Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 17612. (Read 26713087 times)

bit worse than a shame ... it's a fucking shitshow travesty.

Now BUg pumpers are gonna be forever wondering if there is another zero-day BUg out there waiting to wipe out all there bitcoins shortly after they hardfork??! WTF?

If Peter Todd was malicious and greedy he could have made mega-bank on this by keeping it to himself until they forked and then shorted majorly the BU fork and killed it dead anonymously without telling them what was happening, they wouldn't have had a clue what hit them ... and made a killing too.

What's the bet that the DAO attacker is sitting on a BUg zero-day ... just waiting for the fork.

Stuff is toxic, it's finished. Woo is finished too.

right, "howitzer" wasn't available i guess. 

i get where you're coming from but they shouldn't have brought a knife to a gun fight. they needed to have brought a howitzer.

if their ideas and execution were plain better then i believe there are enough rational people to turn the tide. but they ain't, so there ain't.

its a shame that BU does not have as much peer review and scrutiny.

I dislike the idea of having one team ( mostly all employed by 1 company ) having so much leverage.

for who? even the most fervent unlimited supporter might not be very impressed if the entire system seized up. i'll bet there are many more surprises hiding too.

they shouldn't have put their heads above the parapet until their game was 100% immaculate. if you want to influence a 20 billion dollar deal expect to have your every move gone over with thousands of microscopes.

this ain't play time any more and this is more than an internet spat for the lulz.

what a shame.

The BU comedy gold just keeps on flowing. Thing is more holey than the DAO.

From what I have seen it probably isn't an RCE (Remote Code Execution) but it shows how sloppy they are in secure coding and versioning control. That BU code should be removed asap from the Bitcoin network. Who knows how many more critical vulnerabilities are hidden in that poorly reviewed code.

You and I are using the word "consensus" to mean different things. You are saying (and I agree) that every peer in the network must agree on what is valid. In that sense, bitcoin requires, and in fact bitcoin currently runs on, 100% consensus. What I am saying is that right now the community has not reached "consensus" on how to scale. My point is that Satoshi's original vision did NOT assume that hard forks were impossible. Satoshi did NOT assume that everybody will always agree on the future direction of bitcoin. Satoshi did NOT assume that everything will be roses and that we will all get along.

In theory, the possibility of a contentious hard fork has always been part of the plan. If a contentious hard fork is enough to kill bitcoin, then Satoshi's vision was doomed from the start. I believe Satoshi's vision was not doomed from the start, and that a contentious hard fork will not kill bitcoin. But if it does, then we may as well learn it sooner rather than later and so we can focus our efforts on a modified governance mechanism (dash being an example of a modified governance mechanism).

If the first time that a contentious hard fork actually happens is 15 years down the road when everybody is using it, it would be very reassuring to look back and say "remember that scaling-debate contentious hard fork? We all thought it would kill bitcoin and it didn't. Therefore, no need for a worldwide economic panic this time."

Kind of glad that I didn't go with it before this happened.
It has to be pretty patched to get any one to put any faith into what we have now with the current blockchain.
Unless people are viewing this as a layer or alternative to it and of it instead.

This is not a children fight, BU is a very bad update for Bitcoin.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5zdkv3/bitcoin_unlimited_remote_exploit_crash/

some extra info here. anti BU people should be keeping future bugs to themselves. then they can roll them all out at once for a real party.

incredible that they'd be this slack. if they want everyone to take on their ideas then at least make sure the foundations are bulletproof. then you can carry on with your mud slinging.

Sure..



Ends up with

Advocacy for BU is political, not technical. Centralization, invalid blocks and crashes are not so important.

I haven't had time to review this vulnerability but that might be way worse than it sounds. Most "crash from remote" vulnerablities are due to buffer overflows which can lead to exploit from remote when more finely crafted.

Maybe this is enough to create some awareness of the importance of following the right process instead this children fights.

Ok, semantics then.  You were talking about a small number of people?

Thousands of individuals working independently is not "a group".

Yes, it is voluntary and selfserving.  Indeed there is no central authority.  That does not mean that there aren't any groups that exert some control over the workings of bitcoin though.  The good thing is that the power is divided over many actors, but that doesn't mean that there is no power.  Or would you say that what mining pool operators do doesn't affect you.

I am getting away from my initial point though.  The question at hand was not to let a group control bitcoin, it was to find a way to measure the opinion of users/holders  (as a source of information for developers, miners, exchanges,merchants and other users/hodlers).

No. Just individuals working together for their own personal purposes. That's why we are still above 1200 even after the etf mess. If bitcoin had some kind of central authority it would not be worth nearly as much. Individual self-interest is and has always been the key.

Then there is a way things work, thus certain groups exert control.