Topic: When will BTC vs. BU be decided? (Read 2275 times)

with the segwit below 35% and BU above 40%, there will not be a fork soon. The market is happy.

Yeah. They are dead already. The support is decreasing everyday. I think SegWit currently at 31% support. Bitcoin price is steady rising at ~1% everday. Slowly but surely. But if hardfork happens, it will pull the price of bitcoin bigtime and we don't want that to happened. So we are all happy the BU didn't get support and dying already. FUD spread has also gone in our community. So I think they already given up. Maybe their strategy now is blocking the implementation of SegWit.

BU has got out and BTC has been gaining support continuously from the day the BU got the bug crash. Hopefully BU simply made a big challenge to the bitcoin. Now if something has happened supporting BU it might have gone under a controling authority who makes decision on price movements.

down bigtime. Every time that BU notes are rising the BTC price goes down quickly. There is an negative correlation between the number of BU blocks mined and the price of BTC. It looks like the market is scared of a possible fork and so chainsplitting as a result of BU. Fact is that we both need bigger blocks and SegWit. We need 2mbSegWit blocks. There is not an other alternative. Only SegWit will make more scaling in the future a lot harder. We also need a forced SegWit and 2mb blocks because we will never reach 95% supporting SegWit.

If BU gets implement, how will it impact price of BTC.. up or down

That's what I'm thinking, there's no end for this consensus which both sides existence which split the community.
As this matter has lasted for one and a half year, no signs it will end soon. Miners still happy with higher fees, so they divide their vote such as what happen right now. Why, it so hard to upgrade block size limit, at least we need 2Mb so the miners could process more transactions.

I agree. Bu is mostly done. Nobody wants to run that buggy stuff with closed source code in it, which also has roles like a president, secretary and such bs.The number of BU nodes continues decreasing by the way.
There won't be a hardfork imo as long as Jihan Wu and his buddies do not try to perform a 51% attack.

It could, but that's just not a smart thing to do for pools in financial meaning. In order to mine blocks more or less risk free, you need a larger part (preferably much higher than 50%) of the hash rate to support the exact same block setting as the one that you mine. Without this support, you are throwing away precious block rewards (which can be seen as capital destruction). Basically, everything that they do could harm their operations, which is also why this is taking so damn long to settle.

I do not think the hard fork will happen below 75%. The hard fork will be decisive. They will be no prolonged battle.

It has been decided already. BTC works in every single department. The only way BU can cause the disaster-hardfork is if Bitmain invests even more millions on hashrate to cause teh 51% split, then we will see the hardfork but people will quickly dump BTU for BTC because a coin with inferior software centralized in china is just nonsense.

Your prediction turns out to be completely wrong  

Bitcoin price will always have uptrend and the one who just get panic during some correction on price will get busted.  

Well I guess it might stay that way forever but I really hope that it wouldn't end as a stalemate and one side wins. I support segwit between the two but it doesn't matter to me whichever side wins because the community decided it and after all we will profit even if the one or the other wins. Therefore it is a win/win to segwit supporters.

Because it seems that BU will forever be supported by that ~37% with no hope of reaching 51% hash power.
That makes BU pretty much dead concept and with SegWit constantly supported by ~30% we reached a perfect stalemate situation here.

If it's so easy to add greater capacity to Bitcoin, why the f*ck is this debate and controversy so widespread? BU must not matter then...according to you guys.

It is true that BU had a lot of momentum and followers a couple of weeks back and even peopl who are not aware of the technical stuff behind it were blindly following what BU was preaching but their hollow codes proved that they cannot be trusted but they are still trying hard for a 51% attack and they claim that they have allocated funds for that,we can only wait and see the end result.

There might not be no decision date but we know ourselves that the probability of this decision being decided soon is quite not that likely to happen. I think before it is decided, we will experience more bullish movements on the bitcoin market, some pump and a dump after until the final decision is made. Before that happens, it is a really good opportunity to take advantage of the pumps and dumps that will happen although it can be risky but it is worth watching.  

There's no decision date and there will never be a decision date.  Unfortunately, it's pretty unpredictable, and this uncertainty is partially what resulted in some of the dumps.

Let's be very clear about a few basic facts:


BU is a copy of Bitcoin as it was two years ago, with some changes on top of that. That is not an upgrade

Bitcoin upgrades with every new version. Segwit is an upgrade to the protocol itself. Throwing away two years work is not a good idea even if you think the development team must be replaced.


No, it's not. Why would you even say that? There are a bunch of competing Bitcoin implementations. And then there is BU.

It's (BU) vs (Bitcoin Core + btcd + libbitcoin + whatever custom stuff the big exchanges use).

Every major Bitcoin implementation must support a new feature before we can use it in a safe way so no one loses their money.


Core is an open development project. Anyone can suggest improvement, and if you pass peer review and convince other developers that the idea holds water, you are free to implement it. BU wants to replace that with a team of salaried developers. Right now it looks like two salaried developers and zero salaried QA.

Some big blockers supports BU because of the possibility that it might lead to bigger blocks (which nobody has shown how that would work in practice), but the miners support it because they think they have (more) leverage over the two salaried developers in question than they have over the current open source project.

So, no, bigger blocks in Bitcoin Core would perhaps dissuade a handful of people to support BU but the miner support would still be there. They would still want to rip out the last two years of work and replace it with their own developments. This is increasingly clear since Bitcoin will unlock a blocksize increase with segwit, but now BU argues against that increase because it was made by "tainted" developers. That must take an impressive amount of cognitive dissonance for a big blocker.

If the Core implements big block, there is no need for the Unlimited. I think Core should be more open.

BU will never be accepted by the community because it is a centralized company trying to do a hostile takeover of Bitcoin. Core are a volunteer bunch of developers (some of whom are paid by MIT and Blockstream) but any developer can volunteer to work for core and help make Bitcoin better. BU want in install a president of Bitcoin, not all the code they release is reviewed, not all the code they release if visible for anyone to see, and all developers are paid employees. So if BU ever manages to take over the Bitcoin chain, Bitcoin will lose 90+% of its value within 2 years, people will move to independent alts. Who wants a company managing Bitcoin?

So Core developers have released an update called Segwit to improve scaling. This should allow about twice as many transactions as currently allowed and fixes a known bug, but it paves the way for lightning networks which will provide off blockchain transactions for some Bitcoins transactions that are instantaneous and should cost less than 1-5 cents.

Segwit has already been tested and released, it needs support from miners. They are worried about Lightning network so most are not supporting it and many are supporting BU instead.
BU's bigger blocks can also mean smaller blocks, the miners decide on the blocksize, so in theory they could vote for smaller blocks and thus higher fees. Whilst BU promise lower fees. The other issue with larger block is the larger the block the more decentralized the miners become. If the blocksize went much larger quickly only data centres would be able to mine as no one else would have the bandwidth or storage needed. If the blocksize were to hit 4mb in the next year or 2 then the whole of Austrialia and Africa would be unable to process the data needed to mine due to bandwidth. So that is 2 continents without any possible mining.

Larger block sizes still has some merit but BU has none.  If you are after speed, and cheap fees going offchain with LN is the way forward, and Segwit is needed to get to LN.

BU is not dead, and if it dies someone will come along and try and fork Bitcoin.

Last point this is all or nothing. If there is a hard fork to BU then BU has to spend all of its resources killing off the Core chain (they have a $100m kitty for doing this). BU have to do this as if they let a core version of Bitcoin survive everyone will use it. BU is paid internet trolls in USA and a few Trump supporters mixed in with some big Chinese miners (who may be trying to kill Bitcoin on behalf of the Chinese government, or may just be greedy.)