Topic: Yep.. BU absolutely definitely possibly maybe ready for prime time.. - page 3. (Read 3238 times)

ok time to test your knowledge.

you seem to really love blockstream.. but lets put blockstream aside and instead deal with the code.
no quoting reddit sales pitches or information of hope, dreams, utopia..

answer this.
1. at code level and real world end user benefit. what can be guaranteed to happen that is network wide and of guaranteed benefit TO ALL when segwit activates.
please dont reply yet. the next question gives you a hint


2. at code level and real world end user benefit. what can be guaranteed to happen that is network wide and of guaranteed benefit TO ALL when segwits keypairs are allowed long after segwit activation.
please dont reply yet. the next question gives you a hint

3. please describe features that are guaranteed features that are not possible without segwit done as a softfork

4. last question.. if segwit was created line for line identical.. no changes at all.. but was wrote by hearne and the R3 crew.. would you still sing segwits glory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockstream

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/time-moon-not-fighting-says-blockstreams-president/

you need a doctor man. and i am serious

ADAM BACK - blockstream president

your reading the reddit scripts not code
i agree and the many dynamic implementations INCLUDING BU are about user nodes having 2 limits.. an upper limit. then below that a preference limit..
pools only move to what the majority accept as a lower limit
EG consensus.h 8mb    then policy.h 1mb-7.9mb . and pools only go to what 75%+ agree on what policy.h agrees with and tells the 25% under that policy preference that their policy preference can gt shifted to align with the other 75%..
EG consensus.h 8mb    then policy.h 75% deem 2mb ok
the ones lingering at 1mb will have thier policy moved to 2mb . or if not dynamic will see they wont sync to the network

dont read the reddit scripts of "gigabytes by midnight" and start thinking rationally and logically

1. removed priority formulae without replacing it with something better
2. removed reactive fee in low demand and replaced it with average fee to keep fee's up even when demand is low
3. prevented any real network wide onchain growth for the last 2 years with half baked gestures that have no guarantee


again your stuck in the roger vs reddit script. think beyond this.
but google can help you out.
memory dealers,
bitinstant arbitrage system before ripple/liquid,
plus other things.

again all you have rea is the reddit scripts not the whole picture

jihan is only a small part.. definetly not 68% of the pools.. wake up!!
bt jihan has done more for the ASIC community then lets say GHASH or BFL
but you should also research the other pools and asic manufacturers that make up the 86% objecting/abstaning


lol here we go again with the reddit "gigabytes by midnight" rhetoric.. wake up
nodes set their limits and pools follow below the majority. thus is not going to suddenly go jumping to stupid amounts.. if nodes cant handle it the the network doesnt go passed it.
get out of the reddit blockstream best case utopia. anything else worse case doomsday.. atleast start being critical of blockstream if you really want them running it.. dont be an ass kisser.. be the ass whipper and dont hold them on a pedestal, hold them to account

EG 8mb is measured as the 'node can handle' capability this year. (consensus upper limit this year)
and dynamic policy becomes the extra safe preference below that

EG much like satoshi's 1mb consensus and 250k policy in 2009-2011
EG much like satoshi's 1mb consensus and 500k policy in 2011-2013
EG much like satoshi's 1mb consensus and 750k policy in 2013-2015
EG much like satoshi's 1mb consensus and 999k policy in 2015-2017

this guys has not any logic at all imo.
They talk about decentralisation and the same time they want to break consensus bitcoin system and install a president to Bitcoin.
They talk about control and the same time they want to give a huge power to miners to do whatever and whenever they want.
They talk about anonymity and the same time they want nodes to run only in big datacenters and claims like Roger Ver that many nodes are useless.
Is not lies. Is pure a social attack to bticoin and to its main principles like anonymity-decentralisation.
This is the true. And for that reason i will always try to expose them.

https://sputniknews.com/radio_double_down/201704251052968537-great-block-size-war-2017/

Do NOT listen to this paid shill Franky1. This guy has been rejected, he is the black sheep ore the ugly duck.

dynamic blocks as Bu propose give a huge power to miners and the opportunity to them to form a cartel and a kind of Opec for fees in bitcoin. Dont expect anyone to agree so easy in this crap. Miners is here to serve the network and not to govern it.
And why you has this psycho with blockstream? this blockstream developers has maintaine the network an always propose tech solutions to bitcoin and for sure not harm it.
Can i ask you what Roger Ver has done for bitcoin network all of this years?
My answer is MTgox and this community split and division.
Can i ask you what Jihan Wu have done for bitcoin network?
My answer is only to form a cartel and break decentralisation.
If we want bitcoin to be the future payment free payment system then this will not happen with nodes that runs through big datacenters and with a mining cartel that can change consensus rules whenever they want.

your reading reddit stories

1. im for dynamic blocks so that we as a community dont need to beg to devs for them to spoon feed us new block sizes.
meaning users get to change settings themselves at runtime.
meaning no dev control.

do you understand diverse decentralisation.

2. you think the debate is about ver+wu vs blockstream.. no its blockstream dictatorship vs many many implementations and pools saying no. but the redit crowd are just pointing the finger at one direction to try distracting people from looking deeper at blockstream as the culprits
.. remember if you are thinking "but pools shouldnt dictate the rules".. guess what they dont.. only in the blockstream(core) case blockstream BYPASSED node consensus.. .. the pools didnt do anything.. so dont blame pools. (which there are 20+ of no just 1)

3. other implementations are just plodding along waiting for full node and pool (proper symbiotic full network consensus) without threats or violence. without deadlines or deceipt.

and if you are like that how is possible to support scammer guys like Roger Ver or miners like Jihan Wu. This guys only want to form a cartel and to control bitcoin.
and i ask this because this guys is altcoin pumpers like Roger Ver with dash etc.

i hold many bitcoin and i gave up trading altcoins in 2014.
my life is now more my own leisure, say and do as i like. my landlord accepts bitcoin. i buy food, travel with bitcoin.

i dont even bother looking at the altcoin sections, to me they are all just pump and dumps.

the only one i consider having hope is from viewing how the blockstream sponsors and partners are finger deep into litecoin and where coinbase with a click of a button can easily flip to allowing hundreds of thousands of merchants accepting litecoin. and the blockstream sponsor cartel and partners (BS, DCG, coinbcase, bitpay, BTCC) all jump over and build on litecoin as their sandbox before moving to hyperledger

with that said i havnt touched litecoin since 2013, where i threw all my litecoin at a giveaway event
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1540606

im full in bitcoin. and have my hoard of bitcoin stashed on paper wallets which i have not touched the majority of since 2014, happily living on many coins i didnt cold store which can keep me going for a few years before even caring to look at my cold store

what is you favourite shitcoin? i can predict that you not hold a single bitcoin.

until last month when gmax found out his going soft approach Luke JR promoted wasnt as soft as he thought because gmax found out only last month that it ran into compatibiliy issues with ASICS that PRE-DATE segwit code.

also last year it took months to convince devs and get passed their ego's about the anyonecanspend. but instead of writing a version that would have been a full network upgrade and an oppertunity to add real features in. they continued as is and done a work around by telling people not to use segwit wallets until long after activation (killing part of their backward compatibility promise) and also by reinforcing their control of a tier network by making older nodes to be downstream of the network.

making segwit such a cludgy bit of code with no promises. just 'expectations' and many if's and maybe's

liar lair lair
there are atleast 2 round tables a year (ofcourse they are closed door meetings by invite only.. where the main devs and their corporate sponsors plan the roadmaps)

stop trying to brush that crap under the carpet.

the "independent" devs can only request a bip. but its the main devs paid for by blockstream that are the gate keepers of what gets accepted or not

look at the bips.. Luke JR
look at the mailing list .. rusty russel
look at the tech discussion board here gmax

then when it comes to actual code. if gmax or the other paid devs find any reason to nACK a idea.. forget any chance of convincing them otherwise

lauda will you stop wearing the blockstream defender cap, thinking they should own bitcoin. and start wearing a bitcoin cap.
you know the one that thinks about bitcoin over the next few decades and not blockstreams 2-5year plan

you can pretend all you like that blockstream and their interns are independent. but its plain to see that if any of the devs did go independent they would get rekt.

Correct. Bitcoin Core as a singular entity does not exist. Nobody who contributes to Bitcoin Core can sign/agree to anything on behalf of Bitcoin Core.

You're failing to realize that Segwit is a block size increase.

If there are people that control BTC, then Bitcoin has no inherent value. Almost all of its features practically wash down a drain. Once you have people who can control it, then you also have people who can be manipulated or bought. Once that happens, all kinds of nasty things come a long (see US Govt or any centralized institution for that matter).

---

Tl;dr: Bitcoin does not need a block size with Segwit at the moment. If you'd recall the events of the Hong Kong Roundtable, that what you propose has already been tried and has failed (mostly due to a miner breaking the agreement very soon after it was conceived).

er..so the bitcoin core guys can't get a roundtable together ..propose the same comprise as LTC with some of the same players blocking seg witness on BTC with
the added line of " a soft fork or hard fork in block size will be implemented at such and such a time under such and such a circumstance" to keep the miners happy?

bullsh*t...in BTC it is about who controls it all not in who shares a way forward.......miner concerns ..block concerns ...delusional concerns (usaf taking over) all
can be dealt with if the folk want to talk..they don't want to......its about power and all the marbles

then at that point...the masses (us) point the hash where we want to achieve whatever..if they all sing the same song and say point to seg witness with the
above caveats ...that would get passed....again about power ...my way or the highway in both camps

or how I see it

Yet another post full of nonsense and shilling for BTU.

Correct. You can see this clearly in all of their communication channels. Most of them "quit to [insertAltcoin]" every second day.

That arrangement makes no sense and is a sign of centralization. There is no leader in Bitcoin, nor is the creator known or present. Therefore, you can't compare the LTC roundtable to any possible BTC roundtable. Bitcoin Core developers can only propose consensus changes, but ultimately that's where their "power" ends.

because this Bu supporters are not bitcoin holders and the most of them are shitcoin pumpers that they think a disaster of bitcoin will  rise their shitcoin

bitcoin is bitcoin

CORE should not own bitcoin!!!!

NO ONE should own bitcoin
we should not be blindly following core and only doing what core want. not until atleast core independent devs get rid of their dependency on being goverend and moderated and gatekeepered by blockstream.

that way the independent core devs can happily help out the rest of the community without fear of getting REKT

what would be rational is this
ALL implementations. including core should have versions of highly discussed and popular bips.

EG
btcd (wrote in go) should have 3 versions A dynamic. B twomerkle segwit. C dynamic and one-merkle segwit
core  should have 3 versions  A dynamic. B twomerkle segwit. C dynamic and one-merkle segwit
bu  should have 3 versions one dynamic. A dynamic. B twomerkle segwit. C dynamic and one-merkle segwit
(i could list more 'brands' but you get the idea)

where all brands help each other out to write the best versions possible. no brand camping..no REKT, no pointing fingers

and none of them activate the new "protocol" until there is high majority of the community accepting a favourite 'protocol'
this would be done by both a node consensus followed by a pool consensus.

that way its no longer about giving control to any brand because each brand offer the same 'protocol' choice

Hmm..

Franky1 - We ALL want multiple implementations of the same protocol. I agree. Healthy.

We don't want multiple competing protocols. That would be madness.

------------

What I find very hard to swallow.. is that BU does not fork the VERY LATEST STABLE VERSION OF CORE.. and then add the ~100 lines of code that change it into BU.. Then patches can still be added to both, etc etc etc..

It's really that simple, and the fact that they don't do that.. is what upsets me.. and makes me think they are morons. I can't condone the Bitcoin network being run by morons. That's going to end in disaster.