Topic: So who the hell is still supporting BU? - page 20. (Read 29824 times)

If you understand that segwit is needed for Lightning, this should convince you.

Money, blockchains, and social scalability

http://unenumerated.blogspot.hr/2017/02/money-blockchains-and-social-scalability.html

If you need some specific context to understand why BU sucks, this article is ideal.

Meet the Man Running the Only [Full] Bitcoin Node In West Africa | Running costs are 12% of GDP per capita in Nigeria

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5t44pd/meet_the_man_running_the_only_full_bitcoin_node/

I'm supporting Bitcoin unlimited. I'm not a BU extremist like some others on the forum, but it's obvious that Segwit has its flaws. Bitcoin Unlimited is the best fork available right now. If you think otherwise, convince me.

for me i only consider something spam if its moving funds every block or two.

even a shop-o-holic cant spend money that quickly

We can argue the merits, but I think it's just pragmatic to assume that neither Segwit nor Unlimited will move forward and be adopted. Stalemate.


I should've removed the word "only".  I understand that Unlimited is a solid proposal, but it's rise clearly correlates with the release and failure of Segwit. Classic and XT never got over 10%, but I think they would've matched Unlimited's performance if they were the "hot alternative" when Segwit dropped.  


I disagree with this statement. If a transaction has greater than an arbitrary number of inputs, it's likely spam. If a transaction is larger than some arbitrary number of bytes, it's likely spam. I haven't researched the finer details of this topic, but I'm confident that miners could start filtering transactions that look really wasteful. I'm sure it's a touchy subject, but clear heads can resolve it.

you can cry all you like that 23% for A and 5% for B.. but ultimately..
theres 60% of the community not involved in the bandcamp debate.


dont keep trolling that its a king vs king.

we need diverse decentralised NODE consensus.
wake up to who is really sabotaging node consensus and creating the splits. and wake up to who is behind their decision to go soft and bypass node consensus.

So the majority should get in line with the 5% that want BU.. Sounds fair.
You should really write a book about your conspiracy theory. I think it would be a best seller

though the guy "realbitcoin" has not yet grasped the finer details.

it seems cellard you have been drinking too much of the r/bitcoin blockstream koolaid. and you are not grasping bitcoin either.

it is BLOCKSTREAM AKA core paid devs and their unpaid interns that are going to cause an intentional split.
not any other dev teams or implementations
BLOCKSTREAM are getting heavy handed with the ban hammer, not the other dev teams

i can tell you are part of the r/bitcoin script reader because you are using the BUCOIN term .. yet its core that are the ones activating the ban hammer. making blockstream segwit nodes use what becomes BSCoin bcause blockstream trigger it.
leaving what on the BSCOIN network all controlled by one centralist for-profit corporation.

where old native (including old native core nodes) being banned/blocked by BScoin.

other dev teams want to use the network consensus. to keep the 12+ diverse implementations working side by side. but blockstream devs want everything using their code and willing to split the network to get it.

---

secondly although sidechains only has X "in circulation". there will be more than X in existance.
in a sidechain swap. BITCOINS are not destroyed when a side chain coin is created. bitcoins are LOCKED. in short. vaulted into a reserve and not used in circulation. and then the 'credit' is distributed into circulation on a sidechain

Yep, it's funny how this dumbass is claiming sidechains will lead to fractional reserve because bitcoins will be generated out of thin air (fails to understand the 1way peg mechanism) and then he thinks splitting the blockchain in 2, which would actually for real create 21 million new fucking coins out of thin air (as we would have BTC and BUL for the BUcoin) is an excellent idea.

These guys not only fail to understand the technology, but they fail at game theory too.

funny part is lauda cannot rebuttle the points
funny thing is i have never posted on reddit
funny thing is all i have requested lauda to do is learn about bitcoin

and his reply is to troll.

shame he cannot rebuttle the failures of segwit.
shame that lauda doesnt read more than 6 paragraphs otherwise he would learn that segwits real agenda is to centralise the network.

wake up and smell the coffee lauda. segwit does not solve the quadratics spam/doublespend scam issues because malicious people can just use old key types.

going soft does not solve the problem
again incase you cant read
going soft does not solve the problem

---

the only real thing segwit does. is FORCES pools to be under blockstreams thumb

its only agenda is to ban anything not blockstream compliant. so that blockstream can rule bitcoin.

does lauda even realise that once activated. segwit pools will automatically ban non segwit blocks. and nodes transmitting non segwit blocks
thus making bitcoin split. core/blockstream will only allow blocks and nodes that are segwit supported unless whitelisted.

again incase you cannot read
going soft was 'sold' as the way to avoid a split.. to solve a problem..
 yet blockstream cannot solve the problem of malicious users are actually going to cause a split.
but done so that native (old) nodes cannot defend against it.

its a bait and switch


this means if any pool not running segwit code makes a block. they get banned simple because they dont run segwit.

if segwit is so "compatible" then how come blockstream are so heavy with the ban hammer? shouldnt a standard block be just as good and "compatible" as a segwit block.

again blockstream will cause an altcoin by banning non blockstream compliant pools. not the other way round

---

blockstream want to cause a soft bilateral split(bilateral split bypassing node consensus). and native pools/nodes cannot defend against it once segwit is activated.

if you cannot see this or want to defend it as a good thing then you are not defending bitcoin you are only defending blockstream.
and i pitty you if you are only going to defend a for-profit corporation, rather than bitcoin.

please learn consensus.

Yeah. The fact that the cartoonist can't spell just adds to the value.

Franky bullshit as always. They have clearly presented the 'cons', i.e. negative sides of Segwit on the Core website: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/28/segwit-costs/

---

Let me leave this gem in here:

actually its segwit that twisted things to sound fluffy and glossy and as if they are promising perfection.

i have untwisted their pseudo bullet points  of pseudo changes and put them into real world concepts

its a shame you cant understand this part


please research beyond the glossy images handed to you.
it seems you are no further forward in your knowledge than this time last year
i remember to throwing images up last year which just had no actual detail in them either, but you were trying your hardest to say everything
was utopia because you were posting an image.

again take your defence cap off. and put on your logical critical thinking cap.
dont turn this into a victimcard game. actually research, think and learn.

The problem with the current way that hardware wallets is that they have a hard time finding your previous outputs (i.e. inputs). Segwit makes this process much easier. It also makes signing faster. Read this for the full explanation (rephrasing it would be redundant): https://segwit.org/segregated-witness-and-hardware-wallets-cc88ba532fb3

Utter bullshit. Having several secondary layer solutions -> decentralization. You also can't create out of thin air on a sidechain due to two-way peg.

...aaaand a partial rebuttal.


In implementing emergent consensus, BU is a near-ideal solution.



Laws of supply and demand generally apply to price discovery of labor and assets, not currencies.