Bitcoin Forum

When we can have both btc and BU co exist, why not treat BU like another Altcoin similar to btc?.
Why can't both compliment each other?

Because the Bitcoin Unlimited is a fork from the bitcoin itself. It's mean if that will disrupt the crypto community.
We do not need the Bitcoin Unlimited coin. It will be worthless in the future.

There will be BUcoin and it means if there will be the hardfork for the bitcoin. With the bug on the bitcoin unlimited and a lot of the people are being scared if the hardfork will fail.

They can't drive the hardfork for well. The both are the opposite things.

BU is just a code implementation,

there are MANY
core, knots, fibre, bitcoinj, bitcoin ruby, BTCd, nbitcoin, statoshi, bitcoinxt, bitcoin classic, bitcoinunlimited... and so on.

bitcoin unlimited has set no deadlines, set no schedule of activation. has no zealous banscore tricks, no intention to cause a split.
bitcoin unlimiited wants consensus of many diverse nodes all on one PEER network. (bitcoin remaining diverse open and decentralisation)

however core feel its a threat to their segwit plans of a TIER network of core being the upstream filters, in control of validation and changes in future direction. so core are on the rampage fearing their loss of control..
(there should be no control anyway so anyone arguing core deserve control doesnt understand bitcoin. and is obviously involves in centralising bitcoin)

core first intentionally avoid hard(node+pool) consensus(vote) and went only for soft(pool) vote
then core uses bip9 that has some intentional banning pool/block features to turn their majority to 100% by killing off the opposition.soft(pool) contraversial

core next realised that pools were still unofficially(but a good reasoned safeguard) waited to see what node counts suggested before deciding.
so now core are going heavy. UASF and even as far as PoW algo changes hard(node+pool) bilateral split. to threaten the pools to vote for core or be struck off the network.

and now core see BU as a threat, because its giving the community another option. and risking cores dictatorship.

funny parts to remember.
1. core gave pools the vote so dont blame pools for saying no to core
2. core failed at bribing the community with fee discounts. while cunningly pushing fee's up to counter the discount
3. core will be the ones triggering the splitting of the network rather than accepting a no answer,
4. core are ignoring community views of wanting something else. because it doesnt follow the core corporate roadmap of centralised LN services to repay their $70m+ debt

meanwhile BU will keep on plodding along with no intention to do anything unless there is majority consent

Well, if I were in charge of Unlimited I would start it off as a fresh alt and forget forking completely. Their blockchain could start in a similar way to Clams, take an image of every BTC balance and start from there.

They'd have plenty of mining grunt to get up and running and no shortage of awareness. If people like what they see then they can buy in with their BTC.

Exchanges have already stated they'll list in the case of a contentious fork, no doubt they'll be delighted to list something that isn't the child of strife. If it really is superior to its daddy then the market will naturally migrate with no risks to anyone or anything.

emphasis contentious fork.

but what if BU has consensus..
.. remember BU has been around for 2 years and has set no agenda to split or do things contentiously. otherwise they would have.
also even when being offered by cores overlord and CTO gmaxwell to split officially, the community that want diverse opn dcentralsied onchain base block growth said no to him.

so although the core fanatics keep screaming about contentious forks, the only way it will happen is if core trigger it... which they seem to be planning on (UASF + PoW algo change)

which
if there was a CONTENTIOUS FORK (meaning controversial which then triggers core to open up their ban hammer) bu would be treated as the alt by not having majority..
but
if consensus occurs (the thing BU have in mind all along..) with BU having majority.. core actually becomes the altcoin.

bitfinex actually went into deeper detail
core having minority core = BCC
BU having minority bu=BCU

https://twitter.com/bitfinex/status/843226656940679170
https://i.imgur.com/XNerMzk.png

devil is in the details of the announcement... "contentious"

I think if BU were an alt coin the name would be Bitcoin-BU, and we would have two currencies, the original Bitcoin and the new one with BU implement without the majority community endorsement. I don't think it's a good idea, the BTC price could decrease a lot and we would have an unstable situation, very risky...

I’m not an expert but from what I have read BU does not want a hard fork they want to reach consensus but since their solution runs contrary to the devs then a battle has erupted about the direction bitcoin is going to take.

It's been very clearly described in the previous post what is Bitcoin unlimited. It's just a code implementation that's been focusing to get consensus from the entire bitcoin community. Listing it to the altcoins is not a good decision because the bug crash can be felt often with it causing a collapse to the entire crypto community.

That's a bit [purposefully!] inexact, don't you think? Most of the implementations you mention do not alter the protocol. Bitcoin Unlimited does, and in a way that's incompatible with the existing protocol. That is not "just another implementation".

Such dramatic changes should not be tried without a discussion and majority acceptance. I think even if the "censorship" problem was that dramatic as BU supporters describe, we're far away from that. Bitcoin's design has the flaw that it allows miners to change the protocol. If Bitcoin was Proof of Stake, then BU probably would have no chance to get near 50% of adoption - even considering Roger Ver.


I would fully support that solution. I am currency agnostic, so if "BU-altcoin" is done that way (without premine or ICO or so) and really works as expected for a long time and I consider inappropiate the direction BTC (Core) is heading, I would perhaps consider even to change my usage from BTC to BU (if there is acceptance at the place where I am).

No one who really supports BU would support that, as we obviously want the legacy blockchain and everything that comes with it, including an undiluted asset. We want Bitcoin to scale , not an alt.

if the fork happen..

thats exactlyprobably what will happen. Most exchanges already said that.

Are you going to support Bitcoin Unlimited or Bitcoin Core?
We will support Bitcoin Core continuously as BTC. In line with our current internal policy, if you have Bitcoin on balance at the time of the fork, we will make Bitcoin Unlimited available for withdrawal provided it is safe to do so.
https://poloniex.com/press-releases/2017.03.17-Hard-Fork/

and just like poloniex, most exchanges will follow core as bitcoin and BU as an altcoin.

yeah... just like most altcoins...

Do  you  realize that if BU forks with majority hash power, it will be the longest chain... but also the 1mb version will be 4-5x as slow (40-50 minute blocks) and difficulty wont adjust for as long as 8-10 weeks?

But let's assume that the Unlimited alt works great and people find it more useful than Core. Over time more and more people move across and it usurps Core. It could happen more rapidly than anyone expects.

It would be out there. It would be working. Its creation wouldn't be mired in contention and it's based on something everyone's already familiar with. People could make what they wanted out of it without endless conjecture.

In that scenario it started off with a snapshot of the original chain and eventually it squirts past it out of pure merit and in circumstances with no baggage whatsoever.

If it's founded on the original chain, attracts most of the users and miners from the original chain, it becomes the daddy chain by market consensus. It would be hard for anyone to question or resent its success in that scenario.

I could agree with that.  You might even say that it would be even more respected and 'cleaner' since it would have none of the tainted history of Bitcoin (mt gox, etc).  (Doesn't mean forking off will get much support though.)

Will the exchanges already declared that BTU will be treated as an altcoin. Dont know if a fork is good for bitcoin but these is the solution chose with the scaling problem.
BU was good at the start before it had some critical bugs that shutdown it's nodes and now another recent attack just occurred.

That would have been a better idea as instead of trying to replace bitcoin or forking it,build a better crypto and let people decide which one they want to use.
Forking has started unnecessary confusion and division among community and is not good for either btc or BU.

That's interesting... although with the blocks taking four to five times as long to find, perhaps it will need a bit of time before it can overtake core as the one with the longest chain. Also, I predict a lot of people who had held off getting into mining will jump in to fill the void left by BU jumping ship... so perhaps hashpower will only be a temporary issue for core.

Bitcoin Core was Satoshi’s implementation of his novel Nakamoto consensus algorithm.
Bitcoin Unlimited is an attempt to utterly destroy Nakamoto Consensus in Bitcoin.
The new bitcoin unlimited implemented without community standards.It developed to destroy the original bitcoin core.Now a days forking affects the bitcoin price,this is the reason bitcoin price decrease a lot and the situation is unstable.This condition very risk for traders and minors.Finally,Bitcoin unlimited is just a diversion not a alternative.

It is easy to say but it is hard to do. Creating codes such as segwit codes, bitcoin unlimited and other codes is a very complex job and how much more integrating them. The much easier choice is to create a consensus that all miners will use one universal code so that bitcoin will solve its problems.  But even reaching a consensus is hard then how much more it is to synthesize all codes into one.

BTU is a subdivision of BTC, however, I think it's just an alt coin. Because we do not need such a kind of money, I think it will be useless in the future, and its value will never be equal to bitcoin. The BTU was created only to satisfy the greed of the miners, so it would not last long. I believe that is true. I always hope bitcoin is a single currency, it should not be divided

Satoshi dumped Bitcoin right after Gavin announced he was going to the CIA.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113609.0

bitcoin unlimited is not Bitcoin. It is created to destroy bitcoin and destroy the decentralized system. Most of bitcoin unlimited will obviously controlled by the Chinese and when it fully realeases, you will understand how idiot it can be. The chinese will control most of the mining hash rate. Moreover, we can easily start a 51 attack in bitcoin unlimited due to the reason that there are not many small miners anymore

All exchanges alredy said it's gona be an alt. So goodbye taking over chain. After fork BTU will be like any other shitcoin like ETH, DASH and etc.

Because BU has a goal of replacing BTC asap, and since both will have the same blockchain history until the moment of forking, BU will be able to easily appeal to most of the Bitcoin users. Altcoins are usually distributed via mining starting early from genesis block or ICO, but BU will be different from any altcoin, in terms of distribution. So in some sense BU is an altcoin, and in some is not. Just look what happened with ETH and ETC and you'll get some idea of what can happen with Bitcoin and BU.

Miners should not be allowed to impose their whims on users.It is true that miners have a strong say but the ultimate power rests in users hand.

Bitcoin Unlimited = BTC


Bitcoin Core/Blockstream = BCB

Let those stupid fuckers take the other name.  'BTC' is for the original 'real' bitcoin.  BTC is for Bitcoin unlimited.

Isn't BU an altcoin already? its an alternative coin so its an ALT.  
ETH is an alt and ETC still is an alt. The only problem i see though is that BU has value as the chain splits. They can't just let the consensus decide so everyone has to suffer.

No, although apparently some exchanges offer futures on it ... IF there is a network split.

There is one more advantage: You would have a very small blockchain at the beginning. Bitcoin "beginners" wouldn't have to download 107 GB and that would be a competitive advantage.

But the reason why I would like to see a "BU altcoin" is that it would be a way to test it thoroughly "in the wild". As many Core supporters (including me) have doubts that its consensus will work as expected, it would be the opportunity to the BU team to show that it works well. In this case it's even possible that at the end Core adopts it and the "original BTC" would come with BU rules.

cough testnet cough

run it on testnet.. oh look now you have your own separate network to test it in the wild

isn't BU a ticker for Bullshit?
whoever supports this bullshit is pretty much dying to have a ton of bitcoin to which they are now trying to derail everything just to put panic to everyone. of course they don't just want it to drag down to 1000. less than $100/btc is much better so we can grab a stash and once again try to get ETF approved.

Not illogical but I am doubtful you would be able to compel the supports of BU with the "advantages" of forking off.

At this moment BTC price is falling like an inverted rocket. I don't think this was the most smart idea to execute. Total instability on Bitcoin price and many investors are in doubt know about what to do, what means they can stop using Bitcoin and going back to fiat again. The procediments for laymen investors aren't clear enough.  >:(

Well it is a fork of bitcoin itself… And it is a direct competitor of bitcoin so it is really hard to see it as an altcoin.

There is a lot of infighting right now happening across the bitcoin community because of this hard fork discussion. Honestly i’d rather have the decision made sooner than having people spreading FUD and talking shit on both sides on a daily basis.

The Bitcoin Unlimited supporters will probably push to get BTU as the actual BTC, after the hard fork if their coin is listed as an altcoin on major exchanges.

A lot of exchanges has already made statements in public that they will only honor Bitcoin Core as the actual bitcoin, and Bitcoin Unlimited will only be listed as an altcoin to trade against the BTC.

This sounds like a great idea to me and will probably appeal a lot to the speculators, as Bitcoin Core vs Bitcoin unlimited will probably become the next biggest altcoin trading pair.

I doubt bitcoin unlimited will ever become “bitcoin”. It will always known as “bitcoin unlimited”, whilst being listed on bitcoin and altcoin exchanges as the symbol BTU instead of BTC.

I dont get it.
I have read so much yet I cant still understand.
They say it is an altcoin but alts should have a price right?
Some say it is part of bitcoin, if that is the case then there should not be a price for this or else they will be a competitor.
If they will get their profits through bitcoin only then I can't say they are an alt but more like an option to transact.
Which is it really? Can someone make it clear?

I think it would be a good idea to list Bitcoin Unlimited as an altcoin because it is not the original bitcoin. I mean it is pretty much against what satoshi originally thought bitcoin was going to be and it is developed not by the core team.

I’m not commenting on whether or not the fork is superior or not, but the name bitcoin should be reserved for the bitcoin core team in my opinion only.

Bitcoin unlimited should be called bitcoin unlimited into the future, and be traded against the actual bitcoin on major exchanges. Most exchanges have already commented on this as well.


I'd lean to BU as altcoin but others may disagree.

The gang up against segwit for this long still burders me. IMO it is still the best way to go about the challenges, BU supporters idea looks selfish and have hidden agenda. The idea has not been justified for no course. If it result in centralization by the chinese, u wont ever expect an ETF approval with that

miners decide if the majority move to the other chain there will be a split otherwise not, this majority is 75%

the problem is that even if BU win with 75% of consensus, it will still be listed as an altcoin, exchange say so, this mean thta people will have both chain operative, and double the amount of coins

one for BU and one for core, basically the split will occur because we want to preserve core, this is how i understood it

That is exactly what a hard fork is about: take the balances of the previous coin, and apply a different protocol.

SegWit is the Alt.
BU is the original Satoshi Bitcoin


Please don't forget that again.

Are we getting divided because of this?
I though bitcoin unlimited is just like Bitcoin Core but with better services not an altcoin.
So why are we getting worried about this. Why take it as an altcoin? It doesn't really have a value right?

I dont really know why there is a war here about being the altcoin thing.
I just referred to what I read here.

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


I dont really know the deeper part of it but I just used my English understanding.

The problem is there will be 2 coins - and the market will decide which one it will attribute more value too.
If people find that BTU implementation suits them, its value might be more than BTC.

Bitcoin Unlimited is 'BTC' - the real bitcoin.

Bitcoin Core is  'BALT' - bullshit alt

Don't let SegWit have the label 'BTC'.  They can change their fucking label too.  People who don't follow the details will mistakenly think 'BTC' is the real or original bitcoin.  BU is the original bitcoin and should take the BTC label.  SegWit is a wild deviation from the original protocol and is the alt coin

No, I'm not referring to bugs or so. I'm referring to the Emergent Consensus model. How would it behave in the wild, what incentives would it offer to miners to increase or decrease block size, etc.

That could only be tested in an environment where real money is involved. Likely there will be much manipulation, above all in the initial stage, but perhaps something usable could be the outcome if both parties don't play too unfair.

Indeed.

And has the BU testnet simulated it's (now confirmed) intention to re-org/orphan attack the Bitcoin blockchain? I wonder why not

The Bitcoin company BitGo (https://www.bitgo.com/) made a statement on how they would treat BTU when it comes to a hard fork:


You can find the whole statement on https://blog.bitgo.com/bitgos-approach-to-handling-a-hard-fork-71e572506d7d#.1alajkzg7

I really recommend to read it.