Bitcoin Forum

Hi all,

I am trying to wrap my head around bitcoin unlimited. Assuming it does go through what happens to my BTC? Am I awarded the same amount of BTU as I have BTC? How does it work?

Thank you!

You got to read better in their official site and FAQ where you can get your questions answered. However, in a nutshell they are looking to remove the block size limit and users can determine the block size by consensus

I think you meant to say "miners" get to determine the blocksize, not regular users.

right. thanks for the correction

Read this.
https://poloniex.com/press-releases/2017.03.17-Hard-Fork/
I think you will be understand about how it works.

Thank you!

Just so I understand, if I have 10BTC and BTU hard forks would that mean that I now have 10BTC and 10 BTU? Ive tried to find this out via the FAQs.

miners can try.. but the diverse nodes can orphan what they dont approve of.
learn consensus

many diverse nodes are using consensus, this includes BU..
BU have no plans to split the network. however if the diverse network get a majority where by dynamic blocks occur and many nodes are ready for it.. it will be the corporate(segwit) nodes that will trigger their own orphan and ban mechanisms to split and form their own minority.

its why they are soo desperate to try getting BU to split away before consensus is reached so that the corporations dont lose out as much and also play the victim card.

but as i said the diverse consensus network are not going to bow down to the corporations. BU, and a dozen other independent brands WONT split the network. so only the minority opposing consensus will have to cause a split.

if consensus is reached where either dynamics win, or where neither win and bitcoin stays as is (meaning no segwit) then the corporations will trigger their bip9 and UASF to make their own minority, where by they would need users to move funds into segwit keys to get the segwit 'half benefits' and also avoid replay attacks.... making them the altcoin with less hashpower, and less strong network.

essentially giving you (in op example) 10 btc and 10 SWcoin. because BU will not ban/orphan to crate their own alt.. BU and many other independent nodes want community consensus of a open diverse PEER network. meaning the only split would be those from the segwit side..

---

its all about trying to get the corporations to release LN to grab fee's to repay their $70m-$95m debt owed to VCs
http://dcg.co/portfolio/

If you hold coins in your own wallet, you would have:
10 BTC & 10 BTU coins.

---

However, this situation gets fairly complicated if BU doesn't add double-replay protection.

Can't double-replay protection be added to the non-Unlimited version of bitcoin?

bu and other independent nodes have no plans to split. please learn consensus. they want to remain on one single chain of diverse PEERS

only segwit plans the TIER'd nodes after they split away the opposing pools/nodes(bip9 and UASF allows this).
wake up.

so in essence it would be a 10btc and 10swcoins

you can bait and switch and play the victim card all you like lauda, but not learning the basics and calling anything not segwit a alt is becoming tooo obvious

Stop with these delusions already and wake up.

Possibly, but I am not exactly sure what is required to add this. A soft fork, hard fork, or is it just a normal change? The BTU version seems to be very hesitant to add double-replay protection for some reason which doesn't make things easier.

calling it BTU. is your failure. LEARN consensus

because bu and many other implementations are only opting for consensus and NOT bilateral splits. they have no reason to have replay protection.
if the network stays as one consensus network of open and diverse peers, then there is no need.

however the minority that may (core definitely are desperate to) split away. it would be core that will need to implement the double spend replay protection. not the other way round.

please learn consensus

Wrong. BTU does not care about any consensus, they just care about hashrate. There isn't even a specified activation threshold; as soon as someone mines a block that is bigger than 1 MB they will split off. Do you even read their main communication channels? They think that 51% hashrate = Bitcoin. ::)

Please learn how to live in the real world.

if you learn consensus you know that pools wont make bigger blocks unless the majority of nodes exist to accept what pools produce.

also its core that have bypassed consensus by going soft. meaning its core that only care about hashrate by only giving pools the vote. they dont care about nodes or the community.


plus.. real world
"There isn't even a specified activation threshold;
They think that 51% hashrate = Bitcoin"

you have just proved that the '51%' is meaningless because of 'There isn't even a specified activation threshold'
you literally debunked your own propaganda in the same paragraph

when you start debunking your own propaganda. its time you step back and learn BITCOIN and not go looking for new propaganda scripts

Wrong. You are completely ignorant about Jihan & his mining cartel.

Actually it is the opposite, they care about both.

Nope. Learn consensus & learn hard forks. BU activates as soon as someone starts mining bigger blocks. No activation threshold is needed. You are starting to look like an innocent pawn in this political game. ::)

Hmmm... The poor "average user" who asks : "what happens to my BTC?" must feel really puzzled...Too bad that even the BTC experts cannot agree on how the BTC system works.  ???

lol
'start mining bigger blocks' is only activated when there is consensus..(majority of nodes will accept what they produce)
please learn it. i have asked you for a year now.
its not that hard.
i have not even asked you to learn C++ or read thousands of lines of code to realise where your going wrong. i have just asked you to learn the basic concept of bitcoin, to actually move you forward into understanding bitcoin. where by you will begin to care more about bitcoin and less about corporate script reading.

That depends on what you mean by "activates".

Anyone can mine a larger bock right now on Bitcoin Core if they want to re-compile the code for themselves.  However, nobody would be dumb enough to waste all that hash power on a block that is just going to be rejected by the majority of the hash power.  The blockchain will mine a couple of blocks that are smaller than 1 megabyte and the large block will be abandoned.

Same is true of Unlimited right now.  Sure someone "could" start mining bigger blocks, but nobody would be dumb enough to waste all that has power on a block that is just going to be rejected by the majority of the hash power. And if they do, they're just wasting their own money and having no significant effect on the network or the blockchain.  Larger "Unlimited" blocks won't realistically happen until a miner feels confident that an overwhelming majority of the global hash power is willing to build on top of his block.  An overwhelming majority of the global hash power isn't going to be willing to mine on top of larger blocks until they are confident that the block reward will maintain it's value on the market (so they can pay their electric bills).  So, an "Unlimited fork" won't happen unless it is overwhelmingly supported by the entire bitcoin marketplace (in which case it will be the de-facto "real" bitcoin regardless of what anyone calls it.)

So long as Unlimited is not overwhelmingly supported by the entire bitcoin marketplace it will remain a fully compatible alternative client for those that don't want to run the code released by the team that calls itself "Core".

Note that if Core decides that it is time for a 2 megabyte (or larger) block, Unlimited will NOT fork (unlike any legacy core nodes).  It is already prepared to automatically accept those 2 megabyte blocks just fine.  Meanwhile, anyone that doesn't upgrade their Core clients before the activation date for larger Core blocks will get left behind.

Actually, the experts can.  But there aren't very many experts posting to this forum or reddit. If those are your sources, then you are mostly getting propaganda from zealots and not technical knowledge from experts.

Thank you Danny. Actually your comments seem much more understable  (to a non expert eye) than previous ones... It is reassuring that some basic principles on which the BTC was built can be and remain understandable by users.

I'm using Bitcoin for more than 2 years now, and I've known about it pretty much from the start ^{(the regrets are real there)}, and it's still confusing me. I'm not an expert, I'm a user. I've also noticed many users don't really understand the basics of Bitcoin, from fees to unconfirmed transactions.
In my opinion as a user: transactions are either too slow, or too expensive, and "the ones in charge" disagree on how to proceed from here, up to the point that "rumors" of a hard fork are getting stronger. I also think this is damaging Bitcoin, other coins are pumping up, reducing Bitcoin's market share (as percentage of coin market cap).

Another thing that's confusing: the name "BTU"! Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_thermal_unit):
Please don't use this abbreviation for Bitcoin Unlimited! Call it BU, BTCU, BitU or UBTC, just not BTU.

Why doesn't Core just do this? This discussion has been going on for too long already.

Further reading (CoinDesk): Bitcoin Exchanges Unveil Hard Fork Contingency Plan (http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-exchanges-unveil-emergency-hard-fork-contingency-plan/)
I'm kinda excited to see what will happen. I just know something should happen to improve Bitcoin's user experience.

Well, by "activates" I want to say fork into their own chain. Those blocks would be accepted by the BU nodes and miners, but obviously not by the ones running Core or others that are enforcing the current consensus rules. I would not want to rely on the "nobody would be dumb enough" part. You are possibly not reading what they key supporters of BU are writing/doing (although reading this won't exactly make you smarter..).

You can argue that the supermajority of experts have already decided how to move forward.

Definitely agreed. Unfortunately newbies tend to take their word for it, and that's why sometimes fighting fire with fire is necessary around here.

It has already been decided. BTU altcoin.

Unsafe at 2 MB without at least more constraints. Besides, Segwit is by far more superior than a 2 MB block size HF. There is no reason to do it.

You already are.

All bitcoin Core miners could start mining bigger blocks today if they wanted to.  Its a very small change to the source code and a quick compile.  The only reason they don't is because "nobody would be dumb enough".  Doig so would just create a block that would be ignored by the majority of the global hash power.  "Nobody would be dumb enough" is the ONLY reason that there aren't miners in Core already creating larger blocks.  As a matter of fact, then ENTIRE consensus system of bitcoin is built on the concept that "Nobody would be dumb enough" to break consensus without knowing that a significant majority will accept the new consensus.


Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on where you stand on various proposals) Bitcoin doesn't care what any particular self-proclaimed "expert" decides.  Bitcoin requires an overwhelming majority of users to agree.


The problem with a "pissing contest" is that no matter who "wins", everyone comes out smelling bad.


Been decided?  By what world dominating authority?  FUD is FUD and propaganda is propaganda.  Trying to dress it up any other way is dishonest and just makes you look bad.


Unsafe how?  What makes 1 megabyte so magical that it is the "perfect" size while 2 megabytes is "unsafe"?  Is 900 kilobytes better?  How about 1.1 megabytes?  What is the exact correct magical size that bitcoin blocks SHOULD be right now, and why?  "Because that is the size it is" is not a valid argument for what the "right" size SHOULD be.


What's wrong with having both?  Why not SegWith with a 2 MB max block size?

Which online wallet support BU?I mean which of them will give equal amount of BU to BTC holders?.
What will happen to bitcoin kept in offline wallet?

You make a fair point, but that's not what I was referring to. They seemingly want to fork at all cost, but whether or not this is just 'fear mongering' is yet to be seen.

That I am well aware of.

Exchanges (or well a fair amount of them for now). They decide how they want to list the (alt)coin (or not, for that matter).

https://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=522
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yulwv/any_examples_of_the_10_minute_script_thats_a

That would be an effective base size of 2 MB and the weight of 8 MB. The latter is likely the problem with that combination.

None so far.

Nothing.

not decided. just an idea proposal
and by whom

the closed door meeting of the VC receiving corporations of DCG - http://dcg.co/portfolio/
its getting too obvious

"they" ?
they have been running for more than 2 years and have not pushed to split.
they have been running for more than 2 years and have not even pushed a deadline
they have been running for more than 2 years and have not pushed anything of the sort.

... but guess who is pushing

guess who does have an over zealous ban hammer
guess who does have a ban node and orphan block in their bip9
guess who does have a ban node and orphan block in their UASF

Who is this "they" that you are referring to?  I'm running an Unlimited node, by I'm not interested in "forking at all cost".  For that matter, it isn't even possible for Unlimited (as currently written) to fork without AT LEAST 50% of the global hash power and they'd feel pretty dumb trying to fork at less than 60% (since the only thing they'd accomplish is the continuous orphaning of their blockchain).


They can call it whatever they want, but they're going to look pretty silly trying to call bitcoin an altcoin if the overwhleming majority of the market is all using the bitcoin protocol as written in Bitcoin Unlimited.  If Unlimited forks at less than 80% AND the market still prefers Core, then Unlimited is an altcoin, and the market will decide how to differentiate between the two coins.  If Unlimited grows beyond 80% (or beyond 90%) of the hash power and the market prefers Unlimited, then the exchanges will quickly change their minds and call Unlimited "Bitcoin" and Core will become an altcoin. They can attempt to influence the market now with announcements, but in the end the exchanges will do whatever the majority of their users want them to.


I'll take a look at those links, but right now anything that says that 1 megabyte is a magical exact number seems pretty disingenuous to me.

Have you not been talking to, or seen what is being written by e.g. Ver, Oliver, Jihan, etc.?

That is quite unfortunate, especially considering their latest major exploit incident.

As per code, it can't fork without at least 50%? I was not under the impression. I should look into that again.

The minority supports BU..

Disagree. Segwit -> big blocks with linear hashing. Nobody is planning on staying at 1 MB.

this can be solved quite easily.
knowing its about the 20,000 blocksigops and 4,000tx sigops for 2seconds (8seconds at worse) which has mitigated the OLD fear already of just having no tx sigop limit at all...
old fear

going to 2mb
and having 40,000 blocksigops and 4,000tx sigops

meaning someone CANNOT make 5tx of 8000sigops. but can make 10tx of 4000sigops. makes the timing
2mb: 2-8 seconds
1mb: 4-16 seconds

not as bad as the leveldb exploit of 2013.

oh.. and diverse nodes of different codebases mitigated the BU exploit. so the actual effect was only a few nodes went offline.. and the network carried on unhindered.

now imagine if the network was core only... and core had a exploit that took core nods offline.. boom.

now do you see why diversity is good

Basically the fork of any coin carries the history of previous transactions onto both coins.  so 10btc at any address will still be at that address after the fork on both chains.  so basically you double your bitcoin.  but i would guess that the price off bitcoin would at least drop by 50% to reflect this, maybe more.  you can then hold both and see what happens or sell the chain you think wont make it.  i did it with ETC sold the lot and Kept my ETH.

That is correct. I have been reading some facts about BU and that the same thing that I understand from reading some articles and FaQ. But there is something that I want to ask if I have now for example 10BTC and 10 BTU then if I sell my 10 btc will my 10 btu will disappear also or it will retain. If it will retain and I can sell it then I will have double profit.

If double replay protection exists, then if you sell your 10 BTC (or send to somewhere), your 10 BTU won't be sold/won't move.
If there is no replay protection, then someone can broadcast your BTC transaction onto the BTU chain, and your coins would also disappear from it.

Double profit? You need to read 'Economics for dummies'. :D The value of both coins will likely drop a lot, to the point where BTC + BTU price <= current BTC price.

No, that won't solve things besides disabling even more use-cases.

They didn't feel dumb when they forked with far less than 50%. Instead they tried to pass off the annihilation of their coins and the banning of most of their nodes from the network as "just one of those days". Though to be fair, they do seem to have a lot of "those days".

You used to be quite reasonable, so I'll give you fair warning: by running BU, you are very likely to lose your coins to a currently undiscovered or yet-to-be introduced bug. It's only a matter of time given the BU developers' aptitude or lack thereof.

lol 20k blocksigops and 4k txsigops is already inplace since atleast v0.12... (maybe worth you reading the code once in a while)

the 40k blocksigops and 4k tx sigops. allows more transactions without risking quadratics. by keeping tx's at the same lean level as acceptable today.

lastly
who the hell needs to have thousands of input/outputs...

wait hang on. arnt you a advocate of bitcoin just being used as a settlement layer for LN.. if so, then knowing that LN is a 2in 2out
40k blocksigops and 200 txsigops more than enough for LN tx's and reducing the quadratic sigop timing to milliseconds /tx

Thanks for the response! Very interesting stuff.

To be clear. Noob here when it comes to this content. Assuming it does come to pass, how am I going to get my BTCU coins? Do I simply need to install the client? What do I need to do to get my coins? There really is not a lot of content to explain exactly what is going to happen if it does pass to us simpler minded folk.

Thank you for the help!

Exchanges may denote Bitcoin unlimited as BTU if a network split happen but quite likely that will become the new ticker symbol for Bitcoin if it controls a majority of hashing power.  In any event, the market will decide.  The core "fanboys" really seem to be getting defensive  :-\