Bitcoin Forum

https://preview.ibb.co/jVjAMF/satoshi_Bu.png

Satoshi would have been against BU (which will change the 21 million coin supply limit so the "Emergent Consensus" has any chance to work) or any other secondary implementation of the software that pretends to fork it in such a violent way.

We are looking at a couple of miners with massive centralized power against the majority of nodes:


https://i.redd.it/0j5c3wjy47ny.png

This is insane.

If you don't like bitcoin, then create an altcoin and people will naturally dump bitcoin for your altcoin if your altcoin is so good, but don't force it on people's throats.

BUggy is dead. If the miners go with their attack, they will get fired via PoW change, and it will prove that they didn't care to cause havok on the network they were direct attackers since they KNOW going through with this kills bitcoin network effect and price.

If you respect what Satoshi said, you must respect this too. He said, quote:

"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."

What miners think is true Bitcoin is Bitcoin according to Satoshi. You can't cherry pick some quotes, respect all of his vision or none.

And he also said that he didn't want his software forked for good reasons.
I seriously DOUBT that satoshi would have been cool with a couple chinese kids jeopardizing the entire system.
Remember that back then, nodes where miners.
Now nodes and mining has been split completely.

Rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.

Which rules and incentives to be enforced are chosen, however, by the economic majority.

The miners will be enforcing a rule set worth exactly zero if people aren't willing to trade other items of value for their coin base rewards.

What is a bigger fork?
BU which changes one parameter or Segwit which changes a whole bunch of code and is much farther away from the original Bitcoin? Satoshi himself said the block limit is only a temporary thing. So which one is a real forked code here?

Only 5% of Bitcoin users run a full node, the full nodes count is not how you measure economic majority. So how did you measure it? no how, it's immeasurable.

Miners enforce consensus rules according to Satoshi. He didn't say about economic majority or how to take it into account. You're making it up.

But he also said that the 1MB limit was meant to be removed, which is only possible with a hard fork.
The idea was that as bandwidth and technology capabilities increased, so would blocksize. Bigger blocks does not mean centralization.

Also it is Core devs who opted to go with a soft-fork so as to not need node consensus.

Every time a so called "bigblocker" quotes Satoshi to argue their point, it's dismissed as an "appeal to authority", so why should this thread be treated any differently?  You could spend all day speculating on what a 2010 Satoshi may or may not have thought about things they couldn't possibly have foreseen in Bitcoin's ecosystem in 2017.  But that's literally all it is.  Speculation.

but the vast majority rejected BU or all other versions of Bitcoin, so Bitcoin still is Core and I don't see a change

Hard Fork is last resort SegWit needs to come first. If we want to maintain network security and decentralization.
Maybe it is time to stop focusing on block size and instead try to focus on number of transaction that every block can store?
Bitcoin Unlimited seems strong now, but I expect it will be flavor of the month like Bitcoin Classic and XT were.

Where do you get this from? Don't listen to propaganda. The vast majority wants their transactions to be processed quickly and with low fees, the vast majority doesn't care about BU, Core and other fancy names. They want to do their business with as little friction as possible.

If this is true then the vast majority can go to alt coins.

To a point, yes. Truly massive blocks would lead to centralization.

They are, and this movement has been accelerating in the past months.

What consensus? The consensus of the users? The consensus of the miners? The consensus of the transactions? How can we call it a consensus when a minority group of miners are controlling (or fighting to control) a majority of the transactions?

And to BillyBob, one thing you're proving here is that Roger Ver is not Satoshi.

If no one ill buy BU coin then i think we have true consensus. On bitfinex is 0.1BTC for BU :D haha....
Segwit at least brings some improvemts to BTC while BU what ? Blocksize unlock ?
Is this fucking innovation ? We can hire coincreator that will change you to anyblocksize for only 0.1 BTC.

Whole BU stuff i pathetic and bugged. Try win with it with Etherum tech over time.

I'm pretty sure Satoshi would be against any hostile takeover of Bitcoin.

blockstreams segwit is the hostile take over.

all other implementations just plod along waiting for consensus.

blockstreams segwit has all the ban hammering bips, deadlines, mandatory activations and PoW changing algos..
wake up

blockstream did not exist prior to 2014
segwit was an altcoin and part of an elements project not bitcoin

and even the core brand didnt exist prior to 2012
wake up. core did not invent bitcoin. core are just one of many implementations.

oh and dont me me the crap that a group of devs who refuse to independently review other implementations.. are 'independent'
they jumped into their cabin in the corner so they made themselves dependant on the blockstream team leaders to lock and watch the doorways

and any time any dev tries to go independent. they are threatened with REKT campaigns
wake up

"BU which changes one parameter"


BU changes a fundamental feature of bitcoin (limited 21 million coins) because EC (emergent consensus) mechanism requires non-zero inflation, yet you say segwit changes bitcoin. Are you some kind of troll?

Not to mention BU gives stupid amounts of power to miners (even more than now).



You already got disproved by other user but anyway, from Bitcoin whitepaper:

Yet you are supporting Peter R's fantastic idea to attack the network which has all the nodes. See how that plays out.

good posting

bu supporters are looking for straws to keep pushing his agenda

What do you think about this?
https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/
I'm a neutral person. But honestly, i was hated to see the bitcoin gets forked.


You can't be forked it without following the rules.

Yes, i know it. No one devs are feeling happy to see his software is getting forked. About the BU bug, looks like the Roger ver has made a lot of joke everytime.
https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/841797182017622016

BUggy is full of bad speculators and scumbags, like Roger(Doger) Ver, Chinese greedy miners.

First of all those BU buggy group doesn't have an scheduled agenda then how come they'll push. Now they might have understood the resistance of bitcoin and soon they too will include into it accepting core.

Bitcoin is designed to be resistant to bad speculators. Greed is actually a driving force which helps to maintain the network integrity... So let's see how these forces work in bitcoin.

Remember, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger...

No, BU doesn't do that. BU increases block size limit (space to process more transactions). BU doesn't touch the 21-million coin cap. Are you some kind of brain washed or plain uneducated on how Bitcoin works?

I went to /r/bitcoin subreddit and saw this blatant lie.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/627qio/many_bu_supporters_seem_completely_unaware_that/

BU does not remove the 21 million cap. This is getting desperate with you guys. You're parroting lies and look really stupid.

I'll say it again, BU does not remove the 21 million cap.

Now, I don't really care for BU or Core, but I care that lies do not spread. And this one re 21 million cap is so blatant, it stinks. It can't possibly be ignorance, it's too idiotic to be ignorance.


I don't know what he meant by that but inflation rate of Bitcoin has always been nonzero. Miners issue new coins into circulation every 10 minutes. Hello? Anybody here who took an economy 101 course? I thought so.

Someone please post a pretty graph with Bitcoin inflation curve, inflation stops in, was it 2100 year something, until then inflation rate is NON-ZERO by Satoshi's design.

I wasn't disproved by anyone.

With CPU power Satoshi meant mining nodes, nodes that produce blocks, not any random node which simply relays blocks.

What makes you think that mining nodes running BU cooperate to attack the network any more than miners cooperate to attack today? Mining centralization has already happened, most of the mining power is in one country. It happened before BU became a thing. It can't get any worse, apart from outright blacklisting of transactions which is possible under BU or Core regardless because all miners are subject to the rules of one country.

The reason why Bitcoin because more mainstream is the fast transaction times and cheap fees. This way Bitcoin was able to compete with traditional forms of payment processing like Paypal and Payza, Take that away and you get the MAJORITY of users, merchants and customers, to leave Bitcoin and find another alternative. Then it will be relegated to only store of wealth, speculation and mining sectors of the Community. That's not going to be good for Bitcoin is it?

they should at least care about the fate of their coins, because you know fee is onyl a small problem if the entire system is compromised


many people already use altcoin, monero is used in the deep web, but the altscene doesn't have the same number of merchants that bitcoin have, otherwise the competition would be fierce


everythigng is leading to centralization at this point, bitcoin was more decentralized at launch

You seem pretty low IQ (no disrespect).

What he meant is exactly that: The final design of bitcoin is disrupted by the fact that sooner or later bitcoin's total supply will not be 21 million. People buy bitcoin because they have the CERTAINTY that the 21 million limit is set in stone. BU definitely KILLS this certainty in the design and therefore the investor's psychology is no longer the same when approaching bitcoin.
You should stop promoting the abortion by the name Bitcoin Unlimited immediately.

If those statement really came from Satoshi then let us not change the bitcoin protocol but rather just continue where Satoshi left off and dont make any changes to the original version. As to the hardfork if the system is not yet ready to use it since the continued result of hardfork will result to more bugs in the system. Hardfork is to early for bitcoin but in the future possibly we can run a hardfork that is compatible to the system since at that time HF is no longer incompatible bitcoin.

Nowhere in BU design there is a proposal to remove the 21 million cap.
You should stop spreading lies immediately.

Like us, everyone here, who is aware of the greed of the miners and the harms of BU, everyone is opposed to Bu form. BU is a copy altcoin and it is not allowed to mock bitcoin. Their greed is too wicked, they are not aware of the consequences. They can destroy bitcoins if they go in that direction. The fork is created and it resents everyone. Too bad, the miners are so bad. Satoshi is the creator of bitcoin, he understands everything about it, and of course, he will not accept something that affects bitcoin. The fork is set and it certainly must have results, either bitcoin core, or segwit, I look forward to winning from it.

The Question here, Are we really ready for BU? and bitcoin is emerging as the biggest value right now is because of the low supply for it I think we are not really ready for it looking the way people think right now in buying and exchanging bitcoin with other Altcoins I think it is better to say that we are not up against the impending unlimited kind of thing because just like other currency that only have limited we should have the same.

Satoshi also decided that this network would give dominance to whatever implementation gets consensus. So we should respect the outcome no

matter what. If the mining pools gets consensus and other nodes are in a minority, then that is what Satoshi intended, but he did hope that

whomever had the majority consensus would also put the interest of Bitcoin first. Is this the case with BU? I do not think so...  ::)

I don't think so that BU is dead, in fact it is already on a exchanger (correct me if I'm wrong), it is just Bitcoin is still the number one amongst all the Altcoins here in the cryptocurrency world, that is why this BU is not that popular or in demand. Most of us are still supporting bitcoin, our hopes are still on bitcoin, because we know that Bitcoin is the only one that will lead us to success in the near future.

Especially those people who are saving bitcoin everyday, keeps on holding it and waiting for the right time to convert it to have a huge profit from it.

Which means you break satoshi's design in 2100 when it will be 21 million coins + some (otherwise BU's EC will collapse).

The thought that incompetent BU devs would be able to maintain bitcoin until 2100 before a fatal bug kills the network is laughable tho.

Though I think when bitcoins ran out and there is nothing else to be mined, bitcoins will die and probably Bitcoin Unlimited will be king by then. Though I don't think anyone here right now would even care about it because that is practically 80 years from now and most likely every one who cared right now will be dead anyway.

Bitcoin Unlimited has the same 21 million cap as Core. Stop falling in to propaganda. There is no proposal to remove the 21 million cap in BU, not even close.

That's exactly how human in power works.

In my opinion, both Core and Unlimited do not preserve the original Bitcoin because they both intend to add too many things to it to satisfy a different need.