Topic: What we're doing with Bitcoin Unlimited, simply (Read 949 times)

I'm not sure that's true, pereira4.  One of the main problems is that commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions (e.g., Paypay, Visa, etc.) serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments.  While that system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions.

So, no, I think Bitcoin will end up cheaper than these centralized alternatives.

here we go again more silly failed thinking by the commercial centralists that want to run hubs and only see $$$ profits
"billion users by midnight.. bitcoin cant cope so lets stop billion users over decades because of "billions by midnight"  fake doomsday"

"Digital music will never be affordable for consumers - memory will always be too expensive to allow it."

Silly. Your comment gets circular-filed right next to Krugman's 'internet no more significant than the fax'.

Wrong. Onchain scaling on a decentralized network backed by an huge amount of hashrate to guarantee top tier security while remaining decentralized as bitcoin delivers, will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS lag behind the centralized solutions such as Paypal, VISA, and other centralized payment networks when it comes to speed, cheapness to send the transactions and volume of the transactions. It's a losing game trying to outcompete them onchain in speed, fees and transaction volume, it will never happen, stop being delusional, this is just physics. We NEED a second layer to compete on that field, those are just simple facts of life. Stop being children about it. You can't have it all.

1 reject lasting 2 seconds.. non drama
vs
sipa's 2013 long orphan chain lasting hours (leveldb 500k bug)

oh and need i list the many other rejects and orphans that occur often that are just as equal drama as the 1 reject. but occur alot and occur by core blocks.
https://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks

atleast try to be factual about your opinion.

Many true words here. Its good that there is alternative in case of core developers will go mad berserk with their ideas.
Unlimited developers lately screwed up code, which resulted in invalid blocks, that is big mistake.

i would have said ages back that just taking blockstream out of the equation and going back to the old core and the other 12 implementations was acceptable playing field.

but blockstream have really got core wrapped around their fingers and now i just see the unpaid core devs as blockstream loyalists, hoping to get paid.. so i deem them unpaid blockstream interns now, definetly not independant open minded devs

Forget the technical arguments.  The raging dishonesty and censorship is all you need to know about to have very good reason to stop Core/Blockstream.  The DDOSing of XT was a clear indicator that nothing about them is fair and reasonable.

Blockstream needs to die very soon.  Today is not soon enough.

pools know its not a "kick off the network if BU is adopted"

pools hold back on any changes if there isint already majority node acceptance.

pools dont care much about 'fee's as their income. for decades they see fee's as just a bonus. its the block reward that is their "income" they wont do crap that would hurt their "income"

60% of pools are undecided because even though nodes are not voting for segwit, pools know that nodes matter. so they are waiting for unofficial majority to mitigate orphan risk (this is not a split risk. just a single chain with orphans dropping off the side)

It's time for Core developers to show more flexibility and be responsible, if majority of miners see that their future interests are at risk just by refusing larger blocks they might start to think about switching to BU and Bitcoin Core suddenly becomes the minority and kicked off from the scene.
Without sacrifice nothing great could be achieved, you think you can stay on top while ignoring the reasonable concerns of community?

government.. probably not. but there is HUGE evidence of private sector/banks

after all blockstream need to force people to use commercial services soon as they are staked with a $90m debt that needs repaying and need to start showing income if they ever want to show they can repay to ither hold off the bailiffs or to be able to ask for more VC funding

http://dcg.co/network/#b
https://www.hyperledger.org/about/members

their scripted unpaid interns will shout any unresearched fud/propaganda they can that commercialising bitcoin via LN is utopia. but as soon as people show the details such as the fee's penalties, service limitations and end user experience.. they go quiet.

I think those people against increasing block size are from or work for government/private sector/big banks. if we continue like this we'll end up only with higher fees and again higher fees to a point where you could only send bitcoin if you paid $10 as a fee.

ill match your "Ps: I've heard.." propaganda..
and ill raise you "Ps: I quote gmaxwell pushing for way less than 94%"

@pereira:

Most people I know working on Bitcoin Unlimited want to see second-layer solutions too.  The main difference is that they want on-chain and off-chain to compete freely; they don't want on-chain transaction throughput constrained in a "top down" way, and so we have offered the market Bitcoin Unlimited so that these constraints could be loosened from the "bottom up."  Time will tell if this is something that that market wants or not.

Another important point is that second-layer solutions like LN are more accurately methods to scale the number of transactions per user, rather than methods to scale the user base itself.  This is because the "state" of the ledger (e.g., the number of unspent outputs) scales with the number of identities rather than with the number of transactions.  



So LN isn't a panacea that would permit massive scaling of the user base while keeping the cost to run a node low anyways.  

fixed that for you

There will never be "massive onchain scaling" without massive node centralization. Why is it so hard to understand?

Also, such flexibility on the setup may seem like a nice thing at first, but upon deeper inspection, it opens a nasty can of worms and all sorts of attack vectors. Same blocksize for all is actually a strenght. We need a strong set of rules. Im sure someone like gmaxwell can give a deeper technical answer and also explain the game theory and possible attack vectors that such such flexibility to change the blocksize on such level would mean. (yeah, im sure franky1 the resident coding genius that never coded anything relevant hates gmaxwell and knows better so he will ignore anything he says)

Unfortunately, I don't see ANY possible way to scale onchain anywhere near what we would need to conquer the world as a viable payment transactor that can replace the existing centralized options.

Want to compete with VISA? then get it throught your skull: we need a second layer solution, there's no way out, unless a time traveller or an alien from outter space with super advanced technology comes up with the actual next bitcoin that will make us overnight billionaires by buying in the first day. Until then I hope you understand the mistake of not supporting Core devs and LN. So far they haven't fucked up bigly enough to risk a god damned hard fork. We don't want a Buterin event... that is what could kill the network effect forever (and im sure everyone that has an anti-bitcoin agenda is aware on this, hence why they push with BU so hard)

Ps: I've heard the Roger crew pushing for way less than 94% so the hardfork would be nasty. They know they would never get anywhere near 94% no matter how many millions they invest in their propaganda.

cellard
atleast learn the difference between consensus and a split.

hard and soft just mean
soft: only pools vote
hard: nodes then pools

as for the types of 'fork'.. even soft can lead to a split. yep its part of bip 9.. bip 9 can cause a split too by biasedly AVOIDING native nodes making blocks, purely because they are native blocks.

ethereum was not consensus. ethereum was a bilateral split. learn and research it, please

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 split - 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 split - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

when reading hard fork or soft fork. do not automatically assume best case for soft, worst case for hard. as thats just propaganda.

and the smart community want CONSENSUS not bilateral

On-chain scaling doesn't seem that popular among users. Seems odd, considering how many new threads are made about this topic every week. Granted, the same actors (vocal minority?) are the ones making all those threads.

I am interested in bitcoin because of its decentralized nature. The cryptography money that was developed by satoshi was one of the greatest thing that happened to this world from time immemorial except The death and resurrection of our lord Jesus Christ. Many elites are confused because of the decentralized nature of the currency, they cannot control both the mining and transfer of cryptocurrencies.