Topic: What happened to BU? (Read 1705 times)

According to developers I've heard so far, one of the main reasons to implement segwit is to solve the malleability problem. Could you share a link that proves otherwise?

there is no "hype"
BU and other implementations have no deadlines, threats or code to mandatorily activate.

they have been plodding along for 2 years allowing free choice.
the only reason its hyped is because CORE want dominance ever since core set the deadlines and votes and threats. and core are realising that not everyone is buying into cores half baked promises.

core are scared of losing their dictatorship TIER network plans, especially if people wake up and realise diverse decentralisation of a multiple implementation PEER network is better than blockstream(core) centralised upper Tier network and a cesspit of nonfull nodes down tier.

remember segwit activation does not fix maleability. or spam or guarantee 2mb..
it all requires people moving funds weeks-months after activation to new keys.. to only disable themselves from being malicious.. not the network

I don't think it's dead, but the hype is dying. Anyway, I think some groups will try to take that forward, since they have spent a lot of money on it.

I dont think Bitcoin Unlimited will shine or overtake the success of the original Bitcoin core. As far as I know only the large portion of Chinese miners are in favor of BU.

I think it can keep chugging indefinitely but won't advance much or any further than it already has. If it does continue to breathe I suppose that gives time for its supporters to come up with more ideas. Dunno what they'd consist of.

So we can say BU is in a coma and soon will die.

I am not for either or (seagwit or BU). I am for consensus and harmony among the Bitcoin community. I am for leadership. There should be some mediation, and everyone's voices should be heard, instead of it being a  pissing contest.

On Bitcoin there can't be consensus to modify the protocol in any way. @dinofelis and I have explained this. On Litecoin the miners will want SegWit (which is my hypothesis).

Miners aren't apparently against segwit. Segwit support doesn't seem to have decreased (I think, not really paying attention to the numbers, honestly), miners just started singling more for BU.

(And from what I've seen in another thread, miners are signaling for everything because... April's fools )


If you are trying to say that miners should have less profit from fees... Careful what you wish for.


Problem not solved, mining power is irrelevant for the main scaling question itself and you can't just "increase" mining power "in PH".

Because small blocks are absolutely necessary to maintain the equilibrium of power structure of a stalemate that Satoshi designed into the system.

You keep ignoring this, even I have told you many times to go read the thread linked below:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18408976

It seems simple to you that big blocks are better, because you don't comprehend that we must have an immutable master blockchain else we do not get Nash's ideal money. Until you understand that, then you understand nothing about Bitcoin.

Until you understand that really well, you will continue to talk nonsense and not realize that you are.

Of course we can have bigger blocks, on Litecoin. As explained at the above linked post. Please slow down and read.

There's been a ton of things that have been happening recently, and the quick rundown for BU is that some things they planned to do were exposed and now there's some decent discontent with their plans coming from the community. If I remember correctly a lot of it was going to result in Bitcoin becoming very centralized through the new BU system.

But if they do not upgrade they cannot originate transactions that take advantage of any new capacity offered by the witness segregation, obviously.  So this weakens the argument even further that its a meaningful increase.  

Why not just increase the blocksize? That is what miners and most clear thinking users want.

Why do you choose to ignore obvious facts and spin everything?  

As planned by the Chinaman as a way of misdirecting our attention, BU died and SegWit on Litecoin was achieved instead.

I never understood why the Chinaman was dumb enough to support a the technological idiocy in BU, and now I understand it was a diversionary manipulation that was never intended to be carried out.

It's pointless arguing with the shills, they're paid to do this. I'll say this though, franky1 ALMOST has me convinced he's not a paid shill, at least paid to shill for BU. His hate for Blockstream though is on another level, like he's been personally slighted by them or something. Definitely seems personal.

BTU is a piece of Chinese crap, it aint going no where. If they fork-off, they fork themselves  

Jonald keeps talking nonsense about segwit for some reason.

Wallets that aren't updated can still recieve regular transactions, also all relevant online wallets are segwit ready so this is a non issue. All relevant software is also segwit ready or in progress:

https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/

Also miners that are pro-BU should explain how they call segwit risky while BU not being risky while trying to keep a straight face.

Didn't F2Pool, the second largest Bitcoin mining pool just reject Bitcoin Unlimited through an announcement by the owner? If so, it's quite a big advantage to Segwit.

Hey mr mister why have you repeated the same mistake as the legendary member above? seagwit you like much eh? there is no fundamental change as you put it but rather making it possible to do a hard fork without splitting the network in half in a soft fork skin in the future. BU is about one big mining farm wanting to do a hard fork so they can do the same work as before but including more transactions so they can get more fees, imagine their grandchildren could include 2GB of transaction data in a block a century from now when there is no mining reward other than fees, I guess they've thought about everything really and increasing hash power is not an easy job it requires millions of dollars and a very well built infrastructure and even if they do BU supporter has a huge mining farm planned to turn it on and start mining in near future.
What they want is to get more earn more money since 1 block averagely found every 10 minutes is not enough for them.

the current state of the network is exactly what a decentralized network should be and if someday you saw miners easily implemented and activated something in matter of a month or two you need to run for the hills because that would mean a central authority with control and absolute power over any changes in the system.

 I believe it's still in the pipeline and nothing has been changed in the past few days. We are seeing positive trend in Bitcoin's price but the goal of BU is still there and they are just waiting again for the right time with the right resources to go with a fork. I just checked https://coin.dance/blocks. BU still has 37% support while SegWit has 29.2%.

The problem is political not technical in nature.
 
The 1mb blocksize could be easily increased but the leading core developers (several of whom are employed by Blockstream) are against it.