Topic: Why not creating BTU as altcoin ? (Read 1468 times)
Because they are fckn thieves that's why. All they want is to steal bitcoin's wealth/userbase. They don't have the balls to start from nothing and they know that their BU code is useless without the bitcoin fanbase. They didn't invent bitcoin but they want to be look like they did it.
I feel disgusted with BTU, I even hate people who want BTU to appear. BTU is formed from the idea of those who want to sabotage bitcoin, they take the name of the miners to do that evil, according to a statement published two weeks ago, when the BTU was killed, They have confirmed that the BTU by those who wanted to sabotage the bitcoin, they set up a very meticulous plan, but it was exposed. So, never expect BTU to appear, I hate guys like you.
What is the reason that Bitcoin unlimited members don't creating their own Altcoin (BTU) ?
Then there wouldn't be a hardfork !
I think they rely on the present value of BTC, If refresh will have to build from scratch. Then there wouldn't be a hardfork !
The main reason for Roger Ver, Jihan and all those to not create it as an altcoin is that they know BUcoiners dont give a fuck about it, they just want to steal the bitcoin brand. They know competing against bitcoin as an altcoin and let the market freely buy their altcoin if their idea of bitcoin is so much better than the core roadmap would fail, so they want to cause as much as destruction as possible in the process.
1. segwit is an alt because it begun as an alt hint: blockstream:elements:segwit network
2. segwit uses (core devs admitted) a anyonecanspend opcode exploit backdoor to slide in the altcoin and then attempt to get people to then move funds away from bitcoin native keys to segwit altcoin keypairs after activations, for only a hope of the half promises.
3. segwit is running inactively for just 6 months(no segwit blockstructure(2merkles) or segwit key function).
4. other implementations continue using native keypairs and have been running ACTIVELY on the network for years, (pre-empt rebuttle: much like when bitcoin nodes had the 1mb rule but pools were only making blocks below 500kb. did not mean the nodes were inactive, they were active..)
now thats clarified.
many implementations are running on bitcoins mainnet to keep it diverse and decentralised. each with their own proposals. but the only proposal with all the banning, blocking, bombing and splitting.. is blockstream(core). so maybe blockstream(core) show split off..
by this i mean BLOCKSTREAM...
and then the REAL independent core devs can concentrate on bitcoin away from blockstreams bait and switch of half gestures
2. segwit uses (core devs admitted) a anyonecanspend opcode exploit backdoor to slide in the altcoin and then attempt to get people to then move funds away from bitcoin native keys to segwit altcoin keypairs after activations, for only a hope of the half promises.
3. segwit is running inactively for just 6 months(no segwit blockstructure(2merkles) or segwit key function).
4. other implementations continue using native keypairs and have been running ACTIVELY on the network for years, (pre-empt rebuttle: much like when bitcoin nodes had the 1mb rule but pools were only making blocks below 500kb. did not mean the nodes were inactive, they were active..)
now thats clarified.
many implementations are running on bitcoins mainnet to keep it diverse and decentralised. each with their own proposals. but the only proposal with all the banning, blocking, bombing and splitting.. is blockstream(core). so maybe blockstream(core) show split off..
by this i mean BLOCKSTREAM...
and then the REAL independent core devs can concentrate on bitcoin away from blockstreams bait and switch of half gestures
Assuming miners are rational they will switch to the highest valued coin in the case of a fork, so the fork should not be sustained for long.
SegWit is the altSegWit has many radical changes.
BU just puts things back the way they were before 1MB limit. BU is the same old bitcoin.
SegWit + LN is an entirely different 2-layer system.
SegWit is the alt
but if satoshi changed it to 1mb there must be a reason right? we should follow what satoshi did and remain with 1mb for now, until better proposal are accepted like segwit, going back to 32MB is not a solution dude, it would make bitcoin suffer ddos and spam attack, because bitcoin don't need 32MB of block, i'm looking more forward to extention block than segwit, i like that new idea just need more testing
Roger Ver said himself that bitcoin is his life and all his money are into bitcoin. He spent his time with this so why will he move to other altcoin. You spent entirely your whole life in these, and obviously, you will not throw that away, you must help it to survive. And the fact that bitcoin is known in the world, if these is supported, it will be again popular.
The main reason of the developers of bitcoin on not turning to be an altcoin is the time and effort of bitcoin to become a crypto-currency in a high level. So it will not waste the effort and the time given by the community of bitcoin just to make its value to increase. And as we see bitcoin value is hitting its highest pick for now and it definitely make people to choose bitcoin on transaction that fiat. The more opportunities will come for the businesses to do.
Because they are very greedy, they want BU to be a BTC, they want it to be a core coin that dominates the market, and when they can do what they want, we can say they will. Satisfy their greed. They wanted bitcoin to change the protocol but kept the developers and customers alike. However, that did not happen, they faced the intense resistance of the market and all of us. And that is a disadvantage for them. Hardfork happens and bitcoin will definitely branch out, we can not guess who is the winner. A fork appeared, and as a result changed the market.
I think this is because they want to seperate Bitcoin, they want to turn BTU into a branching version of Bitcoin. The BTU is designed to help users choose their own transaction block size via the graphical user interface. Bitcoin is considered a decentralized open source, but not entirely. Bitcoin Core does not want to transfer power to other members of Blockchain. Bitcoin Unlimited allows the block size to be changed based on demand in the Blockchain network, allowing the technology to be freely changeable depending on the situation. I think due to disagreement, the ability offal to divide Bitcoin is huge and therefore they do not want BTU to be an altcoin type.
Surely a BTU altcoin would be the cleanest option. And I have already said in other threads that it may not be the worst for the Bitcoin Unlimited supporters. Above all if they base the initial distribution on recent Bitcoin balances, like the "Clams" altcoin did, and maximal coin supply and reward schedule are not changed.
They may not get an user network like BTC from the beginning, but they could demonstrate their technology works and doesn't lead to centralization. At the same time, they could continue to advocate for Emergent Consensus in the "true" Bitcoin, but without holding up the hard fork threat.
I know they want to change Bitcoin, but even that could work at the end: If their EC system works well in the wild (where I unfortunately have my doubts) they would have two "success options" that could make them profit from this strategy: 1) BTU becoming a strong cryptocurrency 2) their EC system having chances of being adopted in BTC, too (that would be difficult, but not impossible, as their opponents would lose a major argument if it works well).
They may not get an user network like BTC from the beginning, but they could demonstrate their technology works and doesn't lead to centralization. At the same time, they could continue to advocate for Emergent Consensus in the "true" Bitcoin, but without holding up the hard fork threat.
I know they want to change Bitcoin, but even that could work at the end: If their EC system works well in the wild (where I unfortunately have my doubts) they would have two "success options" that could make them profit from this strategy: 1) BTU becoming a strong cryptocurrency 2) their EC system having chances of being adopted in BTC, too (that would be difficult, but not impossible, as their opponents would lose a major argument if it works well).
BU already is Bitcoin.
SegWit is a whole bag of new bullshit rules - imposed upon Bitcoin.
SegWit is the alt.
SegWit represents new rules and the potential use of a far more convenient Lightning Network - it is a change to what Bitcoin currently is, but it would just be an update to the code which is entirely normal and wouldn't change anything about what Bitcoin actually does.
BU would be a new coin - Bitcoin owners would automatically own it but it would still literally be a new coin. As CCN reasonably defines altcoins, it's any cryptocurrency other than Bitcoin - which it would be, it would be BTU, not BTC.
Surely a BTU altcoin would be the cleanest option. And I have already said in other threads that it may not be the worst for the Bitcoin Unlimited supporters. Above all if they base the initial distribution on recent Bitcoin balances, like the "Clams" altcoin did, and maximal coin supply and reward schedule are not changed.
They may not get an user network like BTC from the beginning, but they could demonstrate their technology works and doesn't lead to centralization. At the same time, they could continue to advocate for Emergent Consensus in the "true" Bitcoin, but without holding up the hard fork threat.
I know they want to change Bitcoin, but even that could work at the end: If their EC system works well in the wild (where I unfortunately have my doubts) they would have two "success options" that could make them profit from this strategy: 1) BTU becoming a strong cryptocurrency 2) their EC system having chances of being adopted in BTC, too (that would be difficult, but not impossible, as their opponents would lose a major argument if it works well).
They may not get an user network like BTC from the beginning, but they could demonstrate their technology works and doesn't lead to centralization. At the same time, they could continue to advocate for Emergent Consensus in the "true" Bitcoin, but without holding up the hard fork threat.
I know they want to change Bitcoin, but even that could work at the end: If their EC system works well in the wild (where I unfortunately have my doubts) they would have two "success options" that could make them profit from this strategy: 1) BTU becoming a strong cryptocurrency 2) their EC system having chances of being adopted in BTC, too (that would be difficult, but not impossible, as their opponents would lose a major argument if it works well).
BU already is Bitcoin.
SegWit is a whole bag of new bullshit rules - imposed upon Bitcoin.
SegWit is the alt.
Surely a BTU altcoin would be the cleanest option. And I have already said in other threads that it may not be the worst for the Bitcoin Unlimited supporters. Above all if they base the initial distribution on recent Bitcoin balances, like the "Clams" altcoin did, and maximal coin supply and reward schedule are not changed.
They may not get an user network like BTC from the beginning, but they could demonstrate their technology works and doesn't lead to centralization. At the same time, they could continue to advocate for Emergent Consensus in the "true" Bitcoin, but without holding up the hard fork threat.
I know they want to change Bitcoin, but even that could work at the end: If their EC system works well in the wild (where I unfortunately have my doubts) they would have two "success options" that could make them profit from this strategy: 1) BTU becoming a strong cryptocurrency 2) their EC system having chances of being adopted in BTC, too (that would be difficult, but not impossible, as their opponents would lose a major argument if it works well).
They may not get an user network like BTC from the beginning, but they could demonstrate their technology works and doesn't lead to centralization. At the same time, they could continue to advocate for Emergent Consensus in the "true" Bitcoin, but without holding up the hard fork threat.
I know they want to change Bitcoin, but even that could work at the end: If their EC system works well in the wild (where I unfortunately have my doubts) they would have two "success options" that could make them profit from this strategy: 1) BTU becoming a strong cryptocurrency 2) their EC system having chances of being adopted in BTC, too (that would be difficult, but not impossible, as their opponents would lose a major argument if it works well).
Assuming miners are rational they will switch to the highest valued coin in the case of a fork, so the fork should not be sustained for long.
SegWit is the altSegWit has many radical changes.
BU just puts things back the way they were before 1MB limit. BU is the same old bitcoin.
SegWit + LN is an entirely different 2-layer system.
SegWit is the alt
No one is going to fork SegWit (at least, so far)
If you (or whoever else) don't like SegWit you can continue to use (mine) old bitcoins and happily think that you use the good old Bitcoin. I guess no one would give a fuck. But the problem with your logic is that it is the BU folks who are going to fork the current version of Bitcoin, not SegWit. They could just disagree with Bitcoin Core team when the latter go for it finally and stay with the trusted version instead. But that's not how matters actually stand now. SegWit is still far away in the future, and no one is spreading FUD about it, surprisingly
Assuming miners are rational they will switch to the highest valued coin in the case of a fork, so the fork should not be sustained for long.
SegWit is the altSegWit has many radical changes.
BU just puts things back the way they were before 1MB limit. BU is the same old bitcoin.
SegWit + LN is an entirely different 2-layer system.
SegWit is the alt
Assuming miners are rational they will switch to the highest valued coin in the case of a fork, so the fork should not be sustained for long.
actually what it hardfork? Issues that were created or simply a 'hot' right now, in retrospect between bitcoin and BTU that can co-exist, because as I know BTU that the system is almost the same with bitcoin, just BTU can provide acceleration of transactions in each block being in the mine because it can contain thousands of transactions more than is done by the mining bitcoin, to sum it is also the same coin coin 21 million, continues to present a problem was what exactly?
actually, see BTU has an attempt to go through a 51% attack to Bitcoin. IMO if this happens Bitcoin loses its credibility. So I do think that BTU should be considered as an altcoin...
According to you, BU supporters start a 51% attack on Bitcoin and the latter loses all credibility?
Did I get you right? As to me, the only ones who would lose all credibility (provided they had any in the first place, of course) in that case would be the BU folks themselves. Why would they want that if they were not there exclusively for money? Are they afraid to compete or what? If they are, then this Bitcoin Undisputed may in fact not be worth a dime? Apart from that, I am also leaning toward the idea that BU should be considered as an altcoin, though for a host of other reasons
What is the reason that Bitcoin unlimited members don't creating their own Altcoin (BTU) ?
Then there wouldn't be a hardfork !
they all what a piece of the pieThen there wouldn't be a hardfork !
and currently bitcoin has a ready market to trade in and going the altcoin way will be expensive and time consuming to build back up to the level bitcoin is today.
Well the pursuit of reality and the pursuit of delusion are two distinct path of choices and if they've decided to choose delusion we better leave them until they find out the only thing that remains is reality. They can create whatever Altcoin or fork as hard as they can but Bitcoin will remain and will never be doped.
What is the reason that Bitcoin unlimited members don't creating their own Altcoin (BTU) ?
Then there wouldn't be a hardfork !
they all want a piece of the pieThen there wouldn't be a hardfork !
and currently bitcoin has a ready market to trade in
and going the altcoin way will be expensive and time consuming to build back up to the level bitcoin is today.
actually, see BTU has an attempt to go through a 51% attack to Bitcoin. IMO if this happens Bitcoin loses its credibility. So I do think that BTU should be considered as an altcoin...
Jump to: