Bitcoin Forum

You might want to read this article ... (please actually read it in full)

https://medium.com/@arthricia/is-bitcoin-unlimited-an-attack-on-bitcoin-9444e8d53a56#.tuts22w3t

From the article it's clear that the recent cause of price drop is just a planned attack. From every angle a perfect plan has been executed, which was also now overcome by the potentially growing bitcoin.

BTU is atack on Bitcoin, that failed like Classic and XT before  :P

Thx for link. Will read later.

Technically it cannot be an attack.

At the start i was exited about BU but when time passed i see BU as a disgusting hostile take over.

I did not consider this as an attack to Bitcoin, but surely it will affect the  bitcoin . It is a branching out of bitcoin and like ETC or the Ethereum Classic its just like another cryptocurrency to me. I do not know what will happen in the future, but I wish the success of this BTU BTC hard fork initiative. I hope it will change the way we expect with bitcoins. If its only  the same and no change, this is another crap.

BU shouldn't be considered as an attack. It is just a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal, just like Segwit is also a BIP.

you could say:
BU is an attack on BitcoinCore

i think that might be a fair assessment.

I would argue that, after some of the more recent revelations of the motivations that the BU devs have and their plan for BU in the future, Bitcoin Unlimited is most definitely an attack on the nature of Bitcoin and potentially on the entire network should most of their plans come to pass in the way they are describing them.

Since Segwit is the only other viable option, I would encourage other devs to front other ways so that we can have some competition and make sure the network gets the best.

Segwit is the Trojan Horse that will allow Bankers using LN to Bankrupt the Miners.

BTU is the only salvation for the ASICS Miners & BTC Transactions problems,

since BTC Core only works for bankers now and won't just increase blocksize or make a faster blockspeed to decrease transaction fees.


 8)

BU is not an attack on Bitcoin, it is an attack on the Core developers and an attempt to fork it all away from them. The article was written from a big blocker's perspective and it is a very biased one at that. Read the part "dissenters". The dissenters would depend on which side you are asking.

So be very careful and try to think for yourself and always listen to both sides of the argument.

I admire your objectivity in this whole thing.  Most people (including myself) tend to get polarized to a position and then start to look for evidence to support their position while ignoring/denying evidence to the contrary.

BU is not an attack on core devs, so much as it is an end-around of the braindead policy of not doing a simple increase to maxblocksize. Last year even. Core devs get to set their own policy. But core is not the entirety of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is permissionless. BU has exactly as much authority as does core. Core devs can also be left bereft when the majority decides bigger blocks are what is needed now.

In the end, the market will determine the direction Bitcoin turns - toward core, BU, another, or on the path of status quo.

This article is bullshit and most likely a paid write up for BTU. There are far too many points to address.

Bullshit exaggeration.

Complete lie.

---

Keep trying; the economy does not want your altcoin. ::)

This article is just another reason why you cannot trust everything you read. Some people are demonizing Core for going the soft fork route, but they knew how disastrous a hard fork can be. BU do not give a shit, because they just want to take control of Bitcoin at all cost.

Someone should make a comparison between the contributions that developers on both sides made to Crypto currencies and see who contributed the most. 

doesn't make sense, why i pool should sign support for a hard fork to attack core and reduce the value? it's all in their intent to have the value higher

therefore this is just another crap written by someone who have zero knowledge what this is all about

Yes the only hidden agenda for current block size debate is just a financial gain for few whales who are actually behind BTU.

They created FUD about hard fork to dump the bitcoin price so that they can buy few cheap coins under $1000, now they will just pump price hard to sell for quick profit.

I wish both sides would be a little less dramatic, do away with the theatrical and get closer to the points they want to make.

Even the article quoted at the very first plays to the same stoking of sentiments. Almost every educated article is filled with rhetoric and unnecessary superlatives. Why can't they just tell us the pros and cons and be objective about it?

I just read yesterday on this forum of a user who's sick with both sides bickering and is diversifying into an alt. I suspect more will take this path.

Interesting article. Bitcoin has indeed been attacked, by all of us and especially for people who can only push to their side and that deny to see what's good in the other camp.


Maybe a bit over the top, but it gets the point across regarding LN.

We can conclude from the article that the attack isn't being made by an implementation in particular, but by some of its users who tend to be a bit extremist. Unlimited is as much as an "attack" on Bitcoin as Core is. They both have proposals to keep Bitcoin moving forward, and those are stepping stones for Bitcoin and that's what will keep us moving forward.

+1 because most of the protocols are not in mind of BU IIRC, and you would understand the problem of transaction fee in the core.

I do believe there are big whales behind this.It may either be individual or institutional whales.
They took the advantage of BU debate and helped falling price to buy more.

No it's not. As BU get launched, bitcoin's market would alsp widespread since it would help bitcoin. There is  would be no competition against bitcoin.

BU would kill the network effect of bitcoin, it would also kill it by a big bug, it would also kill it by miners screwing up via the control that BU brings to miners, it would also kill it by the crash it would deliver after the HF, it would also kill it by the inflation that BU needs to survive (21 million coin limit would be eventually lost).

BU is an abomination sold to idiots in hopes of onchain coffee.

I do believe that BU is not an attack on Bitcoin but rather on Bitcoin Core.  BU proposed a solution that is against the Bitcoin Core off-chain solution by going to bigger blocksize..  The truth is this is getting frustrating and confusing since every party attacking each others with a superlative accusation (exaggeration).  Sometimes we never knew who is telling the truth. 


It is not who contributed the most but rather who is willing to preserve the original vision of Satoshi in creating Bitcoin. But if there is no competent dev to preserve the original vision of why Bitcoin is created, there is no other way but to go to the more competent one.  At least we are secure that Bitcoin will not fail in its new path.

Yes, it can be true and we are on the same opinion. I am sure there are many people who got enriched along the way. This is just showing us that Bitcoin just like any other currency can be manipulated by a group of people who have the means to do so. Small Bitcoin holders can only sigh and yes sighing in relief that Bitcoin is now back in the upswing lol...:)

Can someone explain to me what's all this chatting about Bitcoin and forks? Can you link easy articles to read and understand all of this?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8ATu3qXkAMUuSt.jpg

Another blow has been dealt to the altcoin attack called BTU. ::)

They had a good theoretical view about how things must be but they lack in realistic approach and so is the reason they are meant to doom big time.They never had a competent enough team to write their codes and if they planning to take over they must atleast come up with a decent code rather than theory. ;D

Fake News!

16 users..

also
"We consider that any “neutral” or “absentee” stance on the hard fork is by default in opposition to the hard fork."

meaning less than that 16..
oh and they can post a statement to 5 million companies and by not getting a reply they can lie and say 5million oppose anything not core..
=fake stats are easy to achieve just by not having a return address on their request to ensure they get no response.


funny how they only want gmaxwell sanctioned implementations.. lol
=centralisation by subsidiary rebranding of blockstream(core) to pretend and fake independance.
also core 0.14 dont have consensus. node/pool/ or userbase.

so that means no one should be following 0.14 because 0.14 doesnt have consensus.

so far the rules of 0.12 have consensus.. not anything else.

Thank you. I also tend to get polarized too sometimes. But as an investor who is gambling most of his life savings in Bitcoin, I have to be objective and know when to go out of the investment. Now Ethereum Classic is looking more attractive to park some Bitcoins in while all this drama unfolds. It is not a good time to be a Bitcoiner right now.


Maybe I did not post that right. I do not mean a direct attack on Core but an attack on its philosophy on how to scale the network. I read the problem can be traced back to Satoshi and Hal Finney. I read that Satoshi wanted onchain scaling while Hal Finney wanted offchain. Is that accurate?

No. Hal convinced Satoshi to add a 1MB maxblocksize limit as an anti-spam measure. This in an era where most blocks were less than 1KB in size (1000x smaller than the limit), and most transactions carried no transaction fee.

Ok thanks for the clarification. But let me ask you, in this era of the 1MB maxblocksize, how much of today's average transactions per block is spam? I am looking at the mempool transaction count graph right now and it is hard to believe that the spikes are all real transactions.

https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-count

yes,this is my thought. They use this action to cover more bitcoins with cheaper price because the amount of bitcoins is only about 4-5 mil BTC for mining and now many many people want to hold bitcoin as safe assets in digital world and They need more threats for bitcoin .

Good point ,we should look at both sides and not just contend on what these experts are feeding us,they are targetting newbies out there who just got in,it's always a good thing to keep a list of links of various opinions..

Well, that's a conundrum. There is no way of looking at a single transaction, and objectively classifying it as spam/notspam. My attitude is that 'Bitcoin is permissionless - if a txn is attractive enough to be included by a miner in a solved block, then it is a valid transaction'.

If that is the case then there is no answer for the flooding of the mempool. I doubt this will be solved by the dynamic block sizes the developers of Bitcoin Unlimited are proposing. It might only aggravate the problem.

Think about it. This is where an offchain layer makes more sense to pursue.

wondering if you have read this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1846510.msg18377356#msg18377356

Ok. But does it really justify that we all follow the risks that comes with the hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited? As I read more and more about the topic, it gets more complicated than a simple hard fork and then everyone ends up happy with the outcome. There is now mention of an upgrade on the Proof of Work algorithm making the miners equipment useless. Then there is also the risk of the blockchain splitting in 2 and a dumping war. Maybe we should all follow the compromise and Segwit is that compromise.

segwit isnt

its like retrofitting a planes cargo area into extra seating so that parents can throw their kids into the cargo area  so that more adults can fit into the main seating area.

issues.
1. it only works if adults volunteer to move their kids into cargo-hold by changing their tickets.(moving funds to different keypairs)
2. last year only obese people weighting upto 4000so of a 20,000so plane limit could get on. good for many weighing under 100so.. not so good for other passengers if 5 obese tried to get on
3. this year extremely obese people weighing 16000so of a 80,000so plane limit can get on. good for many weighing under 100so.. extremely not so good  for other passengers if 5 extra extremely obese got on

changing the design of the plane hoping adults will change their tickets rather than have their kids next to them and also foolishly letting even more bloated adultswithkids gets on does not help.

yes having a plane with more first class seating could seem hard..
but then the team calling it hard are the ones now forcing in their cargo-hold seating with empty hopes. and threatening to nuke the airport if they dont allow the new retrofitted planes to use the airport is even worse.
funny part is that it would require everyone to upgrade (hard) to achieve the threats.

so if the segwit PoW threat is needing community to upgrade either way. they might aswell do it the less violent way and let people have more first class seating. thus not need to threaten to nuke the airport.. rather than retrofit planes and nuke the airport..

in short saying hard is bad, lets trojan horse something.. and if trojan horse is rejected, go super super super hard. just to avoid hard.
the silly flip flopping tactics amazes me

The article said that the attack was not really coming from bitcoin unlimited but rather the attack was done even before the problem on blocksize happened. There maybe some group or somebody that has been attacking bitcoin and blockchain for some time and that has led to the problem on blocksize and scaling. Satoshi had programmed bitcoin to be sufficient and that its blocksize and scaling can suffice the growth of transactions. But what happened today is that there is a crisis in scaling and blocksize that led to increase in mining fee. In my opinion, there is an attack to bitcoin so that they can increase the miner fee.

https://i.imgur.com/wWifQWi.png

https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/848049572668559362
Reminds me of OneCoin as well. ::)

Ok but does it all really make the the hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited worth it? It is buggy and the developers behind it are not as good as the Core developers. I believe the answer to that question is "no". The miners are making a big mistake if they help implement the buggy BU.

Agree...if the BU backers simply accepted the majority and did a Seg witness upgrade etc.....THEN made their case....they might have more traction...no less dangerous then that
talk of a fork...imho....anyway how I see it (then again I'm not a dev whale in the midst of the epic battle and power over who controls bitcoin either ..just watching from the bleachers) :)

If anything...BlockStream is an attack to Bitcoin. Stagnation.

Stop reading the /r/btc propaganda and bullshit. BlockStream is everything but an attack to Bitcoin. Do I have to remind you again how the market reacted to the 'HF imminent' FUD?

There is no any evidence and we might could just speculate about spam transaction when the mempool was flooded, but it maybe true as we can see how much unconfirmed transaction on blockchain before and after ATH. Hal finney had proposed right thing to measure spam attack to the network, but we won't never know about it. For now, we should satisfy with 1Mb blocksize and hopefully SegWit could overcome this problem.

How do you feel about the /r/bitcoin censorship?

I also do not think that a buggy hardfork worth it.  I would rather choose the "centralization" (as BU called it) of segwit and LN with stable softfork than supporting a buggy "decentralized"  network which can only worsen the problem of what Bitcoin is having at this moment worst is many people might lose their money due to exploit of the bug. 


Seems pot calling the kettle black to me.

Although I disagree with BU, I don't think it is an attack on Bitcoin itself. Remember the basic concept of Bitcoin - it's controlled by nobody!

Hi,

It's not an attack.
Some people don't like SegWit:
https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-fork-too-far-87d6e57a4179

And think that a simple block size increase is better for Bitcoin.

That would depend on a person's point of view. If you look at the hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited as a collusion of the Chinese miners and ASIC manufacturers and having an allegiance with the BU developers to become the stewards of the network and be the people in control then yes it is an attack on Bitcoin.

Irrelevant. Neither Blockstream nor Bitcoin Core has anything to do with censorship. Theymos & his mods moderate the sub against a predefined set of rules. Similarily, r/btc is censored in a somewhat different way.

It seems pretty clear to me that some people shouldn't be thinking for themselves.

---

Instead of writing code, the BU team is going around China trying to lobby miners. ::)

https://i.imgur.com/uhYhpFx.png
https://twitter.com/bitcoinunlimit/status/848669483354935296

I guess you are working for theymos, right? :D :D

No, I am not. What kind of relevance does this have to the attacked called BTU or the economy not wanting this altcoin? ::)

Well the concept of BU goes against that of bitcoin - at least in practise.
With BU, you rely on some giants with their own nodes in order to transact.
Originally there was no need to depend on ANYONE but BU says no, please rely on these giants to make transactions faster... or whatever it is they really are after.
The bilderbergs don't want an economy they can't influence.

Dear all
I do not like this! I think only BTC or other coin. Not BU

They also often falsely quote Satoshi from the original Whitepaper (not that it mattered in practice today).

Bitcoin is all about not having to trust/rely on anyone should you choose not to. Looks like they want to throw all of this into the trashcan in hopes of gaining some more $$ by rushing TPS and sacrificing everything along the way.
A
The people in charge of almost all those other coins/working on them are fools. Instead of learning from Bitcoin right now, they are wasting their time by cheering that they are going to 'win next' (A.A. made a short video about this).

core actually wanted to rewrite satoshis whitepaper.. funny that!

says the blockstream adoration fanclub that only want core.
yep lauda without you reading code you have been onboard REKTing anything thats not core..
hypocrite


and you prefer the propaganda video's not actually learning code or understanding how things work independently.

your getting real obvious lauda

please dont waste another year not learning the basics

might be worth you taking a non biased look at cores TIER network plan
words to look into
"upstream filter"
"bypassing consensus by going soft"
"DCG funding cartel(bilderberg)"

then look at who is setting the deadlines, mandatory activations, making the PoW nukes, begging other implementations to bilaterally split

all while the reality shows if the dynamic implementations wanted to controversially split. they would have done so sometime over the last 2 years..
yet the dynamic implementations just plod along with no threats no ban hammers no deadlines.. offering a free open choice that only activates with consensus.
yep no bypassing.

remember only core gave pools the only vote(going soft). so pools gave miners control over segwit. not the other implementation proposals.

I think that BU generally thinks they are choosing the right way forward for bitcoin, I dont agree, but I dont think they are an attack on bitcoin itself. Many of them are old timers who have been here forever, they just want a different way forward.

Pretty much the expected outcome with market cap movements the alt-coin rush is a symptom of the problem.
Either way the debate is vexing and is nearer to shouting at one another than anything else but sigh keep waiting it out.

I would support this opinion. Someone is thinking that BU would be the right solution for further bitcoin development. Even if the things go wrong I don't think that someone's intention is to deliberately harm bitcoin and cause some damage. Until it happens we can only speculate how it's going to be.

No one knows on what would be the intention of BU and people do really give their own assumptions and speculation related to this event.Agreed,no one would really makes harm to bitcoin itself but seeking for more further development.

I think you forget that BU isn't the current development team.  If they were, you could be sure that they would be equally nasty if not nastier than Core.  They can't do a mandatory activation without having the power to do so - however nice they try to look, they're still propped up by the likes of Roger Ver, Jihan Wu etc and acting like BU is some grassroots movement isn't considering the reality of Bitcoin centralisation.

The design outlines a lightweight client that does not need the full block chain.  In the design PDF it's called Simplified Payment Verification.  The lightweight client can send and receive transactions, it just can't generate blocks.  It does not need to trust a node to verify payments, it can still verify them itself.

The lightweight client is not implemented yet, but the plan is to implement it when it's needed.  For now, everyone just runs a full network node.

I anticipate there will never be more than 100K nodes, probably less.  It will reach an equilibrium where it's not worth it for more nodes to join in.  The rest will be lightweight clients, which could be millions.

At equilibrium size, many nodes will be server farms with one or two network nodes that feed the rest of the farm over a LAN. satoshi
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=286.msg2947#msg2947

It's mostly a strawman article.  It builds up arguments and then knocks them down, without considering what the arguments actually are.

Even a lot of Core supporters never even said that BU is an attack on Bitcoin, and neither solution is.

I think! BTC is best at the moment!

Some good points from the article:

* Segwit is a horrible hack due to political reasons
* Satoshi said consensus should arise from CPU hash power and not politics.
* Blockstream was formed after Greg Maxwell took control of core development and purged anyone who disagreed with him
* The Blockstream business model is explicitly to sell LN and other tiered payment solutions and they are funded by big banks via DCG
* SPV has been demonized while core refusal to increase blocksize encourages people to use centralized exchanges

Has anyone else noticed that the mempool size is down to 10MB? Whoever was flooding it has stopped...

now that mandatory (forced) activation of segwit is proposed gmaxwells chums dont need to harrass the mempool as much as they did in june/july last year to get CSV in. and not as much as the october + constant harrassassment

kind of funny and obvious

Of course they brought it like Ebola on Africans so I don't think it wasn't intended to attack Bitcoin, it was a well fighting competition but as Bitcoin always does it didn't spare these ones too but proven them wrong.

I read the article and I think that your right. It doesn't seem to bring anything to the table. The article seems to be an attack on Greg Maxwell. I am not sure the author knows what he is talking about. But regardless Bitcoin Unlimited is not an attack on bitcoin it seems to me. I think they just have a different  point of view.

I'm just going to leave this here:

https://i.imgur.com/HAfccAX.png
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/63qaps/a_list_of_all_the_bu_supporter_concocted/