Topic: Yep.. BU absolutely definitely possibly maybe ready for prime time.. - page 4. (Read 3248 times)

If all this was BU and core and such was not about power and money..they'd just make the same arrangement as what litecoin
did to make an agreement (of any kind) but both sides want it all...thus ...LTC is now eating their open source code 'lunch' as it were
and pumping as a result. Maybe 4x spike in price in LTC after this has the BTC devs of any flavor (and miners) re-thinking positions

that's why the bitcoin core is the only valid client/node in the bitcoin network.
let's get the things straight: bitcoin's protocol is not to be destroyed by any method, else the itself wouldn't be called 'bitcoin'.

Software bug is a big issue of them.
I hate they say BU good BU good, then they not get the things well.
It might hacked by hacker easily if problem not got well clear.

+1

My thought exactly. Having so many issues recently makes me thing only people who expect direct financial benefits from it can still support it.

Core didn't crash in 2013. The bug that franky1 keeps talking about was a failure to maintain perfect consensus, leading to an accidental split in the network/currency. It's ironic that franky1 complains about this in particular, since accepting a diversity of consensus rules as he often endorses would by its very nature result in similar splits all the time. The kind of split that was treated as an emergency by the Core devs - one of Bitcoin's biggest failures - is seen as nothing to worry about by many "emergent consensus" advocates.

Core has never been successfully brought down like this, and to my knowledge the last bug that could theoretically have caused comparable effects was fixed by Satoshi.

Lumping BU and segwit together in that same sentence is a terrible mistake. Segwit has 100x more coders that worked and tested it, and it has been LIVE on testnet for a very long time now, having received 1000s of times more testing than BU has. There is no "rush" with segwit. It was developed slowly and meticulously, and has been audited and tested by many very capable coders. The same can NOT be said about BU.

Bitcoin's source code is no protected by any patent as I am aware it was copied and used hundreds of times, if not thousands by various altcoins.
What you are probably trying to say is that you don't want current bitcoin network to be torn apart and split, by 2 different version of scaling solution.

---

Bitcoin Unlimited was never popular among users node-wise anyway, always backed by just ~10% of node providers.

I do not believe BU will actually show up, because most people refuse it, it can not grow if it is not interested.

I don't understand how anyone can support BU.

If you owned 100 BTC, would you want to put that in the hands of people who can't solve basic technical issues?

Not seeing how that's a good idea.

 

the issue is not about segwit vs BU

the big picture is peer network vs tier network
(because segwit 'features' are empty gestures... the only long term network wide effect of segwit is the tier network)
then below that

dynamic blocks less reliant on dev control vs segwit reliant on dev control

there are MANY implementations out there, not 2. but the reddit crowd are only mentioning 2 because they want to make it sound like an election for who controls bitcoin. by making people think there are only 2 options to choose from.

the reality should be to realise that there are a dozen different implementations at the moment. and where the diversity allows a proper independent choice of brand. where by the rules upgrade only when the majority of the community can find something they can all agree on.

and to keep our mind open to a diverse decentralised peer network, rather then a dependant tier network. this prevents any brand from doing a half assed gesture of temporary drama of features that wont actually meet expectations

if your first thought is to attack anything thats not core. then its time to stand back and ask yourself are you defending the code or the devs.
in short.. if all the lines of code were the same. would your stance change if say hearne wrote segwit

bitcoin is code. if you prefer to only care about the devs that can come or go.. rather then what could happen to bitcoin in the next 120 years, then stand back and spend a few minutes thinking about things

This just goes to show that we should not rush into options such as BU and segwit.

Just imagine what would happen if we rushed to implement bitcoin unlimited and this happened, the price would drop significantly. Hopefully we will see a permanent fix for this in the future because this is the third instance of this happening. The numbers should be back up soon but the coders need to fix whatever bug is causing this, It's the third or fourth time that I've seen this since February.

Can't believe this issue is still open:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/651

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/labels/Bug

I think the only one reading from scrips word by word it's you, because you keep mentioning 2013 and fail to point to another big crash/ bug. also BU didn't come out after 2013 but they started BU in 2015 I mean what was the 2 years gap for? assuming they wanted nothing but the success of bitcoin then they should've come up with BU soon after 2013.
Also can you provide us with Core crashes in short periods of time like BU?
140 years in the future aside they can't even sustain and maintain a stable network for 140 days.

As Satoshi said once there should not be different implementations of version because all the nodes need to get the exact same results after even 1000B syncing/ connection.

Moreover IMAO other versions should only run in the back ground of sorts as backups if Core somehow failed then BU or other versions/ forks could carry on temporarily until Core is fixed and back on the track to take the wheel/ lead.

This is quite sad.  Instead of acknowledging their mistakes, they point fingers to other camp as if, if the bug were made by the core.  If the bug was not there, in the first place, there should have nothing to exploit.  They should be thankful instead if the other party such as Bitcoin Core is showing them how clumsy their is  coding is, so that they can fix and improve their codes.

open source even in gmaxwells words means you can read the source but does not mean millions of people can edit it without the blockstream gate keeper.

anyone seen "forking off" from the blockstream gatekeeper and moderators get REKT and insulted

what should happen is the independent devs should be free to help out with any/all implementations. not be dependent on one implementation.
as thats the titanic/banks too big to fail mindset

and why the only brand that has not crash from 2013 is Bitcoin core and why is the majority of the network? Bitcoin is an open source code and anyone can participate from it. In open source if you dont agree with the road of a project you just fork off from it. Is that simple. But i dont think you know about what is open source.
Are you a mac or windows closed source fanboy?

hello
wake up

if there was only one brand then there would be crashes..
please learn the consensus of a DIVERSE DECENTRALISED PEER NETWORK

and what is this "Big Picture" ? An unstable blockchain system that crash every month?

funny part is that my opinions are about not any dictatorship.
i want diverse decentralised peer network

many have tried and failed to put me into one brand or another but they are not seeing the big picture.
all they see is "who does/should own bitcoin". they can never actually imagine a network owned by no group

i am going to laugh when blockstream jumps over to litecoin or hyperledger once they have finished messing with bitcoin

my mindset is on the next 120 years of bitcoin. not any particular brand and especially not a particular brand that has so much banscore code and block snobbery about version rather than validity