Bitcoin Forum

After the Bitmain's ASICBOOST exploit that Jihan Wu used to get an additional 30% (more or less) efficiency for his mining hardware, and the real reason behind Bitmain's attempts to block implementing SegWit has been exposed, do you still support BU after all? If so, why?  

Jihan Wu is cancer for the bitcoin ecosystem itself. But I don't support the Bitcoin Unlimited, Are you forgetting about the important thing if the key about the scalability solution is on the block voters? Did you realized it? The consensus is like a big wall between the communities and miners.
I'm not a BU fan but I can't do anything to change the result into the SegWit to be a winner in the future.  

This proves again that the real motive is always money. The pools started supporting BU because they hoped to gain more cash from it. They didn't do it to support the network or to make it easier for everyone to use Bitcoin, and as Roger Ver proved by not taking the bet, they don't believe in what they're preaching. It's just a means to get richer.

Of course, what did you expect? Miners don't give a fuck about bitcoin other than milking it for more fiat money lol. Also miners don't want a bigger block size in any shape or form, this is all a way to keep bitcoin as it is for as long as possible, they don't care about BU or about segwit or about anything that drives fees down for obvious reasons. Sure there are some that actually care and want to take bitcoin to the next level with segwit + LN but most (chinese) don't care.

I never supported BU, I consider emergent consensus mechanism which is part of BU as too risky solution which can create other unforeseen problems in the future.

But this argument that ASICBoost is root of all evil (money, duh) is starting to be a bit overplayed IMO.
AFAIK AsicBoost was never used and it it will be clear who are using this tech if activated.

Bitmain's statment: https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/ (https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/)

I've never been a supporter of any of the blocksize solutions, at least not until recently, but BU has always been a sort of bad apple in the bunch of solutions that have been proposed, in my opinion. Over the past two weeks, they managed to shatter and kind of slight support I had for them, and this is just the cherry on top it seems.

Segwit or that one other alternative (I believe it was called ULA or something, based on the Segwit concept) seem to be the only viable options now. I have no problem saying that BU is a pile of BS.

We all know the attitude of Chinese people, they are always go for the money as long as they can get much on a particular thing, they will going to push whatever they want on it. And I didn't became a supporter nor a fan with this crazy BU and these people. All of them are selfish, just like billy said, they really don't care with the real function of crypto/bitcoin.

There is nothing wrong with BU, can we compare with capitalism and intervention in Fiat who continue to support continuity of currency. If you want bitcoin shouldn't be monopolized mean you have to think twice when blocksize in future is already finished. Competition and monopoly will be more brutal than the BU concept.

I ran a BU node for a while, but now I consider it Bitcoin Unneeded. It's complexity just isn't required. I believe the block size limit should simply be removed altogether (as per the original bitcoin design). I think the right approach is dynamic block size generation, based on transaction pool demand factors, network propagation factors, etc.. Low fee paying transactions can be artificially delayed if required.
Previously, pools used to up the block size as a soft limit (until they hit the hard limit). This unfortunately does not keep up with moments of high demand, and provides no fee market pressure during periods of low demand. Unfortunately, when the demand cap is exceeded, the function of the bitcoin network starts to fall apart. That is, zero confirmation transaction risk changes from a disadvantageous double spend propagation attempt to one where the transaction does not confirm at all due to transaction pool forgetfulness, and selective transaction relay from nodes.

Sorry I didn't get to know the reason behind bitmans blocking segwit

I think many people, including myself, support proposal that increase the capacity and reduce the fee- which is what BU seems to promise...

However, being someone with zero knowledge about how BU & Segwit work, I will just leave the inspection to the coding experts. Of course we will need something that will not adversely affect the security of the network.

I don't really support BU in the first place. I just wanted this scaling debate to get into a decision and just stop this pissing contest. Lets get over with this and just have a compromised decision to find a solution for BTC's problems. We need to move forward. Problems will just keep on piling if let this run for too long.

I think a lot of people would be a lot happier with segwit implemented as a hard fork, along with removal of a hard blocksize cap. In fact, I wonder how much more could be achieved if this irrational fear of a high consensus hard fork is removed.

Monero is about to HF again. I doubt we will have two Monero chains as a result. Probably no drama either. But we will see.

My opinion exactly. This just doesn't lead to anything. We need quality solution for problems that have appeared and could become even biger if we continue to ignore them and waist time on argues that leeds us to nowhere. And many bitcoin users are very confused and just don't know what to think.

For whatever reasons I had (I had few that were technically sound, and suspect there are many like me) BU wasn't something I liked and had hoped to fail, so yes, I'm pleased at the current developments. But, like you, I also never bought this latest ASIC nonsense... it's just more of the same vitriole and rhetoric from both sides.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know or have any stats on how BU support has been affected if at all?

I have never supported BU before and will not in future. There is no reason to keep supporting a group of people who want to centralize and add inflation on bitcoin. That is completely bullshit, they want to split the network by blocking segwit activation.  >:(

Funny how there's 14 shit posts with signature campaigns , raging against the machine, and there's AngryDrawrf,
the only guy without a paid sig, the only guy saying something smart.

Dynamic Block Sizes are a great idea.

Indeed!! Completely bullshit without sense :D

I stopped supporting them way before this asicboost shit came up. It was decided when i watched dsh/ver utube video conference. I saw there how clueless he is. This ASICBOOST thing made everything just worse. Bitmain shouldn't survive this mess. If they want BU so bad, why don't they start their own shitcoin anyway?

Why do core sheep continue to spread lies when not one of the core sheep has posted any data that asic boost has been used?
It's simple to prove or disprove. Yet still no data from the sheep.

Its not about whether they used it or not. The point is such an exploit dose exist and they tried to patent it without making it a public knowledge.

Are you running any node right now?  I'd love to see more nodes running on the network with the block size limit completely removed, as you suggest.  I think the "Infinity Patch" for Core is an initiative to do this.  I'm not sure how far along it is (not that it would be hard to do).

At the end of the day, nodes either accept blocks up to X MB or not.  Whether they are running BU, Classic, Core+∞, Bcoin or Btcd doesn't matter.


Here's a related graph:

https://i.imgur.com/4XKjdDq.gif

never for one second did i support it. that's not because i disagree with big blocks, it's because i disagree with ulterior motives and incompetence. and the absolutely relentless fud and shilling tells me this was not an effort worthy of anyone's respect.

Actually they did make it public knowledge. Just not to the general public. Information about the asicboost was given out to Multiple pools not affiliated with Bitmain.

There isn't any proof that asicboost works. The only thing they may be guilty of is patent trolling. Yet I don't hear many people complaining about core patents for off chain transactions. Which by the way would make them shit tons of money.

I'm currently running a Core 0.14 node for its mempool saving feature, since I switch between Windows and Linux. I want to keep an eye on the mempool size so that I can combine UTXO's during low demand. It seems some pools are still using the coin amount * coin age feature, and I've managed to combine a few two UTXO's into a larger one for just 1 sat/byte; one confirmed in the next block, and all confirmed within two hours despite higher fee tx's being in the mempool! It's kind of an insurance policy against protracted block size limits and potential sky rocketing demand/fees. I can run quite relaxed mempool settings using this feature:


The bitcoin infinity patch sounds interesting, any links? Also I wonder how many alternative node implementations are adding the mempool saving feature that Core 0.14 has. I can fire up a second node under Linux to try a few different implementations out.

Why not have a problem with cores ulterior motives. They want to make a lot of money off chain for them selves.

Here's the repo:

https://github.com/whitslack/bitcoin-infinity

blockstream, not core, though of course they're interrelated to an extent.

as long they remain demonstrably committed to maintaining bitcoin's integrity then i'll approve of them, not that my approval counts for anything.

Thanks. Any plans to add the mempool saving feature in BU? I had a quick look at the open issues / pull requests and couldn't see one.

I'm not sure; thezerg would know. It sounds like a good feature that aligns with our vision, so I'd assume we would. 

We're always looking for people to port over things like this, if you're interested!

holly shit 32MB blocks :)

hi Peter

what is the best strategy to get bigger blocks in your opinion, now that miner support seems to be (at the moment) stagnating for BU?
What do you think about extension blocks?

Okay, I've opened issues for BU, classic and XT for this feature, with a suggestion on how I would approach it.


I'm not sure if 0.14 uses the mmap() method for this, it is used somewhere in the code. Long time since I've used C++ and I'm not that familiar with the std libraries or the core code, so not sure if I would be able to have a crack at it myself at this moment in time.

Remain? Lol..  I see. So it's ok for the programmers to become centralized and make a ton of money. Brilliant.

I think we just need more time.  Larger blocks are inevitable.

Most importantly, miners need to understand their role as stewards of the network; right now they don't fully recognize their own strength.

To get here, I think we need:

1. The community to realize that the critical aspects of Bitcoin have already been invented (by Satoshi Nakamoto). Developers today are protocol maintainers, and they are replaceable.  The model where "wise developers" liaise between miners and businesses is coming to an end--businesses will soon directly talk to miners, and the power developers presently have will be diminished.

2. Node operators to understand that they can configure their nodes to accept blocks larger than 1 MB today.  For some reason, a larger fraction of the community still thinks that the transition to larger blocks needs to be highly synchronized and that everyone needs to change their block size limits together.  They don't realize that already over 10% of the network nodes would accept blocks larger than 1 MB if a miner produced them.  

Here's a talk I gave at Coinbase recently that relates to this discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWnFDocAmfg    

Development / protocol maintenance needs to be funded. I think that funding should come from within the bitcoin economy itself, rather than from outside economic actors. That means miners, exchanges, bitcoin payment providers, online wallet services, mixers, etc have a role to play in sustaining that development across multiple node implementations. If the funding is diverse, that should limit the influence of one particular actor. I suppose that is what a DAO is for!

wasnt that the idea of the Bitcoin foundation? 

People loved to bitch and moan about them....but they were 100x better than Blockstream.

I never supported BU but at the same time I am all for making bitcoin flawless.So any changes that can better btc without compromising on its originality is most welcomed by me.

I have no problem with with giving the programmers a percentage per block. But the off chain will siphon a lot of money from miners. And the risk is just to high for miners. It takes 13 months just to break even with one s9.

miner using asicboost or planning to, see SegWit like a lost of $100M earning / year.. Enought to pay a lot of propaganda trying to fork BTC otherwise than with SegWit..
IMHO, SegWit is the way to go for now, BU is incentived by a lot of propaganda, motivated by prifit over BTC survival.
I bet in each thread where those subject are written about, there is at least few paid user/troll to demonize SegWit and promote BU.
Do you know about moderators and cencorship here and in reddit ?  <-- this may make my post disapear

Moderators seem to be taking a neutral viewpoint in this forum subsection.

Don't forget, there is propaganda going on in both sides. Core -> Blockstream -> DCG -> +funding from financial sector actors means the core propaganda machine is well funded. DCG owns some bitcoin new sites. So what you have said, the reverse could also be claimed. According to Forbes, one of DCG's investors is Mastercard. Why? Is it not a well known corporate tactic to buy out the competition and shut it down? Are they wanting to take a stake in BTC's success, or would they be happy to see it destroyed? I don't know what Mastercard's true intentions are.

Mining is now an industrial activity. These people tend to plan over long life cycles, so are incentivised by long term gains, not short term profits. It takes a long time to design, manufacture and deploy the next generation ASIC.

In the end, read the BTC white paper and decide whether you agree with its vision or not. If not, create an altcoin - it will be more successful than BTC if it is a better vision. You have to consider who is trying to change BTC's original design, and what tactics are being used to attempt to do this.

I do not like bu coin for any reason!

I don't support bitcoin unlimited because i think it will be like the ethereum classic which will stay down below the market and the king will still be the bitcoin and i think even though BU attracts some people it is not enough to defeat the huge bitcoin community because it will take time for them to do that and gather enough people to dominate the market.

Bitcoin Unlimited or Bitcoin SegWit etc. They are all nothing but a transition process. I mean, both of them not final anything for bitcoin.

More radical solutions are needed for the long term.

Actual life is motivated by money. Everyone wants to have lots of money and want to make money in any way. Over time the currency may change, the former is now the money is money and then we earn money by bitcoin.

Do I _support_ BU? Hmm... I don't so much _support_ BU, but I do _run_ BU. As far as I know, BU is the only somewhat mainstream choice of client that allows for maxblocksize to be a changing quantity subject to majority acclamation.

Well, yeah - wait - on the basis of that criteria, I damn double do support BU.

We all know it has had some implementation challenges - no need to pussyfoot around that. But the overall goals of BU are Bitcoin as I -- and, as I think Satoshi -- envisioned it.

Bitcoin needs to get out from under the forces trying to suffocate it with a pillow in its crib. Today, BU the the clear solution. There are others in development that fulfill the same vision. Bitcoin will in the end be liberated.