Bitcoin Forum

When we can have both btc (BU) and Core/Blockstream (BCB) co exist, why not treat Core like another Altcoin similar to the real Bitcoin (BU)?.

Why can't both compliment each other?

I find this whole "its an altcoin thing really stupid"  to me if a fork has the transaction history of what we call bitcoin now then how is it an altcoin?  i might not like the fork but i cannot say it is an altcoin.

Core will be an alt coin if it changes the hashing algo.

We can have both. BU wants to attack any chain which isn't BU though.

Obviously supporters of each side are going to call the other side the "altcoin".

Becouse Bitcoin is the legit one, not like this BU that is a joke with lot of bugs and issues.. I am an amateur talking here but history shown that people want the safe side not the bug side..

BU wont survive, just look how bug it is, I said before and I will say again: BU is like you have a son and you are on disneyland with your son and you give your son 20 billion dollar and say: Go have fun I don't care what you do with my money.. that is BUg unlimited

remember core have been REKTing xt, classic, bu and bitcoinj

yet BU want consensus of all diverse nodes working together.
its core with the ban hammer and blackmails (bip9, UASF, PoW algo change) not the other way round

Maybe we should just accept that everything will be called an altcoin if BU forks away, there is no objective original when there's no agreement on which it is.


Does it matter? I want the best coin, not the bit coin.

you think core is perfect..
hmmm 8 years of orphans - https://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks  (if perfect there should never be a orphan)
major orphan event in 2013

even now
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues

oh and need we forget. if core is soo perfect then segwit is not needed because there is nothing to "fix"

you do know there is not actually 20 billion in fiat sat around in bank accounts with bitcoins name on it

There's only one Bitcoin and its abbreviation is BTC, not BU. It's clear that you're shilling for a fork. Why not discuss this in altcoin section since you fork Bitcoin you created an altcoin. ;)
These Bitcoin Unlimited altcoin supporters might want to change their strategy since it's not useful here.

Segwit is a fork too.  So segwitcoin would be an altcoin right?

SegWit would only be an "altcoin" if there was a hardfork with two surviving chains.
Altcoins, in the OPs intention, are only created by hardforks. Softforks can't make altcoins.

yes they can
and thats where the fake sales pitch of the reddit script writers have fooled you

by only talking about the best case scenario of soft
and worse case of hard.. but not mentioning all the options

I don't go on reddit.

Can you explain to me how two surviving chains could exist in a non-contentious softfork?

see now your twisting things

soft can be consensus meaning no split.. or contentious possibly split or bilateral guaranteed

by you intentionally saying non-contentious.. your baiting...
try
"Can you explain to me how two surviving chains could exist in a non-consenus softfork?

and your answer is bip9 has code in it to trigger banning and orphaning..
oh and UASF does too.. i think you can guess what the S stands for

I don't bait.

My understanding was that softforks do not create a chain split since the miners are the
leaders and nothing is lost, and my understanding was that hardforks do create a chain split
because that is the mechanism that enacts the "upgrade".

So, if I am incorrect, please explain how a softfork split occurs.
Do not cite BIPs or UASF which from day one I disagreed with.

Please explain simply.

well you did add the "non-contentious".. rather than just ask about soft..
but here goes.


in short PoolA simply ignore and automatically reject blocks of certain version. and they just build on their own.

by pools doing this. they can keep building their own without halting just by looking at the version and declining it. without even validating its tx contents

what you will find it that there are 2 chains. growing forever.. but because its soft. the non-minin nodes(hard) will get confused be and swapping between the two dependant on height (non-mining node mega orphan drama(causing hard controversy) which then forces the nodes to pick a side just so the nodes dont see the orphan drama causing a hard bilatral split.. or remain with the orphan controversy mega orphan drama of endlessly swapping

but with or without non-mining nodes the pools are building 2 chains and not fighting, just ignoring each other

Ok, I understand all that.
Are you saying that when Miners/Pools "activate" the softfork, there is literally a new chain?
From what you provided, if there was a new chain, the nodes wouldn't be able to see the miners
anymore since they are not participating, they are literally blind and still on the same chain.

If a softfork chain split is possible, why do old nodes still read the same blockchain?

This is what I don't understand. If it was a new chain, they are lost since they didn't upgrade.
A softfork "tricks" the nodes with new rules without an upgrade or a chain split.

Where am I wrong here?

Edit: You added more to your post: So you are saying there is a chain split and the nodes
are bouncing between the two chains with two different rules depending on "most work"?

no.. im saying
there are 3 possibilities.. well 6 in total of what happens.
depending if its consensual (one chain all agree, opposer's just left dead in the water unsynced)
or controversial they dont agree but they fight it out with orphans and swapping chains drama and headaches and double spend risks etc
or bilateral, by ignoring and thats when there is 2 linear nonfighting chains

as i said too many people just take soft and only mention softs best case.. then take hard and only mention hards worse case


it all depends on circumstance there are 6 possible results.. not 2


dependant on whats been changed. yes while the POOLS(soft) are either endlessly fighting or going separate ways
the non-mining nodes could also be in the orphan drama or just not getting relayed anything.. leaving them stuck and unsynced.

like i said for months.. its not a simple yes no answer multiple things can occur.

but based on BU refusing to bilateral split and only want consensus.

if BU got consensus.. nodes such as BU,classic, xt and other including some core nodes that did tweak their blocklimit will carry on.
the blockstream(core) that refuses dynamics or shifting to a higher base block would be left stuck and not syncing. dead in th water

however core are threatening soft bilateral. which then can allow corefanboy pools(soft) to build on by ignoring dynamic pools.
and then that leads the nodes(hard) are in controversy because of orphan drama.. because there are 2 chains(but core would orphan the dynamic one) eventually leading to nodes(hard) doing a bilateral, to avoid seeing the dynamic block just to stop auto orphaning them by just being blind to them.. meaning it becomes a hard bilateral split.

excuse the pun... its not a trigger.. its a CHAIN of events

your trying to ask a question about chain of events,

but its not a 2 answer question.
also we can speculate all day long about will core actually pull the trigger to their bip9 early(possible) if they would UASF or even PoW banish.

without knowing if core will trigger it at say dynamic vote of under 50%... or wait for things to get very threatening for core by waiting for majority on dynamics side of 75%-95%

the chain of events can alter

So then in the most simplest form, a "fork" within the softfork termonology is
indeed a new chain separate from the pre-softfork chain. Correct?


This above statement can only occur if there is indeed a new chain.



Yes. I already understood that aspect.
The confusion was that I thought you are not splitting the chain but performing a "insert"
within the same chain. That is how I understood it (a restriction level applied to the same chain).



I don't care about bilateral splits since that is outside of Consensus in relation to my question.
I have no idea if CORE will or will not perform a second hardfork that is bilateral.



So, basically a softfork is a chain split in the same way a harfork is a chain split.
I understood a softfork as a restriction layer added to the current (only) chain.

a fork is a different path.
it does not mean it has to survive more than on block. it does not mean it has to live on forever. it just means a different path has opened up

orphans are where forks are killed

Yes. I assumed that a softfork was named as such not because of a literal chain split,
but because its effect was likened to a chain split in that it allowed protocol changes.

For example, if you could make certain aspects more "strict" within the preexisting
protocol, in my mind, you wouldn't need to create a new chain to enforce this, but a
"layer" within the chain.

---

So back to the OP, I should have stated this:

SegWit would only be an "altcoin" if there was a hardfork with two surviving chains.
Altcoins, in the OPs intention, are only created by hardforks. Softforks can't make altcoins two surviving chains.
If SegWit survives and the minority chain dies off, SegWit transforms from altcoin into "Bitcoin".
If BU survives and the minority chain dies off, BU transforms from altcoin into "Bitcoin".
The only time a "protocol change" skips altcoins status entirely, is with very high consensus.
Very high consensus can't make two surviving chains.

i removed this line:
If BU survives and the minority chain dies off, BU transforms from altcoin into "Bitcoin".
because if BU had majority. its already bitcoin along with the other implementations (where segwit is the altcoin or just dead)

theres still some irregularities even with the FTFY summary. due to when/if core triggers their bip9/UASF/PoW change, and which markets treat it as such. and as highlighted if there remained 2 chains or not. or the opposing implementations give in to join the peer or tier network
but its close enough

I just revised as you commented, see my revision.

I do not agree. I think an altcoin is always an altcoin until there is one chain.
If there is a bilateral split, the spiting chain will always be an altcoin since that
breaks the Consensus Mechanisms.

So, if both chains survive in a non-bilateral situation, the determination of altcoin
status can not be determined. I think one must die to truly determine who is
the "Bitcoin". If an implementation wishes to be the "new protocol" the old must
die, it can not be "the most hash currently". It must be finalized in general and
for the economies.

in the post from like an hour ago which u revised

actually it can.

an altcoin can be made by just 1 node deciding it wll do its own thing if it wanted to.
an altcoin can be made by majority banning and splitting that last 5% minority will do its own thing if it wanted to.
an altcoin can be made by the last 5% minority banning and splitting themselves do its own thing if it wanted to.

but then that minority have to ask themselves is there a good enough reason to try keeping it going.

(so many scenarios running through my mind.. kinda hard to summarise it all)

a few things we are sure of
1. BU and other lik minded peers wont trigger unless safe majority of node and pool (no threats, no time bombs, no blackmails. just plod along and let nature handle it)
2, core will have the triggers, time bombs and threats and could trigger while things are contentious, forcing the issue or at consensus. but its core rocking the boat more than anything else

still too early to tell

its not a simpl "hash wins"

it is about nodes, network confidence of majority nodes and also which merchants allow deposits of it.

funny part is..
by the exchanges saying they will accept bu (and if controversially call it BTU/BCU or consensus call it bitcoin and segwit BCC/SWcoin)
they are actually helping BU and other dynamics to be accepted as "the bitcoin" in a majority event
remember BU wont trigger itself unless it it has the 3.. hash, nodes and merchants.

other matter is.
BU is just one implementation. if a base blocksize limit movement trigger does occur. many implementations(classlic xt) would work with it.
core is just one implementation. if a segwit block trigger does occur. many implementations(btcc, knots) would work with it.

so its not strictly a BU event or a BU chain.. its more of a

dynamic peer vs segwit tier
rather than
bu vs core

but thats just confusing the matters more.

I posted and ran to the store, returned, and revised.
When it posted, I noticed you answered even though before I started
your comment was not there.



If a handful of non-mining nodes are still active, that does not count toward chain status.

In the event we are talking about, there must be some miners. If there is 1 miner/pool with
a "reasonable" amount of hash power, where that single miner has the ability to mine till a
difficultly adjustment within the next year or so, then it is still alive. The question then comes
down to whether they can afford to do so. The answer is very likely that they can not and as
such, the minority chain will die. If it takes that single miner 500 years to get to the difficultly
adjustment, even though the whole community likely left them behind, that chain survives and
will work its way out of the "difficulty snare".

Bitcoin versus Altcoin status can not be determined on "longest chain/most work" because one
day that could be used against the community in an obviously malicious way, IMO.

i think im going to drive your mind crazy now.. :D sorry in advance

5% of pool consensus of blocks does not mean 5% hashpower.
5% of pool consensus of blocks does not mean 20x longer to make a block once going at it with 95% less competition...

save re-writing it

ok im gonna take a break.. (brain switched off in 3.2.1)

No, I know that. This is "luck at finding the nonce" versus "raw hash computation".




No, I know that. The time would in theory be an average 12.5 minutes per block for the last three.



Now I am losing you. The difficulty that exists is based to an average 10 minutes, from prior 2016
blocks. This can help estimate the networks hash rate. The nonce is based on this "combined
hashpower of the network". This is my understanding. Are you talking about "luck"?




No, I know that, but the 75% is still trying to find the nonce with the difficultly that assumes the
missing 25% would filling in the time gaps and balance the blocks back to 10 minutes on average.
In theory, over a 24 hour day with 144 blocks each around 10 minutes, if 25% "dropped off", then
over the same amount of 24 hours, the 75% should only be able to mine about 115 blocks. Until the
difficultly readjustment, that loss in block work will compound, which leads to less supply of new coins,
regular txs, and fees would be slowed and restricted.




I'm not following now. are you saying that if 75% of the hash power leaves the competition,
that does not affect the remaining 25% to find blocks within the average 10 minutes over time?

What is the significance of this in relation to my comment that this was a response to?
I'm not following.

im just addressing your comment about you and other peoples bad maths of block times

EG
imagine a room
4 tables and groups of people sat at each table.

they are all given a set of  6dice
they have to roll them until someone gets 1,1,1,1,1,1

the red table could get it in 10 minutes.
it does not mean that because red get it in 10 minutes that the brown table would take 20 minutes or the purple table would take 30 minutes or the blue table would take 40 minutes

they could all be seconds apart but because red won, that round only red counts so no one cares about the other 3 tables times.
next round, starts again, this time the brown and blue table both get it but based on how many shakes to get it was just one extra shake in favour of brown. they are shown as doing the slightly miniscule extra amount of work so they win.. other 3 table are not counted.

now then.. if you evict the red and blue from the room.. this does not suddenly make the groups any slower. infact it helps them as there is less competition to beat them by seconds. so now brown and purple can get more blocks more often because there are less competitors to lose against by seconds

..
also a note
the difficulty is not set by "network hashrate" nor is the speed of say red table or blue tables shakes/dice helping brown or purple.
they all have different dice and doing their own work
infact the faster red and blue shake the less chance brown and purple get because red and blue could beat them by seconds.
its not the faster red and blue shake the more thy help brown and purple. (increase of network does not help the work of a single team)

in short
when antpool wins a block. its because of the work done by antpool and antpool only... the other hashrates of the other pools did not jump into their pool to help antpool. antpool alone made a bloke with thir own 600peta. not the networks many exa..

when red wins a diceround. its because of the work done by red and red only the other shakes of the other tables did not jump into the red table to help the red table. the red table alone shook the correct dice combination first with their own teams hands not all the hands of the room.

its a competition of different pools/tables doing their OWN work. competing against each other.. not a collusion of a single pool/room all shaking/hashing one thing

The way you call bitcoin is a really stupid alt, that's a misconception. It seems like you have not considered Bitcoin, it is the only legitimate and legitimate currency in the world, you are not allowed to smear its reputation, your calling has made it no longer clean. . BTC branching is a bad thing, BTU can be alt coin, because its nature is not limited, it is like other coin, it only shows the greed of the miners, but risk Possible cause, BTU can carry a low value, and they can pay the price. ETH and ETC are one example, while ETH grows and reaches a terrible value (currently 0.04), the ETC is only 0.01.

BU is the original Bitcoin without changes.

SegWit has many radical changes.  SegWit is the alt.  BU is Bitcoin.

Cause in the end they want to end up being Bitcoin as a whole, they don't want ALTernate coin status based on the simple fact that they want to be the premier cryptocurrency which is bitcoin. It doesn't matter on what name the scaling solution has now (Segwit or BTU) they want to end up being Bitcoin in the end and to just stay as Bitcoin.

If they were an alternate currency, they wouldn't be taken as seriously nor would anyone see a real reason to use them unless everyone is going to attempt to move over from one chain to another without any sort of fork.

Alternate coins are always going to take a backseat to bitcoin, so that's just not possible to have a scaling solution be an alternate if they want to improve / save the actual bitcoin we have and use today.

I understand this, but did I contradict this in a prior statement?

But, you do agree that there are "different pools doing their OWN work. competing
against each other" but their independent correct answers is based on the prior 2016
block collective, that is used for difficultly to scale back to a 10 minute average, right?

So for example, if a pool 1 has 99% hash and pool 2 has 1% hash of the total network
hash, and Pool 1 (99%) "drops off" the network, Pool 2 (1%) is still trying to find the
10 minute average block based on a nonce/difficultly that accounts for the total
network hash prior to the Pool1 (99%) "drop off". So Pool 2 has no competition
and they will "always find the blocks first now", but it will take them much longer
on average to find the blocks in general.

In the above para, if Pool 1 (99%) dropped off, then it will take Pool 2 (1%) about
144 days in order to make 144 blocks (1 block per 24h). To get to the difficultly
adjustment, it would take at maximum 2016 days, which is 5.5 years.

Are we in agreement, or am I still missing your point?

Core doesn't want to branch off into a new currency.  Just because the new BU coin will be given to Bitcoin owners doesn't mean that it's not a new coin.  It is a separate coin which is different to the original Bitcoin and should not be confused with it.  Reasonably, all major exchanges seem to agree with me.

the 2016 blocks has nothing much to do with hashrate.

for instance.
pool A could have 500petahash and pool B has 480peta - not that important to state this and you will see why

this would give A a few second advantage..
however. this does NOT mean expect 1109 blocks for A...... 907 for pool B
infact
pool A could be lucky enough that EVERY block which A makes is just 2 seconds faster than pool B
meaning

A gets ALL 2016 blocks.

then if there was a split.
they are both making blocks at nearly the same times on 2 chains. yet the activation 2016 blockcount says that A has 100% power..

it does not mean that because A has 100% block winning that B will take hours to make blocks.

---

as for the network hash rate

now imagine there was pool C with 480peta
and imagine there was pool D with 480peta

this changes nothing for pool A. pool A still does the same work at the same time with the same 500peta.

but B,C,D are all just unlucky.

the network hashrate going from 980peta to 1,940peta again does not affect pool A's work in the slightest.

all it means is now there are 3 competitors agains A so A may not always get so lucky.
but again this does not mean suddenly A is only making ~500 blocks.. A could still get all 2016.

this is what has been known since 2012 as the risks of a 51% attack. where one pool just has the little edge against the rest to be able to potentially control all the blocks produced.

Dang! This is RawDog's thread and yet franky and Agent are going deep. I got worked up reading all those comments and yet I didn't understand a thing. I just kept on reading.  ;D

So if BU wins, will our bitcoin now will have no value anymore? So should we sell to buy BU?
Trying to understand from an average person's point of view and a level of mind. Please understand I am not into mining.

nothing to worry about.

It's likely there will be no network split at all.

if there is, simply hang onto your coins and the market will quickly sort it out -- your coins will be valid on both chains.

Oh!. Thank you Mr. Jonald for clearing that out. My friends are also getting worried when we are talking about this.
 I think there will be a big dump if this questions like this will not be answered correctly or simply to where some investors could understand it. Even small holders should know this.

infact the exchange announcement of naming BU an alt if core pull a contentious trigger. is meaningless in regards to the naming...
by admitting they will accept the coin (no matter what exchanges name it) means the coins have utility.(they are spendable)

what would have been different is if the announcement would of said.. no matter what they would only accept core. then the dynamic implementations wont have much utility.

---

i know your looking for a economics answer of BUY X sell Y.. but no one can predict future speculation without a time machine

just to add.
dont hold your coins in an exchange/third party service.

use a wallet where you own the private key.
coins are in laymans terms attached to the private key soif you import that key into whatever client there is. you have the coins.

if you just have them on an exchange. that exchange may decide not to give you the other split side because you only deposited on one side.(even before an activation)

so keep them off an exchange and you can then have freedom of choice no matter what happens

But it DOES mean to expect 1109 blocks for A and 907 block for B, it is just that
since luck is involved it will be close to those numbers. Could be 1078/938, or 1176/840
or whatever, but it will always tend down to "1109/907" though.

I think the issue is that on the AVERAGE it IS linear. But in real time at any given moment,
it could be anything, even 2015/1. Your comments ignore mining through time, right?
And that is why we have a misunderstanding?




But, the addition of B,C,D will affect Pool A's work after the next difficultly adjustment.
The newly adjustment difficultly will make Pool A's 500petas weaker than the prior difficulty.




I understand that. I just don't undesatnd why you would say that Pool A could still get
2016 when more pools enter that are close to their hash power. In thoery, over time
and averaged Pool A should not be able to get close to 2016 blocks, and should lose
more so tend down to an average around 504 block. It might be 623/539/445/409.
But, 623/539/445/409 should average to 504 for Pool A. Anything over 504 is luck
(ignoring that Pool A has a few petas more than B,C,D, I state this in general).


So am I correct here or am I still misunderstanding what you are intending to mean?

Your avatar is that retard who was amazed BITCOINSSSS have any values. Are you actually him? Because you question is just as retarded. BTC is BTC  and BTU  is a shitcoin. period.

radical? go on..... im all ears. Lets hear these RADICAL changes. I wonder if you consider EC Radical! jesus christ.. who are you people?

well , it is thousands of lines of code and modifies the structure of transactions and blocks in many ways.

EC basically just removes the block limit (which was originally a spam filter) and lets the miners use
'Nakamoto Consensus' as per the whitepaper.

so... really up to you how you want to label it.  Draw your own conclusions.

already have. Those lines of codes are to fix Transaction malleability. Do you agree that needs to fixed? IF so, what is BU doing about it?


 

sounds like it does.

don't know -- probably nothing, but afaik, BU is compatible with segwit...also BU doesn't seek to be the only implementation or be in control,
its main goal is EC... so those issues dont have to be solved by BU per se.  there's segwit, flextran, or other bitcoin implementations.

nope its not that predictable

ok
https://i.imgur.com/fjJhQQm.png

antpool has 565peta 20
slushpool 207peta 12
bitfury has 350peta 12
btc.top has 232peta11
f2pool has 428peta 11

as you can see based on hash power you would expect f2pool to be nearer to 17 not 11
and slush should be nearer 10 not 12


difficulty is not adjust by hashrate... just time it took for 2016 blocks..
EG i could make 1 million pools all with say 20peta each... knowing over 2 weeks they have not solved a block.

and have no actual bearing on the speed the other pools make blocks
the difficult wont change differently if im just running them pools or not.. they have no impact on other pools. even if there is now an extra 20mill pta "network hash"

.
how the difficulty is measured,
imagine its measured over 4 blocks(simple maths)
if block A was made in 9:30
if block B was made in 9:30
if block C was made in 9:30
if block D was made in 9:30

then the difficulty would say that they were made ~5% too fast. so adjust 5% more harder difficulty is implied (technically 10% to counter the 5% gain already made vs the 4 blocks yet to come that need to be 10:30.. to hopefully average the 8 blocks 10:00

remember block A solution was from ONE pools work using only that pools hash, no other pool helped.
remember block B solution was from ONE pools work using only that pools hash, no other pool helped.
remember block C solution was from ONE pools work using only that pools hash, no other pool helped.
remember block D solution was from ONE pools work using only that pools hash, no other pool helped.


in theory maybe. but other things are in play too.
more blocks could have been solved by antpool more often or even by any pool more often but it gets orphaned off and seconds later something else is there taking the glory.
pools cold take advantage of spv/empty block mining to get a few seconds advantage (this actually helps more than pure hashrate)
also by rlaying the block out faster can shave off time compared to trying to hash a few seconds to take the glory

oh and umm.. right now there are way MORE than 20 pools.. but you dont see them as they dont get to be seconds faster then some pools.
thus the actual "network hashrate" is bigger then you think

segwit fixes tx malleability..?..?.  im laughing

p.s.
people need to voluntarily move funds to new keypairs to disarm their own funds and own signatures from being used in a malleated tx.

malicious users will stick to native tx's and continue doing malleated tx's = problem not solved or fixed

even funnier.. LN doesnt need it..
the simple fact that in a LN. its a 2 co-signer multisig.

each co signer sees the stripped tx and signs it. they can check and double check the tx and see if its malleated.
and if it happens to slip through..

the innocent party is not then going to agree to sign a second non malleated tx just so the malicious person can double spend.
thus LN, just by being a co-signer, double check concept.. mitigates malleability.

Different exchanges will call one bitcoin and the the other bitcoin core or bitcoin unlimited. I don't think it matters at all. If we could have everything all in one big package that'd be the best.

Yes, I see now what I was not accounting for.

So simply, you are saying that when you have a slight advantage of hash over your
nearest competitors, that slight amount actually has a compounding effect that allows
that advantaged miner the "ability in theory" to get all 2016 blocks.

So, what this really means is that the term "difficultly" and "difficultly adjustment"
really is incorrect as it applies to the mechanism of mining. "Difficultly" in this sense is
a "re-balancing of the scale". Is it not a literal "increased level of burdensome work".
The work is always the same (in theory), but the competitors hashes is what is really
changing over time, thus why they are "competing against each other and not the difficulty".

I think I understand now what I was overlooking.
(If what I'm have now stated is correct.)

Thanks for showing and explaining what I was missing.

Because the Bitcoin developers are Core developers, the rest are just copying the software and adding a couple of lines and somehow managing to fuck up in the small amount of crap they add.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZ3lzCyW0AAw0BJ.jpg

This is why BU is already dead. The money is in the coders, not on some dumb miner with a hashrate monopoly.

Well we can't have a hybrid Bitcoin, period. If they want to fork it it's their choice and list it as an Altcoin. We can't have two captains in the same boat.