Bitcoin Forum

Can we not have code that does both?

Can some one answer this, why would it not satisfy both parties?

why could BU people not accept segwit code as this seem to just make the block size more efficient and Segwit people accept BU as this just allows block size to be larger

Are not Segwit and BU solutions orthogonal to each other for the most part and so can both exist in a mutually beneficial manner?

Can some one address this?

EDIT::Can there be a client that allows users to select eg whether they want their transactions dealt with by various aspects so mitigate some arguments by both sides? eg say on chain, lightning network etc etc. Sort of like I want my money to goto this bank or that bank even though its the same banking system?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VZd_TNdbu04/Vk75ZIrZVvI/AAAAAAAAJZI/QMWdpVi1UNo/s0-Ic42/RCO004.jpg

SegWit has already block size increase. But Jihan and Ver and their chinese miners puppets just want to control bitcoin not to increase block size. There's no possible compromise, no more debate we should just ignore and discard them and procede with UASF.
 Bitcoin future is at stake and if Bitcoin fails all alts will follow, people wont believe in crypto

I think the real point is that miners don't want any of this.  They don't want segwit and they don't want BU, because in both cases, the pressure on the fee market diminishes.   So I think they divide their preferences sufficiently so that nothing can happen.  Which is most lucrative for them.

My opinion is the opposite.  If bitcoin fails, all of the speculation will leave crypto, and we finally can use it without 100-fold blown up market caps and have competing technologies instead of this old, clunky design of bitcoin.  With no dominant crypto, with dying coins every day, and new coins every other day, with tiny market caps each of them, and small user communities, USING it.

it's just kinda odd that few people could affect bitcoin whereas bitcoin is decentralised from the start and it's mean that none could make the centralised power over it.
It's indirectly affecting the miners' earning I suppose, due to the HF could threaten the current rate, nevertheless they still join the BU.

As logical and good it may sound, it is unlikely to happen. The miners sadly do not care about block size all they want is control and high fees. They want to influence the price and take away the decentralised features, they want to rule it and it's sad that the community is weakly giving it up to them. The community should have fought back but no why would we. We don't want segwit or bu. And if we don't take a stand now, it will be too late.

Segwit allows for optimization which gives a scaling side effect while keeping the basic status quo and network decentralized.
BU allows for direct increase of on-chain scaling which give more power to miners and centralizes the network.

They are both opposites.
Each are killing blows to the others "world view" (bitcoin world).

Personally, I believe that decentralization is our only purpose and where the value comes from.
There is no other system in the world currently that does what Bitcoin does.
The world doesn't need another Paypal.

miners cant be trusted with producing blocks that the network will accept?

please go ahead and do a UASF

S stands for Safe right? or was it Sotf?

we will have both... we have not voted on it yet, but i'm pushing for it have been for a long time.

This is the official propaganda.  Segwit calls for centralisation through a banking layer on top of bitcoin, the lightning network.  BU implements dynamic block sizes.  

The totally ridiculous argument that BU would centralize, is that non-mining nodes, which have nothing to say in bitcoin, contrary to all the propaganda that tells the opposite, would need somewhat better network connections and bigger hard disks.  But bitcoin is a *proof of work* consensus system, not a *count of node* consensus system, so no matter if there are many, or few, non mining nodes, the only true consensus mechanism in bitcoin is delivered by miners: proof of work.  And that is inevitably centralizing.  

The people making decisions in bitcoin are the mining pools: they decide what blocks to build, according to what protocol, on which other blocks.  They decide of the choice of transactions and on all the rest.  Strictly speaking, if you have 51% of the hash power, you can decide all you want in bitcoin.  Well, here they are:

https://blockchain.info/pools

Count the number of deciders that need to collude to reach 51%.  THIS is bitcoin's centralisation.  Not the poor guys installing nodes in their basement that do not mine.  These are nothing but proxy servers to the chain that these people decide to make.

So at this moment, bitcoin is decentralized over 5 entities for a small majority.  9 entities if you need 75% majority.  Put 5 people in a room, and you decide with small margin.  Put 9 people in a room, and they decide with 75% majority.

That's bitcoin's centralization.

I know the propaganda tells you otherwise, nodes blah blah blah.  It ain't so.  Bitcoin is an oligarchy of less than 10 people.  But they do their jobs correctly.   Because bitcoin is a proof-of-work consensus system, and proof of work is in the hands of less than 10 people.

The miners' hardware aren't in their hands, true.  But the miners' hardware is not deciding upon which blocks to build, according to what protocol.  They only sell hashes to the pools.

You must be a moron, a troll, or a propagandist.
Network centralization is different than miner centralization.
There could be one miner in the whole world, who couldn't do jack if
the network denied his larger blocks. What I stated is correct. You are a noob.

I'm mostly independent and only care about a decentralized network into the future.
Almost every word you stated above is spin and gibberish that has no basis in what I stated.

There is no need for BU, there have already proven they are incompetent, they are self serving people with no good intention at heart for Bitcoin, just imagine all miners was running BU code when the bug was detected, the price would have tumble by now. What you people just do understand is that SegWit makes so many things possible. LN network is more than 8MB capacity when implemented and many more that will be implemented when SW is passed

With a second layer, all the things I love about bitcoin vanish.

If you control the flow of money, you have power.

Remember when Visa, MC, and PayPal stopped processing donations to Snowden's living expense and legal defense fund?

There was nothing illegal about donating, but they didn't want you to so they didn't let you.

Right now, British banks look to see who is buying a lot of contraceptives and giving that information to police in case a lot of contraceptives are being bought for sex work.

Shouldn't the purchase of contraceptives, whether it is a small amount or large amount, be private?

With a second layer that we have to use for transactions, you can bet your ass both of those kinds of things will happen with Bitcoin too.

A second layer puts a private company in control over the flow of your money and that power will be abused, it always is abused.

Bitcoin will survive but Satoshi's vision will be dead.

BU + segwit are still debating and still there are not solution for all of comunity of bitcoin,
 I hope debating ending because as comunity of bitcoin we must make sure
bitcoin has good future and growing to more better than righ now, long life and can be used as currency.

Lol. What company is going to run the second layers?
Do you even know what second layers are?

Are you talking about third party second layers?
Are you aware some of the proposed second layers will be anon?

BTW Satoshi's true dream died when someone started using GPUs and then ASICs.
So talking about second layers being the problem is 8 years too late.

Yes, you fall for that erroneous propaganda.  If you would think for yourself, you would be able to understand why that is totally flawed as an idea.  

If there is only one miner in the whole world, there is only one block chain, right ?  Nobody else is able to make another block chain, right ?  Because you need a lot of proof of work to make one.

Now, tell me, that single sole block chain made by the sole miner doesn't suit you.  The whole network "denies" its blocks. So what is "the whole network" now doing ?  Nothing.  No transactions get processed.  No wallets update.  You cannot put coins on an exchange, you cannot withdraw them, nothing.   All nodes came to a standstill.  

So if you are a user, you have the choice of accepting the sole block chain that is being made, or not having a block chain at all.  Bet that you will adapt your node to accept the sole block chain that is around.  Bet that exchanges will do the same.  And in order to get it, you better connect directly to the miner's node infrastructure, if most of your peer nodes came to a grinding halt.

If there's one miner, that makes a block chain according to his wishes, you have no choice but to use it, or to leave the coin all together and all your addresses on it.

I know that's not what the propaganda tells you, but think for yourself, and find a hole in this reasoning.

That's why it is called "consensus by proof of work", not by "number of nodes".

Indeed, the second layer is banking.

You fail because you are trying to make points that are not valid to real world situations.
If a single miner did come about, then Bitcoin is done and everyone goes to a new coin.
So this example is worthless.

Pose an example that is worthy of discussion.

BTW "consensus by proof of work" was defined when miners and validators were a single entity.
Your definition of it, stopped appling to Bitcoin when GPUs and ASICs came about.

What is actually occurring now is "proof of work block building reliant on node network consensus".

LN hubs, to be effective, have to be very big hubs with a lot of little customers connected to them with their small channels.  In other words, banking nodes with a lot of capital to use as collateral on their customers' links, and inter-bank links.  Big financial groups.  

In the LN you have a huge economy of scale if you can put in a lot of collateral.  

In fact, the LN will centralize even faster than the proof of work because the economies of scale are more important.

Can you cite the documentation that you must be referring to.
Banking nodes may exist in this future world obviously, but where is it that the system is reliant upon them.
Please provide your sources.

So as I stated, what company is going to run the second layers?
You are talking about Lightning Network. That is one proposed idea for second layers.

I hope you see all the contradictions in your attempt at argument.  The single miner was YOUR example to demonstrate that decentralization came from the nodes, not from the miners.  I took your premise to show you how that argument was totally flawed.  Now you start saying that it is not "real world".  No, but it is the perfect illustration of what I was saying: centralisation is mining centralization.

Now, you even admit that in your perfectly decentralized network with one miner, bitcoin would be dead.  So you just admitted the point for which you called me a moron.  


No.  Your IDEA that consensus was "the majority of the community" was equivalent to "consensus of proof of work" stopped being valid at that point, and what remained was "proof of work" and NOT "majority of community".  In other words, the failed attempt of Satoshi to use "proof of work" as a means of "consensus of community" is what you are talking about, but what effectively is valid, is proof of work.  And if the proof of work is centralized, everything is centralized, and the rest doesn't matter.  The non-mining nodes don't matter.  They are simply proxy servers of the chain made by the miners, nothing more.

What you stated in your first post, is not what I stated.
You are stating that nodes that do not mine have no significance.

I disagree and think that their centralization, which is separate from mining
centralization, is the last stop to full centralization and governmental regulation
of Bitcoin itself.

If you were correct in your IDEA, then what is occurring within Bitcoin, would not right now.
We would have all hardforked long ago, if you are correct.




I disagree entirely.

If you are correct, clients like BU would not have needed to be created.
The fact that they were designed to do what they do, proves you incorrect.

Your whole argument and premise is based on a twisting of reality.
At one point you say second layers are bad because of centralizing nature.
and just now you are saying miners are already centralized today. LOol.

last line of defense poison pill to stop the BU fork - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1833046.0

What most of you ignore to understand is not whether or not mining is centralized right now, you lack the knowledge about what is centralization and what it means being decentralized. no one should care if mining is in hands of a few but you should care if you ever decided to start mining yourself none of the other few miners could potentially deny you from mining or have a closed source code for mining or could shut you down at will.

Can you right now buy 100K S9 miners and start mining dozens of blocks each day or not? if you can then bitcoin is practically decentralized.

Well, they CAN shut you down at will.  If they decide to orphan all your blocks, you are being denied mining.  You are BTW confusing decentralized and permissionless.  You can still hope that mining is as of now, mostly permissionless. 

But that is not the point.  The majority hash rate decides upon the protocol, unless it hard forks, and the minority continues the old chain with the old protocol (or decides to hard fork away and becomes a minority fork).  The majority hash rate decides upon censorship (like, yes, YOUR blocks, your transactions, ....) and decides upon the transactions it processes and hence the pressure on the fee market.

See I am not so sure about the miners, I mean if they can get a block with so many more transactions they get more money as that block will eventually fee and so on.

or does the lightning network does this take fees away from miners?


Further, if we the bitcoiners want segwit + BU I think the miners will do it.

Further if any part fails then we patch it, I mean BTC has needed to be hardforked due to bugs a few times in the past.

Lets take the oxygen out of the room from the fighting parties, the miners and the naysayers and just do both, its not a binary out come


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VZd_TNdbu04/Vk75ZIrZVvI/AAAAAAAAJZI/QMWdpVi1UNo/s0-Ic42/RCO004.jpg

The next step, if the chain divided will be call as to clean the abandoned-lost wallet to bring together all BTC and issued new Genesis block with the exact number of BTC gathered in this mix place and start from the beginning.
And that's part of the test. Test technologies and mass of users by the NSA, FED,ECB .who knows who is behind this, who knows who is behind this. and all we deserve when we believe the founders of which were use TOR network to log into this forum.Whatever can happen will happen.

I think bitcoin needs change but what roger has done is  not good , Roger is greedy and is harming the eco system

if it is the middle way has been not found again, the way one of them is the need to divide the two sides did not let each other at loggerheads, that I want to ask is actually what is the subject matter, if indeed BU want to enlarge the bloc's goal to accelerate the transactions that you do with little additional cost.

As far as I did understand, Lightning is not a "second layer". Both partners of one transaction will have their transactions signed by the other; only if there is a dispute, transaction data will be given to the blockchain. So, usually, there is noone to control people's transactions, for it is the purpose of Lightning to get data off the chain in order to disburden it.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

If we really want bitcoin a means of payment for masses (like Roger states), we would need thousands of transaction per second. So increasing block size is NEVER a real solution.

well it might be, you just don't know how tech is going to be....and what will be cored in, plus what usually happens is BU if it won out would have to adopt a segwit soln down the track anyway

That means BU would start with slightly increased block size (let's say doubled) to ease the urgent problems and then do almost the same as the core devs, but with the power in BU's hands?

I am not an expert on this things but in my opinion when we talk about codes there are several things to consider. The reason why core developer does not accept Bitcoin Unlimited its because it runs on hard fork and it is going away from the original form of bitcoin. Bitcoin Unlimited does not want to accept Segwit since they dont see the code fit to run and replace the current code.

Yes, SegWit will increase the block size that acceptable for us as we've been told that if block size increase than a transaction could proceed faster. For me, whether SegWit or BU is not a problem if it can going as the way of bitcoin, still has same basic technology.
However, I don't think bitcoin will fail as majority vote will support it.

I guess it is not about code or technics. It is about power and money.
The obvious difficulties bitcoin has with too many transactions are a welcome argument for brutal measures -- with subsequent accumulation of power. You know, "populism"...

Yes that is what I'm stating.  There are a few cases, when there are network connection problems, where these nodes do play a small role, but that's it.

It is amazing how much this myth that node count has some significance in a Proof of Work system to COUNTER node count influence, is living on.  I think it is because if people would acknowledge that in a proof of work system, the votes are with hash rate, they would see the obvious centralization going on in bitcoin.  So one continues to spread this silly idea that node count has any "voting" meaning, while proof of work was explicitly introduced to counter that.


No, because the only guys that can hardfork, are miners.  At least, as long as PoW is valid.  Bitcoin COULD hardfork with the nodes/users only, if someone implemented a PoS system.  THEN the miners don't decide anything any more.  PoS is a way to give power to the nodes/stakeholders.  But PoW doesn't care the smallest bit about nodes.


On the contrary.  BU or any other software would of course be needed BY MINER NODES to have NOT the segwit software that would activate segwit automatically if signalling to one another.  In fact, JUST ANY form of software that is not segwit signalling would be needed, and that sticks to the old protocol.  What Joe Sixpack runs on his PC without mining, nobody cares.  Apart from the fact that one doesn't want to piss off Joe Sixpack so much, that he doesn't want to buy new miner coins any more at high price.


Yes, miners are already quite centralized, but not entirely.  There is not yet a SINGLE mining pool, or sufficient COLLUDING mining pools under the leadership of a cartel.  Bitcoin is an oligarchy of about 10 deciders.  Not yet a kingdom with one decider.  LN will be the same, or worse.  

Centralization is unavoidable when there needs to be done an effort to obtain rewards, by economies of scale.  With mining, those economies have been at work and have established an oligarchy, but as long as these oligarchs dispute, we can consider it still a little bit "decentralized".   LN has almost PROPORTIONAL economies of scale wrt the invested collateral.  It will centralize way, way faster.

You have misunderstood almost everything I have stated.

Very simply, today there are mining nodes and validator nodes. (Satoshi did not anticipate this originally.)
Mining nodes perform "proof of work". Validator nodes perform "consensus compliance".
If a miner node creates a block or action that is outside the current rules, the validator nodes
will reject that block and deem it invalid. If there are enough "honest" validator nodes, a
majority of the node network will fully reject that invalid block and that miner will lose their incentives.
The validators not only validate whether txs are valid but also if the blocks are valid.
Validator nodes are the last check against miner nodes changing the Bitcoin protocol on whims.
Without validator nodes, miners could have hardforked long ago.

You state that Validator nodes have no power and it is a myth that they have any impact on the network.
My above paragraph is simply stated as to why you are wrong. Everything you are talking about as to
miner centralization and node voting is irrelevant to what I was originally talking about.

If you were correct in your opinion that validators are a myth, then a blocksize increase would have
occurred in 2011-2012. Miners do not do, what you say that can do, because if they did, they would
leave the whole network and economy behind, which only hurts themselves. Miners currently understand
that the node network and economies are as important as them and this is why BU was created, it was
done so to bring the node network with them when they hardfork. If your premise and argument was
correct, we would not be discussing this topic. This topic only exists because your opinion is incorrect.

A decentralized free and "honest" validator node network, is that last check against "malicious" or
"centralized" miners. If and when this aspect is removed, then what you are saying is true, but then
Bitcoin has fully failed, and if fully failed, why bother continue with this system? We are forced to start
a new one with new lessons learned.

Edit: So in conclusion, IMO BU will increase the rate that decentralized validators become centralized.
It may even be possible that in worst case scenario, within 1.5 years decentralized validator nodes become
extinct and need to be centralized under companies that are controlled and governed by rules and laws in
which they reside. So, IMO BU will help governments take direct control of protocol aspects within a very short
amount of time.

Love the idea of presenting forum-postings in the form of a graphic novel! In any case, I did a search on this page for "malleability" and found nothing. Can SegWit's transaction malleability fix be grafted onto BU? I have no idea if it can, but my impression is that it can't and that BU just more or less ignores the fix.

There are other second layer techniques like two-way-pegged sidechains (see Rootstock for an example) that are not censurable. They would preserve the actual transaction paradigm ("users sign a TX and get it included in a blockchain by miners"), only that the blockchain would not be the main blockchain but a secondary blockchain pegged to Bitcoin.

There are still challenges for sidechains (above all, the incentive system to ensure security) and the 2-way-peg needs additional Bitcoin measures, as far as I understand it. But I don't think it's impossible. For example, you could design an altcoin with a "bitcoin-pegged token" and a "mining token", and distribute the mining token to miners, while the pegged token would have a fixed supply. That design could work with Segwit and atomic cross-chain trading (ACCT is no science fiction, as it has already implemented in some small altcoins).

Segwit is risky bloatware from a group of profiteering developers whose vision I don't agree with.

Sorry. dinofelis is correct. Non-mining nodes have essentially zero power of enforcement.

When faced with a block, a node has two possibilities. It can accept that block and forward it, or it can consider it an invalid block and not forward it. That is all. What it cannot do is prevent that block from getting to another miner that is perfectly happy to create another block on top of it. If miners are extending the chain, demonstrably accepting those blocks by building other blocks atop them, there is doodly-squat that non-mining nodes can do about it.


Yes. BU plans a malleability fix. Later, after more pressing problems (e.g., the hard cap on the transaction throughput production quota) are fixed. Whether or not that fix ends up being SegWit is still a matter to be discussed. At this point in time, the other leading proposal would seem to be FlexTrans. But there is nothing endemic to SegWit that prevents it from being ported to BU.


Not ignore, exactly. Just that it is better development practice to not introduce several new major features at the same release.

apart from consider it an invalid block and not forward it.

EG 2 pools right now could play hot-potato agreeing to make blocks that are segwit capable.. but try pushing those out to non-segwit nodes.. and the nodes reject them (hence why core needs the upstream filters inplace to then strip the blocks to make it non-core compatible)

EG 2 pools right now could play hot-potato agreeing to make blocks that are dynamic over 1mb.. try pushing those out to non-dynamic nodes.. and the nodes reject them(hence why node(hard) consensus needs to be achieved where the majority can accept them)

dinofelis's notion is of a centralised network. he doesnt understand the deeper aspects.
EG pools are competing. they will find any rule breaking reason to avoid accepting another pools block for own greed and assurance of healthy data/network

also merchants can be/are nodes. meaning pools become dependant on nodes if they ever want to spend their coins.
..
yes pools can just be 2 pools happily playing hot potato together.. but then thats just a crap coin of 2 users filling their hard drive. they might aswell go to a bank and open a joint bank account if they are only playing with each other. why even use blockchain tech at all if 2 pools are the entire network automatically accepting eachother.

but with thousands of nodes where some are services some are merchants the onus on who self governs what, switches. where by the acceptability of a blocks reward becomes the choice of the nodes. because the nodes are the merchants and services the pools wish to spend the funds with.

merchants could for instance see the 2 pools playing hot potato. and instead the nodes decide to let them play hot potato between themselves and orphan and ban them..  the nodes then start solo mining or using their own asics and leaving the 2 hot-potato pools on their own minority network, ignored by all the nodes whereby the pools cant spend funds with those merchants/nodes

And nobody NEEDS that node to forward it.  You can get it directly from one of the miners.

Of course, if nobody is needing the bloc all together, the coin is worthless.  But there is no alternative chain where the coin isn't worthless.   So a USER can decide that he doesn't want this bloc chain, that he doesn't want these coins (and lose everything he has on it).  Or he can decide that he will use the only chain in existence.  But no non-mining node can stop a USER from having that block chain, use his wallet and send out transactions: directly to a miner node if necessary.   A crypto currency is a relationship between miners, making block chain and selling it to users, paying for it in the market.  What non mining nodes may say about this block chain, doesn't really matter.  Of course, what users are wanting to pay for it, does, but they can only use the chain or the chains made by the miners, or decide not to use the coin at all. 

If no user values the coins in the market, the miners are making a worthless chain.  But they make this one and no other one in any case.  And if users want to value coins in the market, they don't need your node forwarding the blocs, they get them directly from the factory (the miners).

So what is your non-forwarding node going to do about that ?

then theres no need to use blockchain tech.. if your just API calling a central server..
your really missing the point of bitcoin.. like completely missing the point

if no one wants the block then the pool is ignored. nodes then solo mine with each other or start asic pool mining themselves or even using a new algo and start building their own blocks between the nodes.

part from the user deciding he doesnt like the centralised bank of needing to API data from an only source.. and thus creates his own network..
HMM
not liking a centralised database of value, so goes out and creates his own decentralised network.. that reminds me of someone that in 2008 released a white paper with such a revolutionary concept. and release the first version of his software in january 2009... oh yea.. satoshi

hmm some other guy later on didnt like the idea sha hashing blocks. so in 2011 he made his own.. oh yea coblee.

then there were other altcoins that originated because some people decided they didnt like the original..


agreed. so usually miners start making something the markets will want


but as you say if the market and users dont value it. they just wont use it.
people will just make something else that can be of value.
satoshi did it..

So they are miners then.  Not non-mining nodes.  You start to get it.  And BTW, they just introduced an altcoin with a hard fork.

your thinking very 2 dimensional still. please look outside of the box

I think you are blind to what bitcoin really is or became, and still live in the dream of many, many small mining nodes.

Right now, bitcoin is an affair of 5 majority miners, and 10 miners if you want very large majority.  There are 5 "facebook servers" on bitcoin, essentially.

The number of proxy servers for these 5 facebook servers doesn't matter for the content they put at disposal, that's my point.

These empty arguments don't bring in anything.  Whether I think 2 dimensional, fractal, super-real or on a differential manifold doesn't matter I would think :)

Look, the users will value it if it is called bitcoin.  You see, if you ABSOLUTELY want to ride a Toyota, and the ONLY car Toyota is making, is one with a digital speedometer, while you really want an analogue speedometer, you have the choice between not buying a Toyota, or buying their car with a digital speedometer.  But as long as there is no competition, Toyota will force the digital speedometer onto you.  There's no way you can force them to make cars with analogue speedometers, if digital speedometers are much more lucrative to Toyota.

but then you just dont buy it. and suddenly toyota lose customers.

you need to grasp why toyota became popular in the first place.
for instance if toyota never made a car with an analog speedometer, that user would never have wanted a toyota.

oh. and if you think there is no alternative there is.
satoshi made the alternative to the centralised banks.
coblee made a alternative to bitcoin
vatalik made a altrnative to both.. and so on..

get out of the 2 dimensional thinking that bitcoin as a centralised bank will be the only choice and still hold value if it turned into a 2pool 0 node network. your not thinking of the whole ecosystem or even the reason / need / ethos of bitcoin.

if bitcoin starts turning into a centralised bank.. people will drop bitcoin and find something else.
yep anyone can take the data and say as of tonight the blockchain is blocked off from the hotpotato 2 pools. and instead new blocks will be made ontop of block X. if people want they can run a node on this new network and use their privkeys to make tx's on a new network.

thus leaving the hot-potato pools making blocks that they cant spend..
much like toyota making cars that people wont buy.

Yes.  But if the only brand you care about is Toyota, you'll buy the car with the digital speedometer.  

If tomorrow, segwit is activated, do you really think that people are going to dump all their bitcoin in the market because they preferred BU, and run to the nearest altcoin ?  Nope.  They'll cope with it, because there's nothing else that's called "bitcoin".

So if miners, and miners only, decide to switch to segwit, and they do this with 60% of hash rate, then segwit will be.  And all BU nodes will upgrade to segwit, or they will be useless.  And people will continue using "bitcoin" as it is now.

Because there's no other bitcoin.

Even if 80% of non-mining nodes is running BU.  They'll switch quickly.  Or have disfunctional wallets.

lol dinofelis. your still not seeing the bigger picture.

give yourself some time to research abit more.think outside the fiat centralised bubble of servers and truly learn bitcoin.

your grasping one nugget and trying to rub it hard to make it shine. but your not seeing the whole wall of precious things that held that nugget inplace for so long

bitcoin is revolutionary compared to the fiat central servers that you seem so intensely obsessed with comparing bitcoin to, that your not actually seeing the bigger concept

Still no reasoned arguments, right ;)


Religious zealot blah blah.  Believe !  Believe !  See the Light !  But no hard logical arguments, no gedanken experiments (and if you do, they talked against your stance each time), no rigorous analysis.