Bitcoin Forum

The market has spoken: The fears of BUcoin altcoin takeover are causing major selloffs.

Bitcoin was doing great, it survived the ETF, quickly regaining composure. It was not only after Jihan Wu, the acne ridden nerd with the mining monopoly, started supporting BUcoin and menacing the network with a hard fork. Roger Ver's propaganda machine and fake BU nodes (as we saw after the BUg) only helped the cause.

Those guys want to be the president and secretary of bitcoin:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C63IF2aVAAIscwV.jpg

Very sad.

Meanwhile, level headed neutral experts such as Andreas, are advocating for the objectively correct solution:

https://s21.postimg.org/gazvgua6v/andreas.png

inb4 paid trolls.

gets 2mb+ LOL
native key users will still bloat the bas block so that not many real users can move funds to segwit keys. then they wont be able to use those segwit keys because native base blockers are still ntive base block spamming. meaning hops of 2mb+ are low.. much like 7 years of 7txps...

ya mathematically possible to have both expectations of 2mb data and 7txps.. but reality will show that it wont get that far.

Bitcoin doing great?  You mean only being in the hands of rich, greedy, mining farms?  how is that doing ok?  Tell me what do THEY do for bitcoin except for lining their own pockets.  Bitcoin wasn't created just so the rich could own most of it.  Control how it moves.   But go ahead and keep shoveling them money.

The greedy rich own fiat.  Now the greedy rich own Bitcoin.  is wasn't supposed to be like this.

Where can I track progress of the progress of this fork?

Reality will show Economic Consensus of BUcoin doesn't work, and it will crash.

Reality will show segwit is the best solution, it solves quadratic problem needed to raise the blocksize properly later on and allows for cool features.

Of course franky1 the bitcointalk expert knows better.

Do you think BU will not be owned by rich?.The same will happen to BU as well after it become as valuable in price as bitcoin is today.
Money begets money after all.Rich become richer because they can buy anything anytime and manipulate them.

CORE gave the pools the vote by going soft.
dont blame the pools

infact thank the pools, the majority is undecided either way and no side is winning.. because the node count is not even adequate/ready for any side.

if core went node first (to ensure users would be ready to accept what pools would produce without orphans).
then pool vote second (when they are confident that their blocks wont get orphaned.. to flag more easily for a popular proposal..)
thy would have had a better chance

its logic.

if you know ur wife is gonna kick you out if you come home with another girl on your arm.. do you still go ahead and do it.... no.
you either find out if your wife will accept an open relationship first. or you just dont bring the new girlfriend home.

you dont be foolish and show the intention to cheat and then bring the girl home hoping the wife responds positively..

core went wrong by telling the pools its ok to play around, without addressing what the wife at home may think first

---

secondly jihan only represents LESS THAN 16% of hashrate (not al of the 16% is his)

---

thirdly blaming the 45% undecided and the 15% non jihan group against segwit.. on jihan. is a laugh

---

sgwit only has 26%.. not 84%..

We need UASF as fast as possible to get rid of stupid Jihan and sneaky Ver. UASF will show chinese miners that they are not owners of Bitcoin.

reality check...
NO it does not..

to have people only doing linear transactions. they have to move funds over to segwit keys which then disarms from those funds from quadratics.
it does not disarm the network. it just disarms the people that voluntarily move funds to segwit tx keys.

sigop spammers will not move funds to segwit keys. and segwit cannot lock out native tx's from being used, thus the sigop problem is not fixed.
native users gonna continue spamming.

guys,  please I'm for ANYTHING that will get bitcoin back to where it's supposed to be.  If that means the price plummeting so the hobbyist can buy again .....than so be it.

Something...Anything...  it can't keep going like this. 

Why did we let the "rich" take over?  Bitcoin was supposed to be for EVERYONE!!!  :-\

sorry maybe not the right thread...   

I only became aware of this proposal today. Now I see why alt coins are going up so much.

Me too I thought it's just another altcoin in the making I will be following their announcement thread but hey people are treating this as a scam project or just a big joke,because we all know April fool's day is coming,very interesting development.

no i am actually thanking you and other people like you who spread this like a plague everywhere :D

those people did what they did and it was over and nothing had happened, you people on the other hand started making them bigger than they actually are, add some FUD in the meanwhile, talk about how split is "imminent" and other bullshit like that and all the while the hashrate is still very low.

all this FUD led to the crash not what those two idiots you named actually did.

If it's supposed to be the developers decision the only ones deciding the fate of the network then why not going into other coins? seems like people already doing this.
On the other hand it is the perfect time to buy and accumulate because when bitcoin comes out of this storm we might never see such cheap prices again.

I don't know what Roger is looking for , you should just stick to pumping of Dash, I have seen so many BU supporters shouting SegWit will turn Bitcoin into Altcoins, there is no one person in the space that has benefited from Altcoin more than Roger, you can continue to name so many Altcoins project he is involved with. You can't serve two masters.

I think DASH pump not related to bitcoin unlimited and roger ver, jihan wu
but ussualy if ussualy bitcoin price down all altcoin can incraese price, execept ethereum bitcoin price down, follow down price too

Is that why it's crashing? I was wondering what happened. I thought the Chinese probably got tired of Bitcoin and moved on to a new game of chance. 

All of this tech stuff is still confusing to me. So what if this BU thing pulls through, would they make a new coin of their own, using their own system? Coz what I'm taking from this is that it would be a new coin (we get to keep our btc) but it would split the miner, with some miners going on as usual and the others starting to mine this new alt.


True. It feels like I just got to a party but then someone called the police and so I have to leave immediately without even having at least a cup.

http://coin.dance/ has statistics on the node count (checks version string for core, unlimited, xt, classic) and on the version bits in mined blocks.

A lot of people - both part of Bitcoin core and not - seem to have forgotten the entire purpose behind Bitcoin.

It is awesome that the interest in and value of Bitcoin has climbed the way it has. But that is not its only purpose.
For far longer than I am comfortable with, it's been all about the climb, climb, climb and less about making sure
that the Bitcoin network can handle the increased transaction level that ongoing interest and mainstreaming is
going to cause.

The fact that TX fees are rivaling those of PAYPAL in terms of highway robbery-ness is appalling.

i wonder who put those these guys to be in charge???

:/

if this is "decentralization" that everyone talks.. then we can all pack our bags and go search some other solutions besides cyrpto

can we, people, large part of btc network, vote/rule/riot for removing this guys who are only doing manipulation for some big guys

i mean if some idiot nerdlike think he can own BTC or controll it, then we all lost our way in crypto

They're not in charge.

In most cases egos and the financial benefit is what makes people go full retard - and with this I am referring to indeed Roger Ver and J. Wu, for walking the wrong way. Years ago you could say that Bitcoin's purpose was the only priority for high level Bitcoiners, but that's not the case anymore with stakes sitting at higher levels than ever. It's financial gains > egos > Bitcoin. Who suffers from this? As always, the users.

I know that, but we all know they want to be, and thats not good.

From the novice perspective, they think that nobody cant control BTC...

and now they hear stuff like hard fork, split into two coins, and most important, price drop

i just wish btc stays btc....

I'm damn tired of the debate thingy. Roger Ver and his whale friends are just misleading unsuspecting Bitcoin Users to make the switch and support BU. It's clear that they're only after Mining Monopoly and centralizing the network. Left to me alone, I prefer Segwit. A Hard fork will ruin Bitcoin entirely.


Too confused to chose a side with all these debates going around.

The dogs bark, but the btc goes on.

We've already seen shit like this before, for example, Bitcoin XT and Mike Hearn's bullshit.
Everything gonna be alright, fellas)

It's a good moment to buy some btc at the bottom.

I am worried
We are in a deadlock situation

IMHO:

- BU is dangerous, and it is growing (or was  ;D ), I support CORE, but.
- Segwit turns BTC into an alt, a complex workaround for something that should be easy, but i agree with andreas that, it is ready now, and does not pose a risk of hard forking the network
- 8MB Blocks are the ideal solution, simple, clear, solves the problem, but it would most likely create a splitting of the network at this point, and we all know what that means.

So, I don't know what the solution is, if we had no risk of splitting the network 8MB blocks will be ideal.

haha,  lets the shit barks and bitcoin will countiune to move forward. So all this all shit only for a day you were able to bring the bitcoin below 1000$ only for few hours. Go check price, its now again climblng. Thats was thier max. shot. Go get the life.

                                                         BITCOIN IS FOREVER

Thanks I didn't know about this site.

Look at that chinese volume on LocalBitcoins. Insane.

Many other countries too. Incredible graphs.

Thanks to Roger Ver and jihan wu then if they are really the reason behind last decline, it provides good chance to buy back at lower price and purchase more than we buy at ATH above $1200.

If it's true, I will support SegWit as well. No need for unlimited if 4mb will be enough, furthermore it is a solution come from devs team which we have to trust them. I'm wondering which side are you on?

the whole reason segwit is a soft fork and not a hard fork is to stop it from becoming an alt. it's bitcoin just as it is now but with extra fixes and the potential for masses of new applications.

the problem that the unlimited miners seem to have is that it'll be just as it is now with that extra innovation that might cost them, even though it probably won't. still cheaper than a PoW change firing all of them.

there's uncertainty too of course. it's new code. as is the other one with alot less testing.

they went soft to AVOID node voting.
they went soft and have bip9 that includes actively and intentionally banning pools/blocks if their activation happens to turn their 95% into 100%
they went soft and now super slitting hard with UASF that includes actively and intentionally banning pools/blocks and nodes to get their 100%

other implementations, xt, classic, bu, and others dont have active/intentional banning mechanisms.. they only activate with consensus of majority. the non-core implementations have set no deadlines, no intent to have sole control. only core want sole control


SW is a total re-write. new block formations, new rules new tx styles
other implementations are just tweaks. and easy to implement by anyone. but core refuse to give p their cntral control.

if you think bitcoin cannot survive without core, you are just admitting to yourself:
1. bitcoin is controlled by a group
2. bitcoins decentralised ethos has already been lost
3. bitcoin cant survive without the cartel paid for by DGC
4. that core are not independent because they refuse to walk away from their cabin fever filled corner office to independently help out anyone in bitcoin

In the cases that Roger (bitcoin.com ) and Jihan ( ant, via, and top ) are not state or corporate interest backed this attack is costing them lots of money/losses. Its unsustainable for the long term. We all know that their intentions have nothing to do #Bitcoin interests for decentralization due to #BU creating centralization through making only large players be able to mine and have proper bandwidth requirements. Note: If you think #bitcoin is centralized in terms of mining now, this is nothing compared to what it can be when you add large blocks.

In the case that they are state sponsored backed, then the worst case is they do try and fork. The network will split between core and BU. In this event some exchanges will list both, most companies that build btc software or provide btc related services will still only work on #Bitcoin. Most nodes will stay with Bitcoin as well. The hashrate might drop in half temporarily but will stabilize around 75% as large centralized players will mine #BU and less competition + lower hashrate makes old miner hardware becomes profitable or worth the risk to mine. #Segwit will soon instant apply on Bitcoin around this time. After this BU will try and use half of there hash to cause problems but it wont work as they have to have some hardware left over to keep BU hashrate on. Most #Bitcoin supporters will sell all the BU coins to and perform different attacks, financially, mining power, node attacks on BU. BU will survive past this as does any altcoin but the threat attackers will be bankrupted or if state sponsored realize that they are getting diminishing returns. #bitcoin price with segwit and payment channels will start to really have a large effect during this time and innovation will start exponentially due to the increase ability to do smart contracts and payment channels, and side chains due to the upgrade.

So the point is Bitcoin will survive in the worst case, not because of the community intent, which helps, but because of natural selection and market forces.

Who will mine BTU if they refuse to add replay attacks protection, thus no exchanges will add BTU, and thus there is no liquid market to sell the mined tokens?

The miners who are stupid enough to mine the BTU HF are going to go bankrupt.

attack?

non-core implementations have been running for years and have no intention to ban and split the network controversially/bilaterally.. otherwise they would have already.
also they would have set deadlines and added code to intentionally split the network.

however non-core devs have just run as normal, no threats no banning/split code.. all they have is the usual bitcoin consensus code.

it is core that fear losing their stronghold and having to either drop themselves down to a decentralised equal playing field with the other diverse nodes or split off and have a core only network. and we know what they prefer.

remember core did not exist before 2013. core is not the sole implementation running bitcoin.. but they want to be.(thus removing diversity)

they have been desperate to rock the boat and try poking the bear to get non-core teams to split. but those other implementations refuse because they understand and want diverse decentralised bitcoin to survive. not hand power to only core by walking away.

wake up to the bait and switch of core pointing the finger the other way for their own intentions just to play a fake victim card when core pull the ban trigger to cause the split

many people here do not understand this important fact or its implications.

Thank you OP. @Bitcoin_Mafia_Me @1Referee Yes, I'd suggest those needing refreshment on purpose of bitcoin to read up here: Hacks & puppets & forks - how to destroy bitcoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1834310.msg18256120#msg18256120   (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1834310.msg18256120#msg18256120)

...but I cannot recall a time when so many bitcoiners were using bitcoin for just purchasing gas, coffee, using as small ATMs - so I'd humbly challenge that notion.


Thank you.

Yeah and if they can creatr chaos like that it will be a hard problem. This is one example. Even their tweets have come here with just someone reading it and now it can spread more creating more chaos and making some of us duml specially the panic seller. Then what? They will be switching to those BS.

There is no dialogue. Thus no way to resolve this. Bitcoin core is fine with status quo. So if
no path to compromise, there will be acting out by those not allowed at the table.

But they won't do what exchanges want for safeguards and change btc code (BU alt)
So unless btc devs of both flavors find a solution to why BU folk are pissed. BTC will be replaced
By alt coins where devs can work together

Imho, there is an underlying reason why these two guys can make such a stink. That is that bitcoin
core has not taken other views into account. They can't just dismiss stuff out of hand anymore.

Hell, a shared testnet would be a good start

These guys are simply the cheerleaders of the underlying issues and masses

The symptom, anyway some folk from both sides better step up on new solutions
Or we are beyond screwed

I'd be interested to see your mining cost model, that allows you to claim that moderately larger block sizes invariably leads to greater centralization.


Why should BU add prevention for transactions to be mined on competing chains? To do so would be to ensure that there could never be a healing of the forks. This is simply bad policy. Hence, no plans to do so.

Besides, clients are easily able to build transactions in a manner that avoids this issue altogether. Protocol changes are not needed.


B does not follow A. Exchanges will deal in the majority chain, or be bankrupted by others that do.

I for one have no idea why BU would want a public facing president and secretary role if bitcoin is and should have been decentralized forever. Not sure about the technical details but if an increase in block limit is made by consensus, wouldn't the mining pool operator with the biggest miners and hashrate be able to decide the block size to be mined with his majority consensus alone?

you need to realise an ASIC does not contain a hard drive. it does not store the blockchain or validate transactions.

ASICS are just handed a hash and a taget to hit.. (less than a kilobyte of data)

it doesnt matter if blocks are 1mb or 1000000000000000terrabytes.. the hash a ASIC receives is the same length.
meaning no cost to ASICS.

... sorry to burst that bubble of yours

because BU is not talking about owning bitcoin.
BU is just one implementation. if core adds dynamic code.. core can play on the same level playing field of the PEER network and core can have their own president A.Back and secretary g.maxwell.

other implementations such as classic/xt/bloq [already dynamic capable] can work on the same PEER network and have their own president and secretary..

but ultimately there are many diverse implementations working together on one dynamic peer network..

.. unlike core
that only want core to be at the top of a core TIER network where core (thier own words):
core is the core/engine/reference client of bitcoin
core is the upstream filters of bitcoin

and all other nodes are either downstream second class nodes, or banned/split from the bitcoin network into their own alt

Jeebuz.... They're not meant to be the President and Secretary of _Bitcoin_, just of the confederation. Their powers are outlines specifically.

President: makes sure BUIP numbers are assigned properly
Secretary: maintains a website

Get a grip!

You can produce very eloquent arguments for BU, but the bottom line is that Roger and BitMain have chosen to try and pass BU using a fear campaign. If BU's vision would be better for Bitcoin, I'd love to hear about it - but I know it won't matter because of the strategy they chose to gain support. I don't know if you know this, but BU is highly unpopular on social media. People are looking at BU as the reason why BTC is losing value and these other useless coins that no one wants to accept are pumping. In the world of politics, BU has essentially labelled themselves as the bad guys. That's kind of a major problem for BU.

BU supporters are living under the delusion of they having more support because they get a hardon when they look at sites like coin.dance and see a bigger % of hashrate going for BU above segwit, when ultimately is just a monopoly of a single guy, Roger Ver, and the bunch of losers on /r/btc

It is the psychological power of a bigger number regardless of the context.

I can't wait to see how all of this unfolds. And yes, im yet another pissed off holder at seeing my portfolio losing value because of Jihan playing minecraft with the ASICs instead of signaling for segwit.

I liked how both you and franky conveniently replied to only the first half of my post while ignoring my second half.

You do not need two specific people with specific sounding roles to make sure that everything is operating the way it should be. Even if the two people are needed, they do not need fancy sounding roles.

You can call them the site admin and integrity judge for all purposes, why insist on calling them the president and the secretary? If you give them such roles, their legal repercussions should anything happen otherwise to their roles should be equivalent, they should be able to be held accountable in case things go wrong , if not, how different are they from any other two part of bu's development?

shoe on other foot...

Adam Back, Ph.D.
CEO

GMAXWELL
Chief Technology officer

Rusty Russell
Infrastructure Tech Engineer

Pieter Wuille, Ph.D.
Infrastructure Tech Engineer

why not just call them devs for all purposes

Oh, but you can if you have enough money. You just cause some sort of crisis on the one technology and start pumping the other, then when the price increase to make enough profits, you simply dump it and take the fiat. Roger has the advantage, because he has a cult following. If he says Dash is King, they start buying and when he says Dash is trash, they start selling. ^LoL^

Now, he has some miners in the bag too, so this makes things even more complex. Miners = Nodes

I liked how both of you are still conveniently replying to only the first half of my original post while ignoring my second half.

Kindly explain the consensus on block size to be mined and try to explain how the miner operator with the most miners and hashrate literally decides what block sizes to have without caring for anyone else as he already has the majority?

You were refuted:


And Bitcoin Unlimited is even worse (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1819153.msg18260305#msg18260305). You don't understand the technology, game theory, and economics of unlimited blocks.

If you notice bitcoin without a central agency had a hard time solving its problems and has created many factions that lead to continuous cycle of debate without getting any consensus to make win-win solutions to the current problems bitcoin network has. That is possibly why bitcoin unlimited groups wanted a democratic system of governance in their operation to make all the operations smoothly. But in the long run this will have a big problem since it there is already a central control and if by chance a mischievous official was placed to oversee the overall operation then the corruption in the government could also occur in BTU.

Time to dump all the coins, too much uncertainty about the future of bitcoin, hostile takeovers, splits, change in PoW, value is going down, time to take profits and wait for some stability.

like the past 8 years limit X was a known thing.
and pools only made blocks below limit X, thus acceptable to nodes
even now pools know the block limit today is 1mb so pools have set their maximum as being 0.999mb but actually produce blocks below that.

pools can look at the nodes of the network. remove the obvious amazon server ones and other server hosted nodes from a tally and then see what useragent suggestions which the remaining real home-nodes are flagging

if say 94% were randomly set above 2mb. 1% at 2mb  and 5% randomly between 1mb and 2mb.
they would make a judgement call that 2mb was the 95% safe limit where orphan risk was manageable.
they would make a judgement call that maybe 3mb was the 75% was okish limit where orphan risk is higher but depending on depth allowance maybe manageable.

next they make blocks from 1.000250 and test the water, see what bugs might fly out (like the 500kb bug of 2013 due to a berkely/leveldb crossover that wasnt peer reviewed properly by core devs)

if 1.000250 block didnt kick up fuss they increment a bit more. 1.000500, and so on and so on..

as the pools get to the random minority of nodes below 2mb they start to push the nodes preference of that minority and see whats possible without causing much if any orphan drama. once it gets to a certain point where the blocks are getting too much resistance or getting to the minority/majority cut off. pools settledown and see if the network of nodes move their preferences up or hold out at a certain limit.

now here is the thing.. this node limit (majority of 2mb) is actually a LOWER limit.. and there is more of a hard limit in the background which would suggest right now that 8mb is ok.. pools wont jump above 8mb (if thats what the nodes have) they would stay below 8mb and aim to stay below the majority of the lower preference limit(2mb) in this example.

...
another way to imagine it is take the old 1mb limit as being the upper limit from 2010-2016 with a preference of say 250k in 2010. that over the 6 years rose to 500k and then to 750k.. and then 0.99mb where by nodes had more control of the preference below 1mb rather than just accepting anyblock under 1mb.EG the leveldb bug could have been overted if nodes had a lower limit to warn pools not to push so fast above 500k if the nodes couldnt handle it or just prefered not to go above that


miners with the biggest hash just means their attempt maybe a few seconds more luckier at getting a block than their competitors.
it does not mean someone with 25% might get it in 10 minutes and a second pool with 24% might get it in 20minutes24seconds

a few pools nd up being just sconds apart but not counted or even spotted because someone has already taken the lead.

so if 25% were cut off the time wouldnt drastically change and so the cat and mouse games between the pools could still cause issues  unless clear majority of pools and nodes

Refuted? WTF are you talking about? I did not make an assertion. I asked to see the model upon which the conclusion was drawn. You can't say that a request for info is refuted. That's not defensible for any definition of the word 'refuted'.


That's possible. I asked you a couple questions regarding your assertions on another thread. Perhaps your answers will lead to me understanding. If that is the thread when such questions were asked, let us continue the dialogue there.

While this is a reasoned observation, the extent of the powers of the organization extend only to the activities of the organization itself. It is merely an overlay to Bitcoin, which remains permissionless. At best, it may lead to quicker resolution on community-wide decisions. At worst, it is simply irrelevant.