Core is not perfect, but BU is just sad. Might as well stand for Bugs Unlimited.
Can I add : with closed source update ?
No, you may not. Code for all releases is publicly available.
Topic: Will BU Fork Soon Rip the Network in Half? - page 2. (Read 3464 times)
Can I add : with closed source update ?
No, you may not. Code for all releases is publicly available.
Core is not perfect, but BU is just sad. Might as well stand for Bugs Unlimited.
Can I add : with closed source update ?
Indeed, and bitcoin also needs users. 99% of people run Core software, nobody trusts Buggy Unlimited.
Well, that's just a plain lie:
http://nodecounter.com/#nodes_pie_graph
That took about 30 seconds to look up. Core has dropped to around 86%. They basically had a kind of 'first-mover' advantage with the perception of being the"official" client. Now they're losing share because of their own actions, ironically.
Those facts aside, anyone who understands how and why Bitcoin works understands that this 'node' count (they're not actually nodes) is entirely irrelevant, anyway.
also worth noting that the 86% includes versions of core 0.8 - 0.12 which are not even segwit compatible.
infact many are INDEPENDENT people that forked the core, and made their own tweaks and updates themselves and not bothered sticking with core.
some are even classic/BU/XT nodes in disguise to avoid DDoS attacks from the core gang who only attack user agents that appear not to be core.
also worth noting segwit is IMPLICITLY at 66% and EXPLICITLY well BELOW 66%
also worth noting and even funnier is that BTCC (highly ass kissing core/blockstream/segwit) doesnt even use cores upto date software, they done their own tweaks to their own pool software
https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/?q=BTCC:0.13.1
Indeed, and bitcoin also needs users. 99% of people run Core software, nobody trusts Buggy Unlimited.
Well, that's just a plain lie:
http://nodecounter.com/#nodes_pie_graph
That took about 30 seconds to look up. Core has dropped to around 86%. They basically had a kind of 'first-mover' advantage with the perception of being the"official" client. Now they're losing share because of their own actions, ironically.
Those facts aside, anyone who understands how and why Bitcoin works understands that this 'node' count (they're not actually nodes) is entirely irrelevant, anyway.
from what i have been reading lately from around the web, the greater community wants segwit, which seems to be a success on every alt coin it has been applied to. cant see why any miners would want to risk splitting bitcoin and causing a crash when we have record highs in value, volume and fees. the only logical thing for miners to do is follow the money with segwit.
Lies spread by the BTC Core Troll Army ,
None of the alts that activated shitwit are even using it for LN yet.
Would it not take more time to develop and test before it can be deployed? Give Segwit more time on Litecoin and let us see what happens. If it is good then maybe Bitcoin can activate it if no then at least we know.
Quote
What is funny is not one of those alts need shitwit, they all have plenty of transaction capacity to spare,
in fact, there ONCHAIN transactions are so fast and cheap , LN will probably never used them.
in fact, there ONCHAIN transactions are so fast and cheap , LN will probably never used them.
Yes. It is more to hype Litecoin and maybe test the technology for Bitcoin. The outcome could be good.
Quote
Shitwit/LN will decrease the transaction fee Profits for the miners , they are a few years from the block halving, so transaction fees or the amount of transaction fees included per block will have to increase dramatically for them to make the same amount of money.
BTC Core can lie all they want , Chinese Miners are not stupid enough to believe Core Lies.
BTC Core can lie all they want , Chinese Miners are not stupid enough to believe Core Lies.
Then they should hard fork it immediately away from Core to Bitcoin Unlimited. What are they waiting for?
***
Is that because you want to move from the stability of a node that runs 24/7 for 3 years to one that crashes on a weekly basis because that's more fun?
Is that because you want to move from the stability of a node that runs 24/7 for 3 years to one that crashes on a weekly basis because that's more fun?
maybe running core was boring
he needs some action.BU won't fork i they to scary to have fail at start and compotation.
I don't think that anyone would give them any bigger money.
For BTC would be idead to break into 2 and Unimited would broke in half way , that would be so hilarious
Same here, though my non-mining full node has been up 24/7 for over 3 years now. 
Looking into setting up a BU node...
Is that because you want to move from the stability of a node that runs 24/7 for 3 years to one that crashes on a weekly basis because that's more fun? Looking into setting up a BU node...
bitcoin is a symbiotic relationship between nodes and pools
This is one of the main reasons why I am still running a full node. Although I can't keep the node online at all time, I still try to keep at least 6-8 hours online during weekdays.
I think so far the two side still have one thing in common - no one wants to split bitcoin into two.
Same here, though my non-mining full node has been up 24/7 for over 3 years now.
Looking into setting up a BU node...
All they will have is an useless coin with a higher hashrate. Meanwhile 75% of exchanges and merchants will reject BUcoin.
The poll done by 21 suggest that around 75% of big players in the space want segwit and the 70.5% reject Buggy Unlimited explicitly:
https://medium.com/@21/using-21-to-survey-blockchain-personalities-on-the-bitcoin-hard-fork-1953c9bcb8ed
Not to mention nobody buy Roger Ver runs nodes.
So it's pretty obvious BU is in general a failure.
The poll done by 21 suggest that around 75% of big players in the space want segwit and the 70.5% reject Buggy Unlimited explicitly:
https://medium.com/@21/using-21-to-survey-blockchain-personalities-on-the-bitcoin-hard-fork-1953c9bcb8ed
Not to mention nobody buy Roger Ver runs nodes.
So it's pretty obvious BU is in general a failure.
Bitcoin is PoW (Proof of Work), not PoSP (Proof of Sybil Poll)
Indeed, and bitcoin also needs users. 99% of people run Core software, nobody trusts Buggy Unlimited. This is why they just don't fork already and compete against bitcoin as an altcoin, because they know nobody would give a fuck. So they are trying to overtake bitcoin instead of fairly competing. If their solution was so good, then it would surpass BTC, but their solution is a joke, that's why they don't do it.
No matter how much hashrate a couple chinese idiots have, it's useless if there are no users and no good devs. Miners are easily replaceable, devs aren't, and people, merchants, and everyone else, will follow the devs, not the hashrate. There will be new miners to take the lead away from Jihad if he keeps mining his meme coin.
All they will have is an useless coin with a higher hashrate. Meanwhile 75% of exchanges and merchants will reject BUcoin.
The poll done by 21 suggest that around 75% of big players in the space want segwit and the 70.5% reject Buggy Unlimited explicitly:
https://medium.com/@21/using-21-to-survey-blockchain-personalities-on-the-bitcoin-hard-fork-1953c9bcb8ed
Not to mention nobody buy Roger Ver runs nodes.
So it's pretty obvious BU is in general a failure.
The poll done by 21 suggest that around 75% of big players in the space want segwit and the 70.5% reject Buggy Unlimited explicitly:
https://medium.com/@21/using-21-to-survey-blockchain-personalities-on-the-bitcoin-hard-fork-1953c9bcb8ed
Not to mention nobody buy Roger Ver runs nodes.
So it's pretty obvious BU is in general a failure.
Bitcoin is PoW (Proof of Work), not PoSP (Proof of Sybil Poll)
I don't know why people still fall into so much FUD. Take a look at the BU bitfinex token, the price has dropped considerably, and the volume is really low. In addition to the fact that the hype has declined, it seems that people in the market are not willing to take the risk of investing into it.
All they will have is an useless coin with a higher hashrate. Meanwhile 75% of exchanges and merchants will reject BUcoin.
The poll done by 21 suggest that around 75% of big players in the space want segwit and the 70.5% reject Buggy Unlimited explicitly:
Not to mention nobody buy Roger Ver runs nodes.
So it's pretty obvious BU is in general a failure.
The poll done by 21 suggest that around 75% of big players in the space want segwit and the 70.5% reject Buggy Unlimited explicitly:
Not to mention nobody buy Roger Ver runs nodes.
So it's pretty obvious BU is in general a failure.
questionnaire of 61 people, hmm who got told where to vote - result biased by spamming link to only one side
also if pereira4 is not around billy bob will daily spam the same biased stuff..
if billy not around lauda will
each day the same stuff is posted but none of them even think about researching behind the numbers. they just post it
P.S
want to see the narrative control
P.P.S
question 4 (as advertised by lauda/billy and other) is
do you want MINERS to activate BU
..
if the question was "do you want community consensus to activate BU" results would be different
this is where people need to learn CONTEXT and source of data
also if pereira4 is not around billy bob will daily spam the same biased stuff..
if billy not around lauda will
each day the same stuff is posted but none of them even think about researching behind the numbers. they just post it
P.S
want to see the narrative control
P.P.S
question 4 (as advertised by lauda/billy and other) is
do you want MINERS to activate BU
..
if the question was "do you want community consensus to activate BU" results would be different
this is where people need to learn CONTEXT and source of data
If franky1 is not around (impossible because he lives on the forums) then jonald will spam the usual anti-segwit bullshit.
Sorry, facts are clear: Nobody in the industry supports Buggy Unlimited. It's game over, finished.
If you want bigger blocks, start thinking about a new name for your new bitcoin takeover attempt.
Core is not perfect, but BU is just sad. Might as well stand for Bugs Unlimited.
But Sundark, the way these guys are explaining it is that BU can't really fork now and cause a chaos scenario, they can only do it if the economy all comes to agree with BU first and by that point it's all cool with everyone anyways. So no competing coins really. At least that's my understanding (?).
I am expecting that once Bitcoin Unlimited gets over 50% of the hashing power then they will have enough confidence to attempt to win the battle of the block size. I am expecting that once they are over 50% they will start their hard fork and hence create two competing Bitcoins. Then chaos for everybody.
Bitcoin is PoW system, hash power is the law. But hostile takeover over bitcoin's network won't end well. It is no longer emergency rollback fork like ETH did.It is forcing your will against community and minority of miners. It will be a disaster. It is stupid. They know it, we know it. It will crash BTC price and ruin BTC trust.
Let's not turn this into another blocksize debate.
Thank you for all answers. I had been keeping all my BTC on paper wallets because I wanted the option to import them and own both the
BTC and BUcoin in the event of a sudden network fork & split. My reasoning was along similar lines to having both ETH and ETC when Ethereum split.
I have a perfectly good Trezor which I'd rather use than paper wallets, but I was afraid to have my BTC on the Trezor because then I would only get the currency which Trezor follows (like only having ETH when Ethereum split).
Thank you for all answers. I had been keeping all my BTC on paper wallets because I wanted the option to import them and own both the
BTC and BUcoin in the event of a sudden network fork & split. My reasoning was along similar lines to having both ETH and ETC when Ethereum split.
I have a perfectly good Trezor which I'd rather use than paper wallets, but I was afraid to have my BTC on the Trezor because then I would only get the currency which Trezor follows (like only having ETH when Ethereum split).
I don't think that the hard fork of BU or Bitcoin Unlimited will rip the network in half because we can see that there is not much user of the that coin and a lot of people still use bitcoin and there is no chance for BU to cut the network in half because the supporters of bitcoin are too big and strong to be defeated.
that is not the reason, the reason is that exchange will view bu as an altcoin, which is a good think, because it allow core to remain the primal fork, if miners want BU they will make an altcoin, perhaps we end up like with ETH and ETC, both with different value
All they will have is an useless coin with a higher hashrate. Meanwhile 75% of exchanges and merchants will reject BUcoin.
The poll done by 21 suggest that around 75% of big players in the space want segwit and the 70.5% reject Buggy Unlimited explicitly:
Not to mention nobody buy Roger Ver runs nodes.
So it's pretty obvious BU is in general a failure.
The poll done by 21 suggest that around 75% of big players in the space want segwit and the 70.5% reject Buggy Unlimited explicitly:
Not to mention nobody buy Roger Ver runs nodes.
So it's pretty obvious BU is in general a failure.
questionnaire of 61 people, hmm who got told where to vote - result biased by spamming link to only one side
also if pereira4 is not around billy bob will daily spam the same biased stuff..
if billy not around lauda will
each day the same stuff is posted but none of them even think about researching behind the numbers. they just post it
P.S
want to see the narrative control
P.P.S
question 4 (as advertised by lauda/billy and other) is
do you want MINERS to activate BU
..
if the question was "do you want community consensus to activate BU" results would be different
this is where people need to learn CONTEXT and source of data
also if pereira4 is not around billy bob will daily spam the same biased stuff..
if billy not around lauda will
each day the same stuff is posted but none of them even think about researching behind the numbers. they just post it
P.S
want to see the narrative control
P.P.S
question 4 (as advertised by lauda/billy and other) is
do you want MINERS to activate BU
..
if the question was "do you want community consensus to activate BU" results would be different
this is where people need to learn CONTEXT and source of data
But why would I be running 200,000 nodes? I don't have any incentive and unlike miners/pools I can't afford to run nodes.
Well yeah, same reason why one person doesn't seed on the pirate bay a million times just to make sure that all the data about a film someone receives is from them.There's two key fallacies about nodes though:
1. It's really hard to run a full node (it's not yet, as long as you have a decent computer and decent Internet).
2. One person is irrelevant overall to nodes.
Obviously 200,000 is a network of individuals all contributing. If anyone told themselves they didn't matter, nearly no one would be running nodes at all.
I am expecting that once Bitcoin Unlimited gets over 50% of the hashing power then they will have enough confidence to attempt to win the battle of the block size.
Possible, but unlikely. Bitcoin is permissionless. Trying to make all miners adhere to a single plan is akin to herding cats. That said...
The most widely discussed plan os to achieve >= 75% of solved blocks, hold that until the next difficulty retargeting (0-2 weeks), hold it for an entire difficulty retargeting, then start building blocks larger than 1MB (soft cap at 2MB seems to have some support).
I'm curious how this would be possible. How much collusion between mining entities would be required? Has someone done some peer reviewed research on this?
Jump to: