Topic: Will BU Fork Soon Rip the Network in Half? - page 3. (Read 3534 times)

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.

you DO have a say
nodes are consensus.

read my examples i added
you as a non manufacturer only want yellow ducks, will refuse to accept green ducks. thus any manufacturer making green ducks is wasting its time.
yes it may have factories sky high filled with green ducks but if all the bathroom merchants and customers only want to buy yellow ducks.. the factory worker making green ducks is wasting its time.

its then the factory worker(pool) who then has to either make yellow ducks and get paid like everyone else. or.. resign and make his own factory and try and get some customers to buy his green ducks in a separate new market(altcoin).

Not sure if we're disagreeing or just using different words.

My point is that if you're not mining, you have no say in generating consensus rules. If you don't match the chain, your only option without mining is to sell off and use a different coin (What many did with LTC yesterday). As far as affecting protocol with economic decisions like that, anyone who holds has that power.

If BU miners broke off today, and the minority chain was forced to mine BU or die, the non-mining 'nodes' would be forced to upgrade to use the network, and have no option to force code on the miners. Sure, the 'node' wouldn't accept the larger blocks, but that wouldn't force the network's hand, it would force them to upgrade their node to follow the BU chain.

If ASIC centralization is a deal-breaker for you, then you need to forget about bitcoin and switch to a coin that uses an asic-resistant algo.

ill repeat your own words
and again

pools can collate the data in any way they like.. but its the NODE NETWORK and consensus, (unity of everyone)
that decides what is acceptable.

if nodes reject blocks, that pool cannot spend the reward in that block 16 hours later, because that block is trashed..
yea that block may exist in that pools list.. but not in the list of merchants and users who will have a different list, which due to the consensus/orphan mechanism ensures a united single chain of good rule following blocks.

a pool can make THOUSANDS of blocks and store them locally on their own system and build on them on thir own system, but if nodes are rejecting them then its just wasting the pools times making something only itself can see that no one else holds and as such that pool cannot spend.

pools learn very quickly unless there is little to no risk of rejection/orphaning, they wont change the rules.

even if pools are told they have been given the vote power. pools still watch the node network to see the risks of making a block
they can wave their ass/hat/flag all they like about preference. but they wont actually make a funky block unless the orphan risk was negligible

EG
even with the 1mb rule, pools in 2009 preferred to only make blocks under 250kb because of many factors, in 2013 there was a big event that caused pools to not want to make blocks over 500kb

pools wont do things if nodes are going to have trouble with the change.

EG
imagine you work in a factory making them yellow plastic bathroom ducks.. you decide "hmm today im gonna make green ducks"
you spend all day making thousands of green ducks, knowing you fellow employee's are making yellow ducks. and when you show your end of day produce, non of your bosses or the companies customers want green ducks. so you have just been told yo didnt meet your quata, you wont get paid.
you soon learn its far easier to just make yellow ducks

This has never been true.

Non-mining 'nodes' were never expected to secure the network. There is nothing in the original white paper or code to indicate that. The reason for downloading the full blockchain is so you can check it yourself and not have to trust a third party as to what the chain is.

They were NEVER intended to decide the protocol. Only MINERS that create blocks have any authority over protocol in a PoW system - period.

If people don't like that - use PPC...or Visa

by suggesting people should stop running nodes is the cheapest way to get pools more control.. because telling non-mining nodes to shut down CREATES this situation

however by non-mining nodes continuing to run their nodes causes

---

non-mining and mining nodes have a symbiotic relationship

---

you dont need to run 200,000 nodes.. its much easier to get 200,000 merchants/people to run 1 node each.

or more realistically if there are 20~ pool nodes.. have over 6000 non mining nodes

Pools and nodes are the same, all the nodes are operating by pools and miners, if you are not a miner there is no reason for you to be running nodes, if you are not a miner and are running nodes then you can't do anything because miners/pools will be the ones running the majority of nodes all the times.

Of course if a pool with having the minority numbers of nodes tries to change the code then the majority controlling the nodes will block it but if a miner/pool wants to change the protocol they will first make sure to have the majority of nodes themselves.

Let's assume I am not a miner but running 200,000 full nodes I can only make miners work more difficult if they try to change something and my nodes refuse them, they'll have to out number my nodes to be able to change the code and their nodes accepts it as valid.

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.

ethereums split was not "sudden" it was intentional..
(avoid reddit/twitter as a research source as thats just propaganda.. try looking for real sources (hint: "--oppose-dao-fork" may help you weed through the fake fud)
its what has been called a bilateral split.. again it was intentional, via avoiding the consensus security mechanisms and literally banning nodes of opposition to make an altcoin INTENTIONALLY

ok if your a core devotee.. here is your lord and masters own words explaining both ethereums intentional split AND showing that those who are not blockstream endorsed do not want a split in bitcoin.. while also revealing that cores CTO reall wants the split (3birds one stone)


by the way.
a hardfork is not by default a bilateral split. by default with high consensus, only a small minority simply dont sync and instead see lots of orphans and end up turning off their node and joining the network by upgrading to the new rules.

by default with moderate consensus, a more moderate amount simply dont sync and instead see lots of orphans and end up turning off their node and joining the network by upgrading to the new rules

but there then becomes a possibility that the opposition can add code to literally ban communications with opposing nodes and make their own altcoin.
the surprising things is that even going soft there becomes a possibility that the opposition can add code to literally ban communications with opposing nodes and make their own altcoin.

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.

I guess bitcoin unlimited will not win in the battle of the blocksize. Just recently many nodes of bitcoin unlimited had crashed since BU code contains many bugs and always ending up in error. I am not against BU but this time around a hardfork is not yet needed but possibly in the future when bitcoin network is ready a safe hardfork may be accepted.

is BU a hardfork or not?

Ethereum has a leader that everyone follows and a smaller userbase most of whom had a serious problem that the ETH rollback would solve.

Bitcoin's far more diverse and there's a lot more riding on it maintaining its integrity.

I have seen almost no one other than the tiny group hawking it state that they want Unlimited. If it did happen then it would be a sad demonstration of Bitcoin's centralisation and I'd be walking away. No doubt many others would too.

okay, thank you for your replies.  It seems that Bitcoin wont' suddenly rip in half overnight.

But wait!  ...Ethereum did...suddenly there were 2 seriously competing versions of Ethereum.

So what's the difference? that means ETH suddenly split in half but Bitcoin won't do the same?  Is Ethereum not supposed to have a sort of clever consensus system also?  

NEW BITCOIN UNLIMITED WILL BE NEW ALTCOIN ? OR OLD BITCOIN WILL BE BITCOIN CLASSIC LIKE ETHEREUM AND ETHEREUM CLASSIC, ZCASH AND ZCASH CLASSIC ? 

No, it can't rip Bitcoin. It will be another alt RogerCoin

Lies spread by the BTC Core Troll Army ,

None of the alts that activated shitwit are even using it for LN yet.
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.

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.


 

This made me really laughing hard. Also the fact that we know he could be hiding behind a fake account made by a long time member of Bitcointalk makes it more funny.

It might be true though. There was another case of crashing nodes for BU I believe.

"success"
its not even actually fully functional yet.
segwit is about keypair utility.. not just "activation"

please read things NOT found on reddit/twitter. meaning: look for proper research material

its like reddit is saying, 'lite coin is a teenager that is sexually active'..
by that it means still a virgin but is actively ready to grab a breast at some point.

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.

and you think core is perfect?
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3ABug

do you even know who has the puppet strings of core
puppeteer-blockstream
puppet master - DCG

follow the puppet strings
coinbase - litecoin - charlie lee - bobby lee - bitcoin - btcc
   \                                                                      /
        \       core- blockstream - elements:segwit     /
             \                      |                            /
                    digital currency group portfolio

read all the announcements of the 'economic' support of segwit at a closed door agreement session.
guess who's meeting that was  (hint check DCG)

check out who is organising the main "consensus" conferences
coinDESK - DCG - 'consensus roundtable meeting