Bitcoin Forum

What's your support?

Segwit may be it not solve the all problems which btc facing now a days but at least better than BU in which  2 bugs  already found

so my vote goes to Segwit. 

What I don't like about BU is, they are trying to split and gather a big community compared to Bitcoins and they think they would succeed, but that would never happen. Bitcoin has always been the best, no such major bugs found and only scaling problems have been in since, I feel there should be no hard fork to take place and having great news such as Japan legalizing Bitcoins, I think I will be going for Segregated Witness only.

I do not support either but looks like f2pool is now signaling BU support, what percent are we at?

You can check current support % for both of them here: https://coin.dance/blocks

Where is the "Both with fork, and Unlimited also adopts SegWit in their fork because its good and not orthogonal" option?

Segwit for the simple fact BU is an outrage.
Scaling issues although aren't being directly addressed by Core which I strongly disagree with...
Hopefuly the devs will wise up and get to action

Well f2pool is undecided as it seems because they're signaling all three proposals at the same time, unlimited, 8MB, segwit.
I'd go with unlimited as long as they do it with 75% consensus because segwit is going to change a lots of things which are not in the interests of end users.

I support Big Blocks. Not necessarily BU; Bitcoin XT with BIP-101 also good.

But in this poll, Bitcoin Unlimited wins for me.

Choices are not so black and white. There was already a more comprehensive poll (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1831433.0) regarding this..

I think there are issues with both sides. It feels like a propaganda war. What I do know though is that BU has too many bugs to implement and that we do have the issue of scaling and fees.

While I think that everybody is entitled to an opinion, Bitcoin Unlimited is just plain wrong and irresponsible.

I really hope that bitcoin does not fork. A hardfork is just not needed at this time (and it is very risky). Its better to implement Segwit with Lightning first. If later it becomes necessary, a hardfork (BU) can always be implemented.

Still think the BU folk.... should just accept Seg Wit...up to this point anyway....see how it goes.....THEN make the case once that is done. Less risky then a hard fork and would show at least one camp acting like an adult imho.

unlikely but a guy can hope...

Our payment gateway GoUrl.io (https://gourl.io) will support "Bitcoin Unlimited".

As we wrote in other topic, "Gourl.io Bitcoin Gateway pays $500-600 per day as transaction fees for forwarding payments to our customers. It is expensive!"

Segregated Witness is not good solution ...

I wonder how you manage to pay $500-600 per day on tx fees if nobody actually uses your service  ::)

10,000 websites using our gateway
2,000 wordpress websites using our wp gateway plugin according statistics on wordpress.org - https://wordpress.org/plugins/gourl-bitcoin-payment-gateway-paid-downloads-membership/

For example, Bitpay.com wp plugin using only 800 websites - https://wordpress.org/plugins/bitpay-for-woocommerce/  ;)

(Some reasons) Why segregated-witness is bad -

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5zn4oi/some_reasons_why_segregatedwitness_is_bad/


1) segregated witness is a big change from the whitepaper, it changes fundamental concepts and outlines of Bitcoin.
2) it adds a huge more 'technical debt' which will make actually fixing the blocksize problem much, much harder than it is right now.
3) it does not actually fix anything regarding scaling, it merely pushes the issue off for another 6 months-2years, but if btc survives we will be back here discussing these same things again, but with more difficultly as segregated witness makes solving the blocksize issue much more difficult on a technical level
4) there is a massive, absolutely huge amount of misinformation and lies that are being used to try and persuade people to use segregated witness, I don't usually like things that have to be lied about to sound good.
5) segregated witness does not double the block size, far from it. In fact bitcoinCore gives an estimate of 1.6 or 1.7 times the current size (which was too small over a year ago if we want to avoid full blocks like Satoshi said we should). They estimate that we could get up to 2MB with a working LN (not yet developed)
6) it increases the amount of data that is sent at a higher rate than it increases capacity, increasing waste
7) segregated witness as a soft fork includes far more technical debt than as a hard fork, which makes all the above problems worse
8 ) there is no reason why a hardfork would be bad if the supermajority if the hashpower was needed to be using it before it activates, such a well prepared fork is just an upgrade
9) the things that segregated witness does do (tx malleability) can be done with FT or something better than segregated witness, or segregated witness as a hard fork (to lessen the amount of technical debt that will interfere with a real scalability fix)
.

So what's the exact reason then that Segwit is bad?
If you aren't able to say it in your own words instead of just dumping a like, there probably isn't any.

Besides that, this link is 22 days old. Don't you follow the news?
Bitmain-miners aren't signiling for BU because they think it's good, they signal for it to preserve their 20% additional profit from covert ASICboost, which is huge in a low margin business like mining.

I think both have good technologies that could help improve bitcoin. The problem is with the people behind each organization. Bitcoin politics is not fun to deal with. There is too much drama, hate, and attempted attacks to take over bitcoin.

I agree. I think segwit Bitcoin is no longer really Bitcoin if there are so many changes to the base protocol. I'm not saying changed are bad, just that if you want segwit Bitcoin just fork and create an alt instead of changing so much. Code is law. No need to rewrite the whole Constitution.

I still like segwit for long-term period and I do not support the Bitcoin unlimited and it should seem a fork coin of bitcoin and will watch which one is the winner after then?

How about you explain why instead of blindly fanboying what you were told to think?

I don't understand why people are calling BU a "fork coin". It's concept is good, I don't see anything wrong. If everyone else were to support it, there would be no two different coins, just one Bitcoin.

Segwit will not tackle the blocksize problem. It's a temporary fix them at will require a fork in the future.

Yeah. All politics, hidden interest, fight for big balls and control.

I say remove one line of code and let the market do the free float. But who gets the merits? No testing needed...

All the rest are nice to haves and can be added later.

There is no "blocksize problem". There is a transaction capacity problem. And Segwit _directly_ addresses that actual problem with a immediate capacity improvement.

If BU forks and fails to kill off Bitcoin, there will indeed be two coins. If they do kill it off and achieve the coup, many of us will never accept miner-monopolized control over it and will leave their faux bitcoin for good.

Yahoo, and what quality measure do you apply to this adressing thingy, directly?

If acceptance stays that poor, given the most are agnostic or blindly following core, the measure is very poor....

I'm for simple on chain scaling using a bigger block size and believe most of the support to do other things is politically motivated or a result of misunderstanding via propaganda. 

The biggest myths are:

1. we need high fees right now
2. there is a danger to bigger blocks (aside from quadratic hashing)
3. if we increase blocksize we'll have gigabyte blocks overnight
4. node cost increases can be eliminated
5. there is no centralization risk with LN
6. we wont need bigger blocks with LN
7. we need segwit for LN
8. there's a specific plan to get worldwide scaling with LN in a p2p fashion

Great compilation - and the sad thing is that lots are brainstreamed already to believe in all that  - so they act using only their instinct. Using instinct is far cheaper for human brains. Thinking about hard problems needs real energy = PoW and majority is not willing to spend that. We cant fix stupid....

The answer is Segwit

It's not a question of one or the other. BU is just not an acceptable choice by any measure, no matter how low your standards are.

LAST 1000 BLOCKS:

Bitcoin Unlimited blocks: 373  ( 37.3% )           
Bitcoin Classic blocks: 2  ( 0.2% )             
SegWit blocks: 275  ( 27.5% )

Miners seem to disagree with the most likely rigged results of the poll here. Bitcoin holders don't seem to support SegWit either:

https://vote.bitcoin.com/arguments/block-size-limit-should-be-increased-to-8-mb-as-soon-as-possible (https://vote.bitcoin.com/arguments/block-size-limit-should-be-increased-to-8-mb-as-soon-as-possible)

Neither miners nor holders want SegWit, so who does? Oh yeah, AXA, Blockstream, and Core. They should have just made their own alt-coin, because SegWit is dead and they just wasted 75 million dollars.

Oh well, the devs got paid. The banksters who funded this nonsense are out of 75 million though.  ;D

If you intend to say they have bad development, be prepared to offer code snippets and explain in full technical detail why they are bad commits.

This isn't the "Dancing with the Stars" forum, its the bitcoin forum. There are a lot of people here who understand the whole 'Appeal to Authority' logical fallacy thing you guys love to do.

I would have to say I would go with segwit because seeing how it's is causing litecoin to come out it's 3 year slumber and actually getting a must needed revitalization again, this can only make bitcoin stronger if it wades in the same waters as it's cryptocousin. ;)

Banks have a lot of money to mindlessly throw at their frankenstein creations.

Your block statistic answered part of your question: Some of the miners do.

I think I qualify as holder and I will accept segwit blocks which proves your arguments to be wrong.

Hence why choices aren't so black and white as this poll...


Banksters aren't out of anything, those millions have to be paid back (if they weren't yet) and with profit... Banksters are never out of anything ::) (thus Bitcoin was born...)


What slumber, exactly? Last time I checked they weren't having any issues.

Bitcoin Unlimited is gaining ground!

LAST 1000 BLOCKS:

Bitcoin Unlimited blocks: 395  ( 39.5% )             
Bitcoin Classic blocks: 2  ( 0.2% )             
SegWit blocks: 278  ( 27.8% )


If you run a node, make sure you are using an implementation that accepts big blocks -  the fork is coming soon!  ;D

I do not support anything. Bitcoin needed a better, more effective solution. Both systems have significant insufficiency.

Can you be more specific? This is a technical forum.

Here is one of the good article which shows difference between SegWit and BU

https://medium.com/@opinderpreet/bitcoin-scaling-issue-what-it-means-for-common-man-and-how-they-can-escape-from-it-5ada1a6900b7 (https://medium.com/@opinderpreet/bitcoin-scaling-issue-what-it-means-for-common-man-and-how-they-can-escape-from-it-5ada1a6900b7)

segwit is a better option to go for....atleast the adoption of segwit won't bring any "Coin Split" kind of situation...and yeah it will also be helpful in solving the issues of "transaction malleability" the so called "bITCOIN bUG"

is the blockchain already splitted?

As i can see the BTU Coins in coinmarketcap

No. No fork has happened yet. The BTU coins you see are not actual coins but rather promises of future BTU coins after a BU hard fork.

I see. So both segwit and btu fork is not active yet. Thanks for the information

Anyhow regarding on either we will have btc or btu, is there a particular date where a decision will be made?

If yes, who made the decision on whether we will be going for btc, btu or even both?

Thanks

No, there is no entity or central group of people that decides whether we use one proposal or another. The closest thing we have to that are miners, but the miners are not a cohesive group of people. There is no date or deadline for one proposal to activate.

SegWit is bound to fail. Bitcoin is what it is today because people want freedom from banks. That cat is out of the bag and no matter what Blockstream/Core/AXA/Henri de Castries/Bilderberg do, short of rounding us all up, people will use the software that allows them pure p2p transactions on-chain. And as long as there are people who want that, there will be people who mine that way.

Right now, there are easily enough miners to start mining bigger blocks. If we forked to bigger blocks today it would kill Core-allied miners because they would take forever to mine a 1MB block, and it would get worse as smaller SW miners jumped ship. Meanwhile, big block miners would lose hashing power, but could mine bigger blocks to compensate.

I think the only reason they're waiting now is for a smoother transition process for everyone.