Bitcoin Forum

https://twitter.com/WhalePanda/status/844495349528055810

Call me ignorant, but I always thought BU - as shitty as it may be - did at least release the source.
They didn't? So this hostile chink BTC takeover experiment is even more blatant than I thought it to be?

Ok - I try to be as benevolent as possible. So I assume the chinese government has grabbed dem yellow miners by the balls and demands this course of action and they have no choice but to obey. My condolences for having a mining operation in China.



Rico

Dear all
I don't know, but why not fix and create a new version
I think only BTC coin! This is best

You believe that the Chinese government cares about mining?Pretty solid conspiracy theory. ;D
Who cares about BU being open source or closed source.BU is dying after all and this is good for all bitcoin users.

There is no stopping the hardfork as well as the split of bitcoins into BTC and BTU. Hardfork codes will no longer produced bitcoin but rather a new altcoin called BTU. Even if they will become a major chain but if they are separated from the original bitcoin then there will be no impact on bitcoins. But I am still hoping that the exchanges can harmonize the bitcoin coming from segwit and BU.

Their actions certainly show they care a great deal about exchanges. Miners are easily found, are making huge amounts and can't exactly go anywhere in a hurry. If they don't turn their gaze towards them now, they will in the future.

If nothing else, they'll want to know where the money is going and coming from.

The fact that a big chunk of mining power concentrated in the hands of few are still supporting this garbage proves that BU is a de-facto trojan horse powergrab attempt by someone with a very clear agenda.

Closed source, temporary or not, is a big capital sin in the crypto world. BU is dead for anyone with a brain.

The fact is that with these BU closed source patches being banded about to key economically interested players, I wouldn't recommend any enthusiasts run a BU node with any UTXO's in their wallet. There is obviously some serious issues. Maybe reconsider when the source is released.
Classic is releasing some patches (largely blaming imported BU xthin code) and committing heavily to their repository.
Not checked on any recent XT developments.
Even core released a v0.10.5 and v0.11.3 patch a couple of weeks ago.

Seems like hackers are having a field day and will exploit any nodes weakness.

Nobody can take over bitcoin and yes all those who are still supporting BU after so much bug drama must be doing it for their own personal agenda. We need to get segwit activated rather than bigger blocks with hard fork.

Whatever our feelings on the matter to carry on is to break btcs number 1 ID decentralization, the fork in effect keeps it, a noobs opinion

So much for a version claiming to be in support of the open source bitcoin experiment, eh? however it matters not closed or open what is important is that they will not be able to get listed as BTC on any exchange and if they're planning to double spend their coins on both chains after any possible HF then here is the bad news: price will fall literally 50% before anyone have the chance to successfully grab the free cash, then of course go ahead and double spend to your teeth you'll still going to get the same amount of fiat.
If you want to hurt bitcoin join BU and fork since market won't trust bitcoin until another 7-8 years passes.

"If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs."
-Richard Stallman

Isn't releasing closed source patches a temporary solution? They will only do that initially and next day source code will be made public.
But by closed source development they broke some rules. I hope BU developers are aware of that. They are still using QT libraries.

guess you just read gmaxwells script

stop FUDDING.  jeezez christ.

There was 1 emergency patch that was closed source while it was being reviewed and then open source released the next morning.

Drama's over.

Anyway if you don't like BU, then you can have BitcoinEC patch.  Anything but Blockstream/Core.

Sadly not everyone has brains. Although BTU is going to be a minor chain, it will be growing just like how ETC had been standing along with ETH.  Its not about ideology about opensource anymore, its about money. For someone who can't afford bitcoin's price, they'd have to find a way to make it affordable and BU is just one of the options to make. History may repeat itself though so maybe one day, BU will soon have a value of its own just when hard fork is done and they will split if again and again never minding whether to follow consensus.

Yes, that is right. I read his comment. So now tell me why do you think it is a "script" on his part?
Isn't it true that BU is based on QT? Why do you even try to defend BU developers when they are clearly wrong?

Believe me they do and they have done this before with "centralized" technologies that wanted to threaten their currency. Just read this article

and you will see what I mean... https://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/30/china_bans_virtual_money_to_buy_real_world_goods_and_services/

They want FULL control and Crypto currencies are a threat to them and how they control their citizens.  >:(

https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited

I don't know what BU you are using, but that is the one I am using, built on my local system from source code retrieved via a git clone.

There won't be a BTU anyway. I would never trust a dude with no talents. He is only an early adopter and lacks absolute skills to run a company (bitcoin corp.) which is worth 20billion$.

If BTU ever to be existed in the future, it will be pump&dump ponzicoin with a little bit of scam sauce on top. Just like any other scam alt coin there is.

Not need to mention that everybody will be dumping their shares on BTUCorp. to get BTC Corp.

Guys can someone help me. It's true that nodecounter showing 33 ph/s today for BU? Or i m looking wrong. Can someone confirm this? Thanks in advance

A project being open source or closed source is important, just look at windows there are strong suspicions there are backdoors in their software that can be accessed by governments, so no one in their right mind should trust uncle Bill with their data.

Where is this closed source stuff coming from? I see a tweet by someone opposed to BU, but I also see a git repository with open source code that I use to build the BU client.

Seriously, where is this claim coming from?

when the 2nd recent node crash happened there was a hotfix that was closed source for something like 12 hours before it was released as open source the next morning.
much ado about nothing...but sensationalized by core supporters.

News is BU used closed source.
Closed source is bad, how is that cores fault?
"I messed up, but it's mr. X fault?"

Did I say "its cores fault"?  No, I did not.

Do you have poor reading comprehension?

No. Do you have poor memory?
..but sensationalized by core supporters. Implying that it's cores fault

Sensationalism means that people are trying to make a bigger deal out of something than it actually is.
Like having a thread saying "BU is closed source??? WTF?" when the project is not closed source,
only 1 patch very temporarily for a high priority bug.

...or like what you're trying to do right now.

I think these 12 hours is a real problem for following reasons:
1) The fix concerned security and as such it had to be adopted immediately. Someone citing "emergency" character should understand this is rather aggravating circumstance, not an excuse.
2) They must have had the sources before released binaries. What was the reason/purpose for not disclosing them for 12 hours? It had to be done intentionally. Are there better and worse players, some who award the security and the rest that do not?
3) Do you think an exchange or any other serious company can work straight with binaries, especially unsigned? Aren't their operators supposed to audit the sources?
4) How much can a crypto change it's value within 12 hours? Can you imagine such a rapid change while all your assets are frozen and you can't do nothing because all major exchanges disabled your wallets? Isn't it like someone deleted your Bitcoin by erasing it's value while locking it "temporary"?

I have not yet got involved in BTC vs. BTU discussion till now and my opinion is not partial for that.
Did BTU team give any explanation for that what has happened? Did they encounter HDD failure?
Do they find such a practice normal and are going to exercise it in the future?

Yes, Closed source is not good as it will make someone Dev of the source owner of the BU in the indirect way and it is of course wont be accepted. I have heard that BU has failed and  i hope it is the correct news.

I agree they should not have released a binary based upon code not in the public git repository. That was a mistake.

The git commit/push should have taken place before they released the binary.

It was a mistake and it was corrected. For people like me who only build from git, that means we had to wait, though honestly - the git repo had been updated by the time I found out about it and I suspect that is the case for many people.

Yeah, releasing a closed source patch doesn't really make much sense as it can't be properly audited by the community. Definitely an interesting choice in the way it was deployed.