Topic: So who the hell is still supporting BU? - page 31. (Read 29824 times)

lol. you cant attack the context because you know its right.
so instead, you just troll.
i would have liked to see you reply with some technical knowledge, real stats or something to back up your opinion. but all you have done is reply with a troll.

please can you take the time to just learn consensus vs bilateral split
logically instead of wasting hours trolling. if you spent just 20 minutes learning real things. you help yourself and others more.

i would prefer that you atleast learn the entire concept of bitcoin and maybe some code so you can understand the whole thing. but i thought that would be too much. so i just gather you a simple thing to learn.

but if you reply with another empty post that doesnt show your knowledge of consensus vs bilateral split. then you are only failing yourself and wasting your own time achieving nothing that will help you or bitcoin or other bitcoin users.

goodnight.

why are you answering like bot? You write an length but all that you write is incoherent nonsense, far away from truth and logical consistent narrative.

There is a more important question that we should ask, what difference does it make for majority of users  if people using BU or core or other versions? after all not everyone involved in mining, for me as long as I can receive and send under 30 minutes honestly I don't care what are the versions running in background. but if I start to see delays in transactions I might go back to paypal and pay the fees their asking since they are not playing me but simply take their cut upfront.

greg has wanted to split the network.. no one else..

there are over a dozen implementations. but greg wants core to be the only one.

xt didnt want to split
classic doesnt want to split
bu doesnt want to split.

again only gmaxwell and his core colleagues and interns who want to split so they can fully rule over bitcoin.

its worth you learning consensus vs bilateral splits.
the 12 diverse consensus implementations are not fighting each other. they are only fighting the corporate centralists.

the diverse consensus nodes have said they are willing to let gmaxwell build his paypal2.0 as long as gmaxwell gives up his thrown and joins consensus to keep bitcoin diverse and open without any single entity control

bitcoins ethos is not about giving power to a dev team. its about allowing nodes to consensually define the network based on majority agreement and or compromise to get to the agreement. where all nodes function without a middle/main guy leading the network

its really worth you trying to spend 10 minutes learning consensus vs bilateral fork. and understand the real debate

BU was created just to contradict out of the temper of contradiction, like Classic or XT before. Obviously it has no value in technical meaning.
Actually it wouldn't matter if core accept BU, they would invent another reason to contradict. Some of them oppose because they are buggers. Some malevolent trolls just want to split community and harm Bitcoin

because a one time bump is just kicking the can down the road and then still needing to ask devs to offer more later.
oliver twist "please sir can i have some more".. then 2 years of waiting for the spoon to feed them

what would be better is even if its not an automated engine in the background
if
core, xt and classic bu, knots and other dozen implementations all had a user options page where users can set their own setting . and that setting appears either as part of their useragent or as a tx versionbit.

then nodes become independent of devs spoon feeding. and consensus can form independently

the dynamic idea is more so an automatic feature so that the even less technical user doesnt need to play around because the nodes
do it themselves. so its not to 'geeky' to use

---

as for the different versions of nodes.

there is no need for a built-in miner and all the extra pool/mining settings.. if you are just a 'operator'(user).. because there is extra things needed for pools. probably best to think about.. if your not a pool then concentrate just on learning about the version for 'operators'

but its good you are atleast trying to learn about classic core and bu, etc. rather then just getting involved in the social drama
keep it up, there is hope for you yet

more empty posts with no content.

please explain with stats, facts, technicals or atleast real detail why you are reading r/bitcoin scripts and not doing independant research to come to your own conclusions.

please explain with stats facts technicals or atleast rational reason what you think is wrong with a team that is not paid by bankers
where as you seem to want to care for the team that is funded by bankers.

can you explain in a rational manner using research why turning bitcoin corporate by going along with core. is so much better than staying diverse and open by not going with core

please ensure your reply has credible evidence.

such as i can show that gmaxwell, sipa, matt corallo, lukejr and many more devs have a banker paid salary and employment contract. (via blockstream)
i can show that CLTV and CSV are the equivelent features as 3-5 business day funds availability delay and chargebacks.

can you rationally explain your opinion, thoughts and reasons with backed up data?

And you're talking about amotions?  Hold your feelings back unless you have solid foundations,
it's not damsel's forum Nobody cares about your feelings or night dreams

The more I try to understand BU the more it becomes very confusing for me. There are 3 nodes with 3 different settings. 1 type of node both the miners and full node operators can have, the other one is only for the miners and the last one only for the node operators? All of each have different settings. There was an article about it at Bitcoinmagazine, I will read it again later but it would be nice for its supporters to start an educational campaign about it to make us in the middle understand.

For me if there really is a need for a hard fork why not go for the 2mb blocksize of Bitcoin Classic?

I wonder how much ver pays you posting the same things every day in big sheets. But first read what others write before answering... your answers have no relevance for the most part. About trolling... everyone knows that you are the first troll here

you sound like a scripted troll. have you read a line of code from any implementation. or understand how bitcoin works.

seems your more emotional than rational. and it appears that you have been told to come to this forum and scream your emotions.

i get the feeling you probably have been promised that you can get rich running a LN node. and you are actually emotional that
LN in blockstream form cant work without segwit.

because from reading your emotional rants, you seem empty of any rational reason, actual facts, real stats or actual technical response.

care to add something technical, statistically reliable or factual to really back up your emotion

can you read? I said relatively big... for such dumb solution as unlimited, it's more than one could expect...

seems we have another script reader that has NOT done proper independent research to find the truth beyond the words he has read on r/bitcoin


actually unlimited show little support from miners(pools)
over 60% are just independently undecided either way.
under 25% decided they want segwit.
and the small amount left support BU.

dont try to tweak numbers. it makes you look worse than the usual r/bitcoin trolls who shout "LN coz' gigabytes by midnight"


actually it was gmaxwell advocating that anything not core should split... everyone refused and laughed at him because they want consensus ( a built in bitcoin feature since day one)

care to actually research next time.
ok ok, ill be gentle

Unlimited now shows relatively big support from miners because of dirty Roger Ver's intrigues,
whereas the number of nodes clearly shows us real support for unlimited - 6%  

lol though last year i actually detested 'realbitcoin' as much as he detests me. but my reasons was more to do with his rants last year of NXT being bitcoin 2.0 (facepalm i know right)

but it seems if you give people time, logic provails and they start to understand and accept bitcoins real ethos and real mechanisms. and understand what bitcoin is really about. and learn from their mistakes

but to raise a point 'realbitcoin' made because i dont think it was emphasised enough

"cheap fees" - is a matter of prospective

though im in the UK and although i have many bitcoin and my average btc transaction is about £300($360) and so the fee of

(70sat/byte 450byte=0.000315) ~25p(30cent)  its less than 1%. so seems cheap to me.
to me yes.

but i can see passed my own personal situation.
i see that 30cent tx fee is not cheap to people in cuba, africa, asia. where that 30cent. to the very people that would want and need something like bitcoin most. (the unbanked) would see bitcoins utility as costing them upto 6 hours of labour, just for the tx fee.

we need to look passed our own greed(hoping we can make income being an LN hop node) or personal status(living in a developed country).. and instead think about bitcoins ethos, of
not having permissioned fund holdings,
not having fee's/penalties hurting the poorest parts of the world.
not having settlement features that lock funds and revoke funds to just do exactly the same as fiat banks.

the only excuse i see for having these LN nodes is the empty doomsdays of "gigabytes by midnight wont work". where as the reality is that bitcoin adoption is slower and more natural that would take a couple decades to get to say 5% world daily utility. not 100% daily utility by midnight.

we should not halt onchain natural growth using fear. just to push bitcoin ethos breaking services that are not essential today(not everyone trades more then 2 a day/week/month to see utility of LN)

LN's niche market is for gamblers, daytraders and faucet raiders. not every day folks who may only make 2 transactions a fortnight. 1 for groceries another for rent.

Unmilited makes everything to make Bitcoin split and if you look who supports it you'll see a bunch of trolls, not one adequate reliable person.

When I start un-ignoring known trolls like Franky and Rawdog, you know that times are very very dark in Bitcoin

I've had Franky in ignore list for a few months because I thought he was too agressively pushing 2mb. I also had Rawdog because he had some silly troll posts earlier.

But interestingly, they make more sense now than the Core Devs.


I can't stand the fact now that fees are constantly rising, while people are doing nothing, and we are missing potential newbies in the millions because the transaction speed is just unbearable.

Many newbies want ultra cheap transaction fees. Many banks already offer no fee transaction services, Bitcoin wont compete with them if this goes on.



Fuck this, the fees must stay low, that is imperative, 3rld world people cant afford it, and this is one of the best public marketing faces of bitcoin, becaue nobody cares about decenbtralization.


They just want a no fee service to send remittances. If Bitcoin fails to provide this, then fuck it, I will leave. I dont wan't another bank-coin.

We must have cheap fees with big TX throughput.

There are some die hards on both sides of this debate who will just not give up and to me it looks like they would rather see bitcoin fail than be proved wrong, i believe that it will work itself out in the long run.  But we cant have die harders in charge ever or will never get anywhere.

sgwit doesnt offer faster confirmations..
segwit doesnt offer much but temporary empty gestures of moving forward.

segwit does offer a preliminary tweak to bitcoin to then enable permissioned transactions. (which effectively end up feeling to averag joe like they are just using paypal/banks)

I am purely in favor of innovation that will allow BTC to become a more commonplace, everyday currency rather than some sort of financial stock.

Therefore, I think it needs to be almost as fast as a credit card. 30 minute confirmations is too long for the modern age.

I think people are scared SegWit and its convenience will bring the scrutiny and wrath of national denominations and stifle any growth as an investment. But I think more popularity and legitimacy would be good for the crypto scene.