Topic: Why BU should be correctly classified as an attempted robbery of BTC, not a fork - page 2. (Read 3004 times)

I've never seen that solid bitcoiner supports BTU. All BTU shills write, from time to time, that Bitcoin is dead, like rawdog or fyookball, some write that they are altcoiners like kiklo.
Andressen hearn and Ver are also constantly trying to ruin bitcoin price by posting their delusional ideas that bitcoin is a fail experiment and that Kraig is satoshi etc.

Sounds reasonable, however, if BTU were to split the blockchain (which is likely) it would devastate Bitcoin's value for the foreseeable future until a clear winner emerges from the split. Both sides would likely drop massive amounts of coins on each others chains trying to destroy the other. BTU users dropping their BTC in favor of more BTU and vice versa.

To sum it up, we're between stagnation and a hardfork both will lead to decreased value of Bitcoin and increased adoption of alt coins.

I would agree with you if there were no altcoins. Bitcoin is only so good as it is both safe and convenient. Users double every year apparently, so the status quo will only get worse, until people move on to something else.

Miners are important, but if bitcoin becomes slow and expensive, I wouldn't put my fiat in it, many wouldn't.  It would drop value and make mining and transaction verification less lucrative.

Despite what the heat of squealing may imply, the possibility of a hard fork is a long, long way away at present.

If you really do want to diversify then putting that into something that rose threefold in the space of a few days isn't the most prudent choice but do what makes you happy.

Was worried that was the case. I just can't decide whether to exchange BTC for Ethereum.
Thanks banks and mandy

You're guaranteed 6.85 BTC on both chains at the current £ exchange rate. £6000 is not guaranteed.



I hope you understand Lightning better now, mandy

Nothing to do with the GBP valuation. The amount of Bitcoins you have will be doubled because you'll have a carbon copy of Unlimited Bitcoins on the other chain. Both of them will exists side by side initially at least.

And they're almost certainly going to suddenly both be worth an awful lot less.

Ok NOOB question but for all these bitcoin holders who haven't quite got their head around the fork..

Say for example I have BTC with a value of £6000 in total and after the fork the amount is split into two, BU and core coins.
Is it split into £3000 worth of BU and £3000 of CORE or is my coin total doubled? £6000 of each?

No.

Your logic is entirely wrong. LN aggregates multiple transactions together. Assuming that your "daddy chain interaction" description is valid (it's not), channels need 2 on-chain transactions, 1 for opening, 1 for closing. Simple arithmetic should be telling you that so long as you make 3 or more transactions before closing the channel, that's one less transaction than would have ended up on-chain. So it frees up space on-chain, and so does not take space away from it.


And you're even more wrong than you realise: the closing part may never need happen. The channel concept is flexible enough to allow the aggregated transactions to flow from one channel into a different channel.

In practice, this means that the more people on Lightning, the better connected they are to each other, no different to the internet itself or the regular Bitcoin network. As long as everyone co-operates (which is a big if of course), then BTC moved over Lightning can keep circulating through the Lightning Network forever.

Because of the necessity of good behaviour to allow that perpetuity, I think it's more likely to be used between people that trust each other strongly, and one's regular IRL brick & mortar stores are the best fit (they're not going anywhere fast, and need to uphold a good reputation as a result). Also, Lightning transactions defy the confirmation concept, because they're not waiting to be confirmed in a block. And instant clearing is exactly what bricks & mortar retailers want.

It shouldn't be forced on us, it's just a matter of choice and people should be given the chance to choose between Bitcoin unlimited and core Bitcoin.

Why is everyone afraid of BU that much? It is not a robbery, it is a perfectly legal upgrade.

If the community decides to go with BU, then that's it. If you don't like what BU offers, you can still use your oldschool core code.

As far as I can tell an operating Lightning Network would mean a vast increase in on chain fees. Even if people kept coins in channels for a long time, there'd still be waves of others coming and going and each and every one of them needs to interact with the daddy chain at some point.

Or do you think we'd have places like Coinbase offering direct USD/LN interaction with barely any on chain transactions?

Which would be better than a loss of confidence in bitcoin, due to the artificially restricted capacity. Fees should not be that important for quite a while. Last one to leave, remember to switch the asics off.

Depends how much the market price moves up when more transactions are available.  At the moment, the fees make out about 15% of the miner revenue.  If the market price would move up by 15% with larger blocs, then this is in the advantage of miners (fees essentially to zero, only bloc reward).  But 3 years from now, there's another bloc halving ; and the fees are on the rise now.  So fees become more and more important, and they would probably drop to near-zero if the pressure on transactions were relieved.

The problem is that a hard fork will probably PLUMB the (BTU) price more than it will gain.  Segwit is to be avoided at all price for miners, because then, they can forget about the fee market for ever, if LN is successful.

If larger blocks provide greater utility value to bitcoin through increased transaction throughput, the value of bitcoin increases. So the value of the block subsidy increases, and the value of the transaction fees collected increases.

Don't worry.  Nothing will happen.  Segwit only activates with 95% consensus which will never be reached.  BU will only fork with 75% majority, which will not be achieved.  Bitcoin is bitcoin, and will not change.  What you have now, is what you will always have.

What makes you think the users aren't represented in the debate? Why wouldn't the users be interested in expressing their thoughts and attitudes, when the value of their BTC assets are at stake?

This is a bizarre distinction you're creating, as if none of the people debating have anything at stake (BTC assets or otherwise).

BU is not the one with the ban hammer. BU and MANY other implementations can all communicate all on the same level playing field.

BU would only activate with majority consent. meaning core if they dont play on the equal playing field with the rest of the community. then core will be the ones banning nodes.. no one else.



also it is
core that is trying its hardest to push for activation
core that ban certain nodes from being upstream if they activate
core that will orphan off and ban pools that have valid blocks but simply not be using a core brand of software
core that will treat anything not core as second class.

atleast get real with the facts. and admit who really is looking for domination

I think it should be because it is an attempt to defame and manipulate the true blockchain with this deformed version of it's successful contribution to all that use bitcoin.
It is certainly a huge attempt to destroy the blockchain and all that it has tried to accomplish for the past 8 years.

As they are the entities deciding on the upgrade, I don't understand your logic.  Miners will decide in any case, because they build the block chain users can, if they wish, download with their nodes.  Miners have not the slightest bit of interest in adopting segwit.  They don't have much interest in adopting BU, except for one thing: a miner that can mine a bigger block than his competitor, can reap in extra fees.  However, his competitor has to be willing to build on his bloc, also reaping in a bigger bloc and more fees.... except that if they accept too many of them, they release the pressure on the fee market and their fees will go down.
So, for a miner to switch to BU, he is torn between different strategies
1) accept his neighbour's big bloc, build on it, and reap in more fees (for the moment)
  -> advantage: more transactions and hence more fees ;
  -> disadvantage: fluidifying bitcoin transactions, releasing pressure on the fee market
  -> risk that this bigger double bloc will be orphaned by peer miners

2) reject his neighbour's big bloc, and build on a previous bloc
  -> advantage: keeping pressure on the fee market
  -> risk that most miners will accept the bigger bloc and his new bloc will be orphaned
  -> possibility to keep doing so, and produce an alternative chain, the former bitcoin chain

So, long-term thinking miners are against any relief on the fee market, and want transactions in general to be difficult to get through ; however, they have to comply to the wishes of the majority of miners.  It is best to follow the majority.  But if the majority is not clear, one can decide to fork to keep the small chain with its lucrative pressured fee market.

If miners are not too stupid, they will only pay enough lip service to BU to make other consensus hopes idle ; but they will limit lip service to BU so that it will not become reality, because for miners, desperate users not getting their transactions through is the most lucrative fee market they can imagine.