Topic: So who the hell is still supporting BU? - page 25. (Read 29824 times)

lauda is attacking my personality. which i dont care about.
but lauda himself admits he does not know c++ to have read CODE.
i have at many times asked lauda just to learn some basics.

i have even asked hm to learn some basic concepts that dont need code skills such as consensus vs bilateral.

if lauda can only attack my personality, but cannot attack the CODE/concepts of bitcoin. then lauda needs to spend less time with social drama and more time learning about bitcoin code, concepts, diversity and bitcoins ethos.

so far i have only seen lauda jump into a debate when it concerns devending DEV's .. not bitcoin.

we should not be upholding devs as kings/rulers. bitcoins network consensus is what matters, and pools/devs human dcisions should not.
pools/devs should be treated as bitcoins workers.. not dictators/leaders.

anyone wanting devs to rule bitcoin are missing the point of bitcoin. and it doesnt take need coding skills to understand that rational and logical concept.

P.S
lauda thinks my knowledge is pseudoknowldge because i am not trying to sound like a geeky ass hat using cores 'buzzwords'

for instance if i wanted to be a medical doctor. i would learn everything and then translate it to laymens. and i would refuse to tell a patient they had a microcardial infarction to show off my knowledge.. instead i would just say . dude your hart stopped for 10 seconds.

that way what happened to the patient is factual but in a manner the patient would understand.
my comments lack the buzzwords simply because i translate it down to laymens to help the community.

yes gmaxwell hates it when i call his "Confidential Pedersen Commitments" simply 'confidential payment codes'
but to common man my layman term resonates better to common understanding.

i previously just used 'intentional split' instead of 'bilateral split' but received alot of backlash because i was not buzzwording, so just to shut the trolls up i use the term 'bilateral' and ask the community to learn its meaning

i previously just used 'majority agreement' instead of 'consensus' but received alot of backlash because i was not buzzwording, so just to shut the trolls up i use the term 'consensus' and ask the community to learn its meaning

you do realise that there are over 12 implementations.

unless you have read the lines of code. stating something is amateurish, is just falling for the scripted speaches by core.
the RECKED campaigns against xt, classic, bu, etc are not about the REAL lines of code. but about the SOCIAL drama of people.

EG

Obviously your knowledge is very impaired if you consider a fair amount of his posts to be "solid enough". Usually it's psuedo-knowledge, even though they make a decent point sometimes. Characters shouldn't be discussed much anyways; it doesn't help either way.

You mean the "instamine" coin?

Obviously you are throwing around random numbers and not looking in the right places.

It's a plethora of things: laziness, lack of knowledge and the average stupidity of a human. Not everyone is fit to be a developer, and even less people are fit to develop Bitcoin.

Just wait until someone spins up another hundred nodes under the pretense of "community support".

You know I was thinking about moving to Dash, it's pretty sad that Bitcoin is being choked right now.

I dont entirely blame the developers to this. It's the entire community's fault.

You have only 10-20 people working on Development right now, out of 5-10 million Bitcoin users.

Where the fuck are the other developers? Are they scratching their butts? Why dont others help contribute to the software?

And BU is bullshit, made by amateurs.

I would like to see more developers getting off their asses and start writing some code.

Why are people so lazy that we got only so few devs?

I'm sure miners eventually will listen to people

Seems unlimited steadily dying, only 4,7%  267 nodes have left https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/.
Here we got >95% of nodes, waiting for miners... 

I'm hurt. You omitted li'l ol' me. All around lovable chap, and savior of destitute puppies.

   You are just considering him having some knowledge comparing with yourselves. If you would read attentively many threads, you'd see that he posts every time all the same and muddles truth and lies laced with some "technichal facts" to impress laymans and create some drama and escalate FUD. You will also see that they (BU herd) create many different threads every time instead of arguing in one.
    All his lies was disproved many times by various people with far more expertise in computer science. Obviously he's hoping that those people don't have enough time to track him in different threads and argue with him to disprove him constantly.
    I understand that it would be useless to repeat again exposure of his lies. If you are really interested and not one of ver's sheeps intending to troll, you will easily find these threads.

At least from what I see Franky has some knowledge to back up his claims and stance against SegWit I don't see many people here capable or high level discussion about scaling.
You will have to say something more that "franky is a troll' to disprove his arguments which seems solid enough for me.

    Cautious miners want to test SegWit on litecoin first and if it's ok, they do it on Bitcoin. It explains their sluggishness. Bitcoin is very valuable they dont want to risk unnecessarily. (being aware of that, who can imagine that they would even consider raw, clumsy BU)

    Wang Chun, F2Pool’s co-founder, told CCN that he is planning to upgrade his Litecoin pool to segregated witnesses (segwit). Litecoin’s F2Pool currently controls around 43% of the network’s hashrate. Batpool and Litecoinpool.org are both already signaling for segwit. Combined, around 60% of the current network’s hashrate share will likely upgrade.

    Chun stated:
"We’ll do it on Litecoin first and then make an evaluation if it is feasible on bitcoin."

Let's do a quick recap...  
So who is supporting BU on bitcointalk:
1. Rawdog - freak, who wrote many times that bitcoin is dead, failed etc.
2. Classicsucks, with his recent coming out...
3. Franky - infamous troll.

There's no WE.
We have nothing to do with alt scammers.

That explains everything.   As I was saying many times only alt lovers cheers for BU
Bitcoiners shouldn't listen to them.

for every block there are 19+ losers

the 3 second reject drama was no difference. no extra cost no extra loss..  ver just didnt win that block.
3 second event, = "ver you didnt win".. just like the other 19 pools trying for the same block
 
i laugh when people exaggerate a reject into some big event.

but when people point out a bigger event they push it under the carpet
Sipa's LevelDB 2013 long orphan chain event.

I don't think a $12k loss is a big deal for Roger Ver. Currently people are paying 20 times that EVERY DAY in fees, and worse still, waiting 3 days to confirm important financial transactions, and the Blockheads don't see a problem. I am not a follower of Ver anyway as I believe he is not very technically savvy.

Segwit mining support is DECLINING right now. http://segwit.co/  I won't be holding my breath and burying my head in the sand with the Blockheads until October. I'm off to buy some more Monero...

Kind of makes you think that people are diametrically opposed to Segwit, eh? It's not ironic, it's obvious that people did not listen, and they wasted thousands of hours developing something people don't want.  Chinese miners probably don't want to lay the groundwork for Lightning Network because it takes away from their transaction fees. I don't like the looks of Lightning either - I'm already using several alts, and believe they're way better than Lightning could ever be.

I'm opposed to Segfault because it's over-complicated and unnecessary, and breaks almost all existing bitcoin software (which is still not updated to support it, and likely won't be). Bitcoin has hard-forked in the past and could do so again. Just sayin'.

I don't think running this sh**ty BU software is the best solution either... but the blockheads at Core won't listen to the masses, and their arrogance and disconnect with reality are only getting worse... The Soviet Politburo marches on, undaunted.

Its too early to say. Segwit's activation is in October if I remember right. Over half a year away.
Hopefully by then some of the miners will realize that their support for the bugged, failed BU code costs them money and they will come to the other side. Roger Wer already lost 12000$ on his failed code, and it has only been active a couple of months, in half a year he will be broke and cant pay his disciples.
So relax. BU will fail and Bitcoin will live

Do you think we must be controlled by Blockstream employees? The Chinese miners have stated their wishes to up the blocksize and Blockstream blocked their request. Now the Chinese miners are blocking Blockstream's changes. Bitcoin is still Bitcoin, and Segwit won't be adopted. Now we need to move forward and increase the blocksize so people can reliably transact with bitcoin. Thanks

segwit is not actually a 2mb blocksize.

its a effective one time boost which .. wait for it..
IF EVERYONE moved their funds over to P2WPKH /P2wSH keys.. then statistically there would be around 2.1x transactions(2.1mb) MAXIMUM expectation.
but you cant re-segwit a segwit to double again... its a one time max potential..

and right now knowing only 50% have segwit nodes... and half of that wait 3-6months before upgrading to latest software
would mean
once activated, there is a lul period*. after that when the full segwit wallet version is available only 25% would move to the version with P2WPKH/P2PSH key wallets included within 3-6months. so only assume 1.25mb blocksize effectively..  

then after that only assume 1.5mb blocksize effectively.. due to only half the network with segwit nodes that would have caught up with upgrading.
so at best, based on the node count stats of now as reference, even upto a year after activation. only expect 1.5x transactions (1.5mb) and then some iffy time period if or when there may or may not be 100% utility of p2Wpkh.p2WSH keys to get to the 2.1x(2mb) maxim

*even core themselves have stated even if pools got to 95% and activated.. core wont release the full segwit (including p2wPKH/p2wSH key generation) node for atleast a few weeks or long AFTER activation..
so dont expect to see anything actually change any time soon

---

the funny part. if they went with hard(meaning nodes first, then pools) consensus(meaning meaning agreement not split)  the nodes would be ready sooner, the pools would gain confidence nodes could handle it. and they would be ready sooner. and the possibility that after activation nodes would then download the full version with P2W wallets active, would be possibly higher. to get even closer to the 2.1mb maxim hope..

but that 2.1mb maxim is a best possible.. and unrepeatable boost. so dont bet any funds on it actually occuring... much like dont expect toput a bet on that bitcoin could actually achieve 7tx/s between 2009/2016.. if you time travelled back to 2009.. even if 'expectations' say it was possible.

Yes. But you're not disagreeing with me, that's what I said too: wait until Lightning has some reliable medium term stats before we start deciding that 1MB, 2MB or anything else is needed. How can you know before Lightning is established?


Further away than a successful (planned) hard-fork? Not sure about that.