Topic: Will BU Fork Soon Rip the Network in Half? - page 4. (Read 3534 times)

No, it wont, becouse BU is a shit

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.

Meanwhile with all the infighting, natural evolution to the blockchain in the form of NEM, ETH, and others are maturing. The market will decide which tech is the best in time.

with all that said.

if you stop reading the reddit FUD drama scripts. you will see that the implementations that are not blockstream endorsed DO NOT want to split the network

they were even offered to split the network many times and refused to take the offer.
they want to stay with a united diverse peer network.

the only group making threats of PoW changes, mandatory dictatorships with deadlines and threats. are the blockstream teams.

non blockstream endorsed implementations are just plodding along waiting for consensus. REAL consensus (node and pool)

the real funny part is. the blockstreamists cry that network splits are bad, but under the same breath are begging non blockstreamist to F**k off.
its all empty drama

bitcoin is bigger than "pools have the power"
bitcoin is a symbiotic relationship between nodes and pools

non mining nodes are not just database backups. nodes provide a crucial security mechanism too. which ensures that a simple 51% attack wont cause control issues. and pools have a security mechanism that prevents node sybil attacks wont cause control issues.

thats the beauty of bitcoin.

anyone saying non-mining nodes are meaningless are only saying that because they want to get you to shut down your non-mining node so that it sways the protection of that symbiotic relationship.

pools can have 30000000000exahash and make every block(that pool makes) in a certain funky format very quick.
but if nodes are rejecting those blocks in 3 seconds. they just look for another block from another source that does meet the rules

pools can make new blocks every 4 seconds and build ontop of themselves all they like (within their own local server) but if the network is rejecting that pool. they just wait for the other pools and accept a block that meets node rules..

meaning merchants never see the 30000000000exahash blocks reward because that pool trying to spend its reward had its block rejcted 100 blocks ago.
that pool realises its wasted all its hashpower making 100 blocks that merchants are not seeing.. so the pool cant spend it. thus the 30000000000exahash pool has a choice

continue wasting time making literally orphans in the hope nodes download a new version to accept 30000000000exahash pools blocks.
or
go back to make blocks that do fit the node consensus rules so merchants see the block as normal and the pool can spend its rewards

The percent of hashing power will give them higher probability to mine faster, then hence gives a longer chain. However, even with 51%, they will not initiate the hardkfork as victory is not guaranteed- and will need a long time and lots of luck (probability again).

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).

Again, it is possible that some miner jumps the gun. However, he is likely to find his blocks orphaned no only by the stragglers, but also by BU miners that are executing according to the new plan.

There is the possibility that a new plan emerges. I've not heard of such.

With this, the minority (legacy) fork will drop from being capped at ~250,000 tx/day to about 62,500 tx/day, leading to a near-stall. If more miners defect to BU at that point (which would be in their financial interest due to the slow rate), the minority fork may rapidly dwindle down to a hard core of the obstinate 1% true core believers. Which of course, will slow the minority fork even further. It may never make it to the next difficulty retargeting, when the rate could be (partially) adjusted. In no way would the retargeting occur before two months.

The BU fork (assuming 2MB soft cap) would be capable of processing ~250,000 tx/day * 2MB/1MB * 75% = ~375,000 tx/day (more if further defection) until the next difficulty retargeting - in about 20 days (less if further defection), where it would jump to ~500,000 tx/day (more if further defection).

The upshot is that the minority fork will be economically irrelevant. This will create market pressure to consider the majority fork 'The Real Bitcoin', and the minority fork 'that other bitcoin-like alt'.

Accordingly, it would not rip the network in half, more like 99%/1% -- if that.

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.

But I also just saw this on the BU website:
"Would Bitcoin Unlimited start a hard fork?  No, Bitcoin Unlimited doesn’t implement a hardfork by itself. Even if 100 percent of the miners use Bitcoin Unlimited. If the economy doesn’t want a hardfork, miners would only waste money trying. This is part of Nakamoto Consensus."

Now I am as confused as ever about when to expect the BU hard fork to occur.  Can anybody explain that quotation in more relevant English for me?  Are they saying that there will never be 2 competing Bitcoins?  Do you think we will have any warning at all before the BU fork happens, or they will launch it suddenly as a surprise some time?  I am afraid this surprise can suddenly come tomorrow, every time I go to bed!