Topic: So who the hell is still supporting BU? - page 23. (Read 29824 times)

Um, reality (and the investors in Bitcoin that exist within it) would like a word with you.

And no investor is going to risk real money on something that cannont handle more than 200 millions transaction per year.
No investor is going to risk money if he will not have the possibility to withdraw his money without paying huge fees.

Yeah, you re breaking the ice.

But unlimted means more than you might think of. You can do all sorts of things that you described above on your (BS) 2nd layers.

Bitcoin itself just will stay at 21 Mio + PoW.  And yes it could have SW in too.

There's not so many people like you who supports Unlimited. It has so many flaws and It's not been even tested properly. Why do you think the minority may dictate the majority?

That's a good start, but in the spirit of honoring Satoshi we must make BU as unlimited in as many ways as possible.

Miners should also be allowed to vote on changing the block reward, the block time, and the PoW.

Those three things are still based on magic numbers and arbitrary choices imposed by the crippling tyranny of BlockStreamCore, so we must abolish them ASAP.

During times of high traffic (Black Friday->Cyber Monday, Xmas Eve), higher block rewards and lower block times will help relieve congestion so Bitcoin Unlimited will function as digital p2p ecash.

Miners must also be able to vote on changing the PoW to PoS, so the environment will start being saved from catastrophic climate changes caused by greedy ASIC capitalist fossil fuel consumption.

I support BU. 

Bitcoin Unlimited is a tool to allow node operators and miners to more easily configure their nodes' blocksize limits and signal their preferences to the network.  This is what we need right now.

Ok I get it that you hate Blockstream and Core, no need to say that in every single post you post. 

However I have just looked at Unlimited more closely, and it's really a piece of shit, I am now certain of it.

I used to have some hope that BTC will become decentralized again, and the monolithic powerstructure will erode a little bit.

But it wont be from BU. BU is a centralized piece of shit, with amateur programmers.

They have even an Article of Federation, that sounds like it's out of Star Trek or something. But if you actually read it , it is actually proposing an even more centralized system than it is with Core.

So if you think Core is centralized, then take a look at BU, it's 1000x worse.

So if you want a 2mb increase, you might want to find a 3rd solution, because BU won't be the messiah.

because no matter how much trolls try to ringfence me into a band camp. im thinking about the bitcoin consensus network.
yea i detest blockstream because i have seen what they are upto.

same cant be said for those idolising/defending blockstream, but not thinking about or understanding the bitcoin network itself
lauda for instance doesnt know C++ to have read a line of code to be a critical enough advocate for his 'belief's'

as you yourself are using the term hardfork, without understand consensus vs bilateral split.

yep even softforks can cause bilateral splits. (mind blowing)

its worth you realising the umbrella terms first and learn about bitcoin before defending a corporation that is desperate need to open up commercial services to repay them investors. especially if you are hoping for a pay day by being loyal to them corporate investors

here ill help you learn about the umbrella term 'hardfork' you use but dont seem to understand

---

firstly learn consensus agreement vs bilateral split.

too many times people only speak of the best case scenario of soft and the worse case of hard.(they know why they do it!!)
but effectively the only difference between soft and hard is who gets to vote to activate..

soft.. pool votes nodes dont.
hard.. nodes vote then pools.

but in both soft and hard. both can have consensus, both can be controversial and both can have bilateral

softfork: consensus - >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: small 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: controversial - >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: long big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: bilateral - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

hardfork: consensus - >94% nodes, then >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: controversial - >50% nodes, then >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: bilateral - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

to make an actual altcoin you need to do more then just make bigger blocks or send an erroneous transaction.. as that just causes rejects/orphans.

you need to actually make the nodes ignore the opposing data and nodes so that they are not sticking to the same data. and instead walk in opposite directions

high agreement = less orphans/rejects
low agreement = more orphans/rejects
but if you have another clause to avoid rejecting or even seeing the opposition. then you are risking creating an altcoin

indeed, probably satoshi is owner of the forum and he doesn't want hardfork?

I heard that he's only admin not owner. If you think they are prejudiced agaisnt bu why they didn't ban you?

theymos owns this forum
lauda runs a few sig-spam campaigns.
lauda gave up moderator status to run sig campaigns
both lauda and theymos are strong blockstream defenders. (not bitcoin open diverse and decentralised network defenders)

your theory is interesting but i feel its those adoring blockstream that love getting pennies per post

it explains why they are soo many noob accounts(below 100 activity), which are created and are jumping in defending blockstream without understanding the basics of bitcoin, or even thinking about the bitcoin network.

knowing blockstream recognise their own faults and agenda's to then accuse anything not core as the ones doing it(point in opposite direction to distract), thus to play the victim card to get sheep into the wolves den,
adding weight to a possibility that its blockstream centralists showing the loyalty, under the hope of getting a few pennies of that $90m investment

Maybe Unlimited Chinese miners pay for every favorable post about BU like in signature campaign.  

lets play the r/bitcoin meme education method, maybe its the only way to teach them

Not sure if you know anything about software dev?

In an ideal world you d have three layers:

Dev net

Test or UAT

Prod


And even in this world some bug can be only found in prod cause first 2 nets have not the density of prod.

It's interesting how BU actually has observable, network threatening bugs running live on the real Bitcoin network, whereas Segwit has been tested on the testnet extensively for over a year (testing that was hilariously construed as "ignoring the scaling issue") to weed the bugs out.

Maybe if you cared about bugs, you'd also be interested in the testing regime too?

Now that is very interesting... My understanding is that malleability is mitigated by requiring a few confirmations anyway.

Also, plenty of Segwit implementation bugs in bitcoin-related software haven't been uncovered yet...

you may be thinking of october 2013.. the first ASICS rolled out publicly

prior to 2013 GPU were doing sub 20thash combined.

from january 2013-october asic manufacturers were privately testing asics.. pushing that to 1000thash(1peta)
and the rest is uphill from there.. today over 3m thash (3exahash)

Ok I did now know the exact date, I've been here only since ~ 2013/ 2014, i have no idea what went on before that, but from what I know, and what I have read from the forum and other information. That was not the point, the point is that centralization does happen.

It happens, even in a supposedly decentralized project like Bitcoin.

Ok Gox was the first exchange, it went south, and then new ones appeared. Well, this is not an argument for decentralization. Multiple exchanged would have opened either way, it was just that Gox was the first, they were the opportunists.

And some new exchanges have opened up in 2014, and 2015, but hardly any new ones since that, and certain ones have already gone south (Cryptsy, and others), while others got hacked, while others were shut down due to regulatory pressure.

I belive most of them will go away by 2018, and we will be left with a handful of them, that will be fully regulated, and everything else will go away.


So we will or already have:

• Centralized Exchanges
• Centralized Wallet providers : Blockchain has 11mil , Coinbase 5 mil ,  so how many people actually use self wallets like electrum or multibit?

https://blockchain.info/charts/my-wallet-n-users
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5gs2vy/coinbase_hits_5_million_users/

• Centralized Mining: I shouldn't even detail this, you know exactly how centralized it is.
• Node count falling
• Handful of media outlets that are owned by a handful of people

So what is exactly so decentralized about Bitcoin? Not much left.

I m happy for any such quick fixes esp in these times.


 

fixed that for you