miners, while the statistic shows that only 18% of the miners support BU
The ABCD-what-ever attack that have been copy-pasted all over the place.
same BS over and over again
The crappy code fork that happened a few days ago that BU tries to blame core for. (Yes, I know. Franky don't know the difference between orphan and invalid blocks, but he sure like to copy paste that crap)
__________________________________________________________
It is like arguing with really fanatic religious people.
"My book says this, so reality must be wrong."

Please come up with something new

less than 2 years ago, CB actually advocated for dynamic blocks.. then all a sudden his care of bitcoin diminished and he went to defending the blockstream "elitist developers"

there is no point arguing with CB or lauda. all they want to do is meander the topic away from technical debate
such as
segwit does not solve quadratic spam because malicious users will just use native keys to bypass it.
segwit does not solve malleability double spend scams because malicious users will just use native keys to bypass it.

but lauda and CB cant rebut the truth. so they will start the poking the bear of personal attacks and then raise a victim card when the attacks play back at them.

best to just laugh at their well know tricks and stick to the technicals. let them go silently into the background offering nothing to the topic.

so keeping to the topic.
segwit is not a solution and is not needed. thats why the majority of th pools are undecided or not advocating for segwit.
along with the fact that blockstream failed by thinking they could get it in just with a pool vote, without needing to have a bilateral split back door.

blockstream should just get a segwit tx into a block to prove the "backward compatibility" and safe non event they promise.
if they refuse they will never win confidence

Already did, troll.  I was talking to you.  And it's perfectly reasonable.  Even you seemed to think so at one point.  Ironically, your stance would be reasonable too if you weren't acting like such an unreasonable flailing crackpot in trying to force your views down the throats of others.  The simple fact of the matter is, I don't care how traumatised you are by the existence of other clients and developers, they still have every right to exist and to continue doing what they're doing.  The reason I'm perfectly happy for BU to exist is because I trust the consensus mechanism.  Just because I question Core's direction, it doesn't mean I want BU to be governing the network, you spectacularly presumptuous arse.  I think there should be an increase to the blocksize, I'd prefer it to be algorithmic if possible, but I'm happy for SegWit to be activated first if that's what it takes to get the hardliners like you to STFU.

lol you're one disgrace of a human, you may be more subtle than Franky, but it only serves to make you look less classy.


See if you can describe your ideal Bitcoin, you know "the free marketplace of ideas, where all can have their voices heard above the ivory towers of the elitist developers", and that NOT sounding like a faint description of the Bitcoin Unlimited fork every single time you repeat it.

You know, the only time your posts sound appealing? And they sound the same way an advertisement for BU would look like, just without the logo

If he's not a troll, then how do you justify his actions here?  He entered a completely unrelated thread to start accusing me with his paranoid delusions, despite the fact that I'd quite like to see SegWit activated to see how effective it is in the real world.  But Carlton simply can't cope with anyone having a different opinion and will lash out with insults, weasel out of justifying his position, throw more insults and then play the victim when someone calls him out on it.  And that's when he's not screaming at people to fork off.  There may have been a time where he was capable of having a reasonable discussion, but now he's undeniably a troll.  I find him to be a pernicious and loathsome creature.

I can see how people have legitimate concerns over BU, because I have some too and I still believe an algorithmic proposal would be far better than this "emergent consensus" stuff.  Given the choice between some variant of BIP106 and BU, I'd go for BIP106 every time.  But I don't have that option, because even though it clearly has more merit than emergent consensus, no one seems to be developing it, which is a pity (although if there were a way to combine the two theories to balance each other out, that might work, but again, pretty unlikely to be developed).  Conversely, I can also see how some people have legitimate concerns over SegWit and Lightning, but people in this thread are almost certainly taking it to extremes.  The problem is, nearly all the these concerns, as evidenced by this thread, won't be quelled unless SegWit gets a chance to prove what it can do.  Until then, everyone will keep posting their campfire horror stories about how it's supposedly going to play out.



That's trolling, too, btw.  Insults and accusations of ill intent are Carlton's specialty, let him be the troll who does that.  I know you can do better.

The quadratic hashing issue is a non-problem. Any miner that creates a block that takes inordinate time to validate will find himself bankrupted by other miners who continue hashing on the same parent to find a peer solved block. Such a peer solved block will validate well before the aberrant block, leading to the aberrant block being orphaned. 'Problem' solved. With the incentives as they exist today. Unchanged.


Merely an unneeded approach to a non-problem. See above.


Emergent consensus is -- once you strip away all the trappings of centralized planning -- the exact security model Bitcoin has enjoyed since day one.


Not exactly - reward and halving are not calculated to occur on specific dates, but rather block heights. We speak in terms of rough dates merely to simplify cognition for us humans.


You're slipping Lauda - your statements are usually at least semi-defensible from at least one narrow angle. This one is downright ludicrous no matter what viewpoint you come at it.


The only way that statement is not a lie, is be re-defining what Bitcoin actually _is_. The fact that you are trying to paper over this obvious observation is what is pathetic.

inb4: haha! you're pulling a slick willie!

Why are they pushing the use of segwit when they know that it is impossible to get a 95% consensus. Segwit is dead and has no future and that is why some miners are already preferring to use 8mb blocksize and Block unlimited as a solution to the limited blocksize which is 1 mb. BTC core should not push segwit any longer but instead move for the adoption of 8 mb blocksize. We dont really need LN or anything else but what miners need is a consensus and the best option is to increase the blocksize to 8 mb.

thats a laugh Lauda doesnt even know C++
he cant even read more than 6 paragraphs so obviously has not reviewed the code. nor reviewed the LONG explanations of risks.

i even linked him the link he linked and highlighted one paragraph and he fails to even read/understand it even when wrote by the kings he has devoted his fake mantra and lack of morals to.

if anything he is just a spell checker trying to show loyalty as an unpaid intern, hoping for a job.

lauda is not interested in bitcoin or protecting bitcoin. he exists to protect blockstream

Last time I heard BU has 18% of votes other versions have something like +12% of votes and the rest belongs to Core users. If I'm not mistaken any change in the source code needs 95% of nodes to vote but with current situation all I see is a freaking stalemate. who's fault is that?

@Lauda, aren't you one of the GitHub contributors?