Bitcoin Forum

https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-unlimited-suffers-biggest-node-crash-on-record

Anyone ?

Well I never supported it anyway do it serves them right. They've been decisively dealt with and I hope no one will try to plagiarize Bitcoin in the future.

Haven't checked their software yet because i am not supporting hard fork, i think this crash is the third one and looks the biggest out all of them.

We all know that BU does not have great coders and is terrible. Only the big block shills will say different.

Yes their dev team looks like don't have enough coding knowledge or time to fix one problem for over a month. They are aware of this bug for several months now but they haven't been successful to find a better solution to this.

How they can expect to gain support from bitcoin community if they can't deliver a proper stable software.

They will solve this with proprietary code that will be hidden from the public, until it is noticed and then they will find some excuse to justify that

move. They never apologized once for their buggy code, but rather turned to pointing fingers at the people who identified it. Their solution is to

blame Bitcoin Core developers for all the mistakes they are making.  ::)

excatly man everytime something goes wrong they blame core. and code being not an open source?  :-\ . start a bank and control everything

HHahahaa...."absolutely definitely possible maybe"....what are you talking about? I hope this is a solid joke.

Translation - still, no one know's if or when a hard fork is going to happen. How is that possible?

530 nodes affected..
vs thousands of core nodes affected in 2013..

OP's link atleast needs to try better and be accurate, otherwise it just becomes a biased narrative

Keep shilling alive franky!

if you not payed for what you do then you do something wrong and you must contact Roger Ver asap :D

funny part is that my opinions are about not any dictatorship.
i want diverse decentralised peer network

many have tried and failed to put me into one brand or another but they are not seeing the big picture.
all they see is "who does/should own bitcoin". they can never actually imagine a network owned by no group

i am going to laugh when blockstream jumps over to litecoin or hyperledger once they have finished messing with bitcoin

my mindset is on the next 120 years of bitcoin. not any particular brand and especially not a particular brand that has so much banscore code and block snobbery about version rather than validity

and what is this "Big Picture" ? An unstable blockchain system that crash every month?

hello
wake up

if there was only one brand then there would be crashes..
please learn the consensus of a DIVERSE DECENTRALISED PEER NETWORK

and why the only brand that has not crash from 2013 is Bitcoin core and why is the majority of the network? Bitcoin is an open source code and anyone can participate from it. In open source if you dont agree with the road of a project you just fork off from it. Is that simple. But i dont think you know about what is open source.
Are you a mac or windows closed source fanboy?

open source even in gmaxwells words means you can read the source but does not mean millions of people can edit it without the blockstream gate keeper.

anyone seen "forking off" from the blockstream gatekeeper and moderators get REKT and insulted

what should happen is the independent devs should be free to help out with any/all implementations. not be dependent on one implementation.
as thats the titanic/banks too big to fail mindset

This is quite sad.  Instead of acknowledging their mistakes, they point fingers to other camp as if, if the bug were made by the core.  If the bug was not there, in the first place, there should have nothing to exploit.  They should be thankful instead if the other party such as Bitcoin Core is showing them how clumsy their is  coding is, so that they can fix and improve their codes.

I think the only one reading from scrips word by word it's you, because you keep mentioning 2013 and fail to point to another big crash/ bug. also BU didn't come out after 2013 but they started BU in 2015 I mean what was the 2 years gap for? assuming they wanted nothing but the success of bitcoin then they should've come up with BU soon after 2013.
Also can you provide us with Core crashes in short periods of time like BU?
140 years in the future aside they can't even sustain and maintain a stable network for 140 days.

As Satoshi said once there should not be different implementations of version because all the nodes need to get the exact same results after even 1000B syncing/ connection.

Moreover IMAO other versions should only run in the back ground of sorts as backups if Core somehow failed then BU or other versions/ forks could carry on temporarily until Core is fixed and back on the track to take the wheel/ lead.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/labels/Bug

Can't believe this issue is still open:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/651

This just goes to show that we should not rush into options such as BU and segwit.

Just imagine what would happen if we rushed to implement bitcoin unlimited and this happened, the price would drop significantly. Hopefully we will see a permanent fix for this in the future because this is the third instance of this happening. The numbers should be back up soon but the coders need to fix whatever bug is causing this, It's the third or fourth time that I've seen this since February.

the issue is not about segwit vs BU

the big picture is peer network vs tier network
(because segwit 'features' are empty gestures... the only long term network wide effect of segwit is the tier network)
then below that

dynamic blocks less reliant on dev control vs segwit reliant on dev control

there are MANY implementations out there, not 2. but the reddit crowd are only mentioning 2 because they want to make it sound like an election for who controls bitcoin. by making people think there are only 2 options to choose from.

the reality should be to realise that there are a dozen different implementations at the moment. and where the diversity allows a proper independent choice of brand. where by the rules upgrade only when the majority of the community can find something they can all agree on.

and to keep our mind open to a diverse decentralised peer network, rather then a dependant tier network. this prevents any brand from doing a half assed gesture of temporary drama of features that wont actually meet expectations

if your first thought is to attack anything thats not core. then its time to stand back and ask yourself are you defending the code or the devs.
in short.. if all the lines of code were the same. would your stance change if say hearne wrote segwit

bitcoin is code. if you prefer to only care about the devs that can come or go.. rather then what could happen to bitcoin in the next 120 years, then stand back and spend a few minutes thinking about things

I don't understand how anyone can support BU.

If you owned 100 BTC, would you want to put that in the hands of people who can't solve basic technical issues?

Not seeing how that's a good idea.

 ???

I do not believe BU will actually show up, because most people refuse it, it can not grow if it is not interested.

Bitcoin's source code is no protected by any patent as I am aware it was copied and used hundreds of times, if not thousands by various altcoins.
What you are probably trying to say is that you don't want current bitcoin network to be torn apart and split, by 2 different version of scaling solution.

---

Bitcoin Unlimited was never popular among users node-wise anyway, always backed by just ~10% of node providers.

Lumping BU and segwit together in that same sentence is a terrible mistake. Segwit has 100x more coders that worked and tested it, and it has been LIVE on testnet for a very long time now, having received 1000s of times more testing than BU has. There is no "rush" with segwit. It was developed slowly and meticulously, and has been audited and tested by many very capable coders. The same can NOT be said about BU.

Core didn't crash in 2013. The bug that franky1 keeps talking about was a failure to maintain perfect consensus, leading to an accidental split in the network/currency. It's ironic that franky1 complains about this in particular, since accepting a diversity of consensus rules as he often endorses would by its very nature result in similar splits all the time. The kind of split that was treated as an emergency by the Core devs - one of Bitcoin's biggest failures - is seen as nothing to worry about by many "emergent consensus" advocates.

Core has never been successfully brought down like this, and to my knowledge the last bug that could theoretically have caused comparable effects was fixed by Satoshi.

+1

My thought exactly. Having so many issues recently makes me thing only people who expect direct financial benefits from it can still support it.

Software bug is a big issue of them.
I hate they say BU good BU good, then they not get the things well.
It might hacked by hacker easily if problem not got well clear.

that's why the bitcoin core is the only valid client/node in the bitcoin network.
let's get the things straight: bitcoin's protocol is not to be destroyed by any method, else the itself wouldn't be called 'bitcoin'.

If all this was BU and core and such was not about power and money..they'd just make the same arrangement as what litecoin
did to make an agreement (of any kind) but both sides want it all...thus ...LTC is now eating their open source code 'lunch' as it were
and pumping as a result. Maybe 4x spike in price in LTC after this has the BTC devs of any flavor (and miners) re-thinking positions

Hmm..

Franky1 - We ALL want multiple implementations of the same protocol. I agree. Healthy.

We don't want multiple competing protocols. That would be madness.

------------

What I find very hard to swallow.. is that BU does not fork the VERY LATEST STABLE VERSION OF CORE.. and then add the ~100 lines of code that change it into BU.. Then patches can still be added to both, etc etc etc..

It's really that simple, and the fact that they don't do that.. is what upsets me.. and makes me think they are morons. I can't condone the Bitcoin network being run by morons. That's going to end in disaster.

bitcoin is bitcoin

CORE should not own bitcoin!!!!

NO ONE should own bitcoin
we should not be blindly following core and only doing what core want. not until atleast core independent devs get rid of their dependency on being goverend and moderated and gatekeepered by blockstream.

that way the independent core devs can happily help out the rest of the community without fear of getting REKT

what would be rational is this
ALL implementations. including core should have versions of highly discussed and popular bips.

EG
btcd (wrote in go) should have 3 versions A dynamic. B twomerkle segwit. C dynamic and one-merkle segwit
core  should have 3 versions  A dynamic. B twomerkle segwit. C dynamic and one-merkle segwit
bu  should have 3 versions one dynamic. A dynamic. B twomerkle segwit. C dynamic and one-merkle segwit
(i could list more 'brands' but you get the idea)

where all brands help each other out to write the best versions possible. no brand camping..no REKT, no pointing fingers

and none of them activate the new "protocol" until there is high majority of the community accepting a favourite 'protocol'
this would be done by both a node consensus followed by a pool consensus.

that way its no longer about giving control to any brand because each brand offer the same 'protocol' choice

because this Bu supporters are not bitcoin holders and the most of them are shitcoin pumpers that they think a disaster of bitcoin will  rise their shitcoin

Yet another post full of nonsense and shilling for BTU.

Correct. You can see this clearly in all of their communication channels. Most of them "quit to [insertAltcoin]" every second day.

That arrangement makes no sense and is a sign of centralization. There is no leader in Bitcoin, nor is the creator known or present. Therefore, you can't compare the LTC roundtable to any possible BTC roundtable. Bitcoin Core developers can only propose consensus changes, but ultimately that's where their "power" ends.

er..so the bitcoin core guys can't get a roundtable together ..propose the same comprise as LTC with some of the same players blocking seg witness on BTC with
the added line of " a soft fork or hard fork in block size will be implemented at such and such a time under such and such a circumstance" to keep the miners happy?

bullsh*t...in BTC it is about who controls it all not in who shares a way forward.......miner concerns ..block concerns ...delusional concerns (usaf taking over) all
can be dealt with if the folk want to talk..they don't want to......its about power and all the marbles

then at that point...the masses (us) point the hash where we want to achieve whatever..if they all sing the same song and say point to seg witness with the
above caveats ...that would get passed....again about power ...my way or the highway in both camps

or how I see it

Correct. Bitcoin Core as a singular entity does not exist. Nobody who contributes to Bitcoin Core can sign/agree to anything on behalf of Bitcoin Core.

You're failing to realize that Segwit is a block size increase.

If there are people that control BTC, then Bitcoin has no inherent value. Almost all of its features practically wash down a drain. Once you have people who can control it, then you also have people who can be manipulated or bought. Once that happens, all kinds of nasty things come a long (see US Govt or any centralized institution for that matter).

---

Tl;dr: Bitcoin does not need a block size with Segwit at the moment. If you'd recall the events of the Hong Kong Roundtable, that what you propose has already been tried and has failed (mostly due to a miner breaking the agreement very soon after it was conceived).

liar lair lair
there are atleast 2 round tables a year (ofcourse they are closed door meetings by invite only.. where the main devs and their corporate sponsors plan the roadmaps)

stop trying to brush that crap under the carpet.

the "independent" devs can only request a bip. but its the main devs paid for by blockstream that are the gate keepers of what gets accepted or not

look at the bips.. Luke JR
look at the mailing list .. rusty russel
look at the tech discussion board here gmax

then when it comes to actual code. if gmax or the other paid devs find any reason to nACK a idea.. forget any chance of convincing them otherwise

lauda will you stop wearing the blockstream defender cap, thinking they should own bitcoin. and start wearing a bitcoin cap.
you know the one that thinks about bitcoin over the next few decades and not blockstreams 2-5year plan

you can pretend all you like that blockstream and their interns are independent. but its plain to see that if any of the devs did go independent they would get rekt.

until last month when gmax found out his going soft approach Luke JR promoted wasnt as soft as he thought because gmax found out only last month that it ran into compatibiliy issues with ASICS that PRE-DATE segwit code.

also last year it took months to convince devs and get passed their ego's about the anyonecanspend. but instead of writing a version that would have been a full network upgrade and an oppertunity to add real features in. they continued as is and done a work around by telling people not to use segwit wallets until long after activation (killing part of their backward compatibility promise) and also by reinforcing their control of a tier network by making older nodes to be downstream of the network.

making segwit such a cludgy bit of code with no promises. just 'expectations' and many if's and maybe's

what is you favourite shitcoin? i can predict that you not hold a single bitcoin.

i hold many bitcoin and i gave up trading altcoins in 2014.
my life is now more my own leisure, say and do as i like. my landlord accepts bitcoin. i buy food, travel with bitcoin.

i dont even bother looking at the altcoin sections, to me they are all just pump and dumps.

the only one i consider having hope is from viewing how the blockstream sponsors and partners are finger deep into litecoin and where coinbase with a click of a button can easily flip to allowing hundreds of thousands of merchants accepting litecoin. and the blockstream sponsor cartel and partners (BS, DCG, coinbcase, bitpay, BTCC) all jump over and build on litecoin as their sandbox before moving to hyperledger

with that said i havnt touched litecoin since 2013, where i threw all my litecoin at a giveaway event
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=145201.msg1540606#msg1540606

im full in bitcoin. and have my hoard of bitcoin stashed on paper wallets which i have not touched the majority of since 2014, happily living on many coins i didnt cold store which can keep me going for a few years before even caring to look at my cold store

and if you are like that how is possible to support scammer guys like Roger Ver or miners like Jihan Wu. This guys only want to form a cartel and to control bitcoin.
and i ask this because this guys is altcoin pumpers like Roger Ver with dash etc.

your reading reddit stories

1. im for dynamic blocks so that we as a community dont need to beg to devs for them to spoon feed us new block sizes.
meaning users get to change settings themselves at runtime.
meaning no dev control.

do you understand diverse decentralisation.

2. you think the debate is about ver+wu vs blockstream.. no its blockstream dictatorship vs many many implementations and pools saying no. but the redit crowd are just pointing the finger at one direction to try distracting people from looking deeper at blockstream as the culprits
.. remember if you are thinking "but pools shouldnt dictate the rules".. guess what they dont.. only in the blockstream(core) case blockstream BYPASSED node consensus.. .. the pools didnt do anything.. so dont blame pools. (which there are 20+ of no just 1)

3. other implementations are just plodding along waiting for full node and pool (proper symbiotic full network consensus) without threats or violence. without deadlines or deceipt.

dynamic blocks as Bu propose give a huge power to miners and the opportunity to them to form a cartel and a kind of Opec for fees in bitcoin. Dont expect anyone to agree so easy in this crap. Miners is here to serve the network and not to govern it.
And why you has this psycho with blockstream? this blockstream developers has maintaine the network an always propose tech solutions to bitcoin and for sure not harm it.
Can i ask you what Roger Ver has done for bitcoin network all of this years?
My answer is MTgox and this community split and division.
Can i ask you what Jihan Wu have done for bitcoin network?
My answer is only to form a cartel and break decentralisation.
If we want bitcoin to be the future payment free payment system then this will not happen with nodes that runs through big datacenters and with a mining cartel that can change consensus rules whenever they want.

Do NOT listen to this paid shill Franky1. This guy has been rejected, he is the black sheep ore the ugly duck.

this guys has not any logic at all imo.
They talk about decentralisation and the same time they want to break consensus bitcoin system and install a president to Bitcoin.
They talk about control and the same time they want to give a huge power to miners to do whatever and whenever they want.
They talk about anonymity and the same time they want nodes to run only in big datacenters and claims like Roger Ver that many nodes are useless.
Is not lies. Is pure a social attack to bticoin and to its main principles like anonymity-decentralisation.
This is the true. And for that reason i will always try to expose them.

https://sputniknews.com/radio_double_down/201704251052968537-great-block-size-war-2017/

your reading the reddit scripts not code
i agree and the many dynamic implementations INCLUDING BU are about user nodes having 2 limits.. an upper limit. then below that a preference limit..
pools only move to what the majority accept as a lower limit
EG consensus.h 8mb    then policy.h 1mb-7.9mb . and pools only go to what 75%+ agree on what policy.h agrees with and tells the 25% under that policy preference that their policy preference can gt shifted to align with the other 75%..
EG consensus.h 8mb    then policy.h 75% deem 2mb ok
the ones lingering at 1mb will have thier policy moved to 2mb . or if not dynamic will see they wont sync to the network

dont read the reddit scripts of "gigabytes by midnight" and start thinking rationally and logically

1. removed priority formulae without replacing it with something better
2. removed reactive fee in low demand and replaced it with average fee to keep fee's up even when demand is low
3. prevented any real network wide onchain growth for the last 2 years with half baked gestures that have no guarantee


again your stuck in the roger vs reddit script. think beyond this.
but google can help you out.
memory dealers,
bitinstant arbitrage system before ripple/liquid,
plus other things.

again all you have rea is the reddit scripts not the whole picture

jihan is only a small part.. definetly not 68% of the pools.. wake up!!
bt jihan has done more for the ASIC community then lets say GHASH or BFL
but you should also research the other pools and asic manufacturers that make up the 86% objecting/abstaning


lol here we go again with the reddit "gigabytes by midnight" rhetoric.. wake up
nodes set their limits and pools follow below the majority. thus is not going to suddenly go jumping to stupid amounts.. if nodes cant handle it the the network doesnt go passed it.
get out of the reddit blockstream best case utopia. anything else worse case doomsday.. atleast start being critical of blockstream if you really want them running it.. dont be an ass kisser.. be the ass whipper and dont hold them on a pedestal, hold them to account

EG 8mb is measured as the 'node can handle' capability this year. (consensus upper limit this year)
and dynamic policy becomes the extra safe preference below that

EG much like satoshi's 1mb consensus and 250k policy in 2009-2011
EG much like satoshi's 1mb consensus and 500k policy in 2011-2013
EG much like satoshi's 1mb consensus and 750k policy in 2013-2015
EG much like satoshi's 1mb consensus and 999k policy in 2015-2017

ADAM BACK - blockstream president

you need a doctor man. and i am serious :P

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockstream

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/time-moon-not-fighting-says-blockstreams-president/

ok time to test your knowledge.

you seem to really love blockstream.. but lets put blockstream aside and instead deal with the code.
no quoting reddit sales pitches or information of hope, dreams, utopia..

answer this.
1. at code level and real world end user benefit. what can be guaranteed to happen that is network wide and of guaranteed benefit TO ALL when segwit activates.
please dont reply yet. the next question gives you a hint


2. at code level and real world end user benefit. what can be guaranteed to happen that is network wide and of guaranteed benefit TO ALL when segwits keypairs are allowed long after segwit activation.
please dont reply yet. the next question gives you a hint

3. please describe features that are guaranteed features that are not possible without segwit done as a softfork

4. last question.. if segwit was created line for line identical.. no changes at all.. but was wrote by hearne and the R3 crew.. would you still sing segwits glory

i will answer what we will see if segwit activate and is lighting network, Tumblebit or p2p exchanges, sidechains
We will see all of them isn litecoin very soon.
And i am not a fan boy of blockstream. I dont care who does a good tech proposal and segwit seems to be a very good tested proposal.
For the same reason i am very positive to extension blocks idea but i am very negative to the crap code of BU.

tell me what makes segwit a good tech proposal
i edited the questions to be more about end user (not code) this time

the great opportunity for bitcoin to hafve a huge innovation. this are doing this proposal. In other hand bitcoin works fine as it is now and nothing will happen if never scale imo.
Is still very cheap to transfer a huge stake of bitcoin around the world. Even if the price double the fees will be only 1-2$, very cheap for someone that want to transfer some thousand of dollars or for someone to keep his anonymity.
And for sure bitcoin will not be good to buy your coffee. If you want this then you choose a wrong payment system.

so you went with the "buy coffee" reddit script
(facepalm)

give this facepalm to your beloved boy Roger Ver. He claims that bitcoin is an everyday coffee payment system. I personal see bitcoin as it is. A decentralised payment system to store value and to transfer value around the world without the needing of the banking system.

get passed the reddit scripts.

you will find that many are ok with LN as a side service. such as xapo is. such as coinbase, changetip, and shapeshift is.
for the faucet, day trader, gamblers..
but not as a REQUIRED service for all

pools dont give a crap about LN, neither do the other implementations. its reddit scripters insinuating what pools and other implementations want.

again LN as a voluntary side service is acceptable.. but NOT by pushing the fee's up by holding the blocklimit hostage with false promises and removing the reactive fee's to force everyone into permissioned commercial hub services

and then if anyone agree that micropayments can solved from LN what we need a block size increase? As i say even if bitcoin price double bitcoin is again very cheap,. 1-2$ for fees to transfer money is ridiculous cheap.

Nonsense. I have not lied about anything. Just because your perception of the truth is extremely bent, that doesn't mean that what I said was a lie.

You don't need a BIP, nor do you need anything adopted by Bitcoin Core either. You need community/industry consensus, and you can release your own client (or Core + patch).

I've never seen someone make a unbased nACK on something that was actually good.

My post has nothing to do with Blockstream. Get a life already, shill.

and i think is clear that you are the one here that has obsessions. I only follow the tech facts and believe to the best tech proposal. I have not change to this. I only want my value to bitcoin to be safe and usable in long term.

1. onchain fee's of $1-$2 .. your thinking about corporate america.. come on look beyond your window.. $1-$2=>20 labour hours in multiple countries
think about the unbanked!!

2. LN has limitations. Eg lets say you just want to deposit $60 for microtransactions.. to open-close = $2-$4 = 3-6% (ps even the LN architects are suggesting only using $60 amounts due to a few risks that LN has (blackmail, chargebacks, address reuse attack)

3. LN although can be open for a year. think real worls usage. can you predict how much you would need to spend each day, beyond say 2 weeks..(ps even the LN architects are suggesting only using $60 amounts, for a 2 weekish lock-in due to a few risks that LN has (blackmail, chargebacks, address reuse attack)

so knowing people are only using it on average for just some of thier funds (not whole hoard) and for a couple weeks (not eternity) then you start to realise that even though xapo, coinbase, changetip all have internal offchain 'swapping' .. onchain capacity still needs to grow to cope with the depositing and withdrawing and also the 'larger spends'

please note that saying people should lock their entire hoard into a channel for eternity shows that your not looking at the reality, risks and limitations but trying to create a utopian and false hope narative.

onchain scaling needs to grow because LN will just help services like shapeshift/xapo.. but those peopl paying rent or travel or fortnigtly groceries will still be onchain and fighting for room alongside all the LN channel open-closing.

you still talk crap and you dont know nothing about it. USA is not the center of the world.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-QAL24XYAE14Rg.jpg

so you showed the swiss franc..

have you totally forgot about the unbanked world of third world countries.

Bitcoin is not a charity. If you want to help people in need, join Caritas or something.

corporate lauda.. may your comments show your corporate adoring mindset.

can you even tell me why bitcoin was invented based on the comments in the genesis block
or are you too deep in the corporate backside.. that all you can see is your own greed and the inner workings of gmax

there is no reason at all that in the next few years to push fees up so high.

in a few decades when pools need it. the onchain capacity should have naturally grown (not at GB by midnight) at a natural progressive node capable rate that even users paying just 10cents would combine to give enough funds to pools

Whether I favor corporations or not is entirely irrelevant.

Which "comments" are your referring to? Please quote and provide a source.

It looks like Maxwell is part of some of your weird fantasies, as I have not mentioned him at all.

Spammers can, and already have, influenced the fee market. This is not going to change.

In a few decades.. speculation.

the genesis block. can you not even find it?

and spammer can be dealt with by adding a new priority fee forumale that hurts spammers and rewards those that dont spam

I want you to show that you can do basic research, provide the proper sources and properly quote the relevant information.

Who are you to decide what is or what isn't spam based on some "formula"?

well if people want to fill every block by spending 144 times a day and they are not doing lean tx's then they should pay more.

EG not just a pay per byte, but a pay per lack of many confirms.
EG you pay 144 times more if you want to spend every block, compared to someone who only spends once a day.

the benefit is then if its not spam but a service that needs to send every block. they then move over to LN and save lots of fees

that way users that only spend once a day are not paying the price

LN is NOT, repeat NOT a scaling solution. It is a nice-to-have thingy to make micropayments, so people do not have to resort to DOGE or LTC to pay for coffee.

Like a corporate gift card from Starbucks or whatever...

We still need a real scaling solution and bigger blocks. LTC's Charlie Lee has promised it, for BTC a promise is not enough. It must be in the code.

I suggest locking BU devs and Core devs into a bunker and not let them out until a satisfactory compromise has been created  8)

that was tried late 2015, and early 2016..
but blockstream(core) wanted to be the one holding the whip and wanted everyone else to wear a gimp mask

BU has developers?

No, just politicians and lobbyists.

https://sputniknews.com/radio_double_down/201704251052968537-great-block-size-war-2017/ (https://sputniknews.com/radio_double_down/201704251052968537-great-block-size-war-2017/)

I like Max Keiser, and this radio show with Charlie Shrem is very instructive, nicely resumed.  I agree with him. 

How many days till the next BUg crash? I bet will be around 10 - 20 may 17.

With this node crash BU supporters should have woken up
they should now realize that they shouldn't their million to some idiot programmers who produces bad software.
They should have trust their money to more experience coders and has maintaining the welfare of bitcoin for a long time.

So if I'm a genuine user who uses Bitcoin a lot per day, I will be classified as a spammer and will have to pay the price? Awesome idea. ::)

It takes a normal and rational person who is not delusional (and obviously not paid) to realize that they're wrong. It takes a big person to admit being wrong and changing your opinion (this happens with pretty much every belief, e.g. vaccines == autism; flat Earth). BTU is pretty much identical to those.

you would use LN to pay small amounts randomly multiple times a day..
or
you would decide that your sig campaign management should adapt in daily batches to cut costs onchain instead of many times a day.

oh here is the kicker.. that should really wake you up to the fee debate of the last year..
whats wrong with paying $60 fee.. thats only 8 hours minimum wage labour in UK/america??
spoiler
[now you may emotionally understand third world countries where for the last year you and others have said 40c (8hour labour) is ok]
highlight text inside brackets to reveal


oh lauda you need to read your own words then. thats why MANY implementations of diversity offsets the "too big to fail" mentality.
your stuck in the 'its us or them' corporate takeover mindset..
wake up and think many diverse people as a community all with their own brand preference which unite on certain rules , that way EG if your a mcdonalds guy, someone else was a KFC guy.. it wont matter if mcdonalds or KFC stopped serving.. peopl wouldnt starve because theres loads of restuarants of different brands available in the same town(network) that agree to the fundemental rules of feeding people

i know you wanna scream blue murder that mcdonalds should be the only fast food restaurant because they also serve chicken based meals. but your not thinking beyond the burger/chicken debate

BU's acceptance depth approach, I consider it to be a terrible approach to bigger blocks.

Usually 6 confirms is considered as statistically set in stone. Not with BU, all of a sudden a bigger block might fall through the gate causing a chain reorganisation and potentially the transaction might not have any confirmations at all due to the mining policy on the new longer chain.

It's overcomplicated approach introduces new economic risks, even if its bugs are fixed.

I am all for bigger blocks. However you can call BU Bitcoin Unavailable, Bitcoin Uncredible, Bitcoin Unneeded or the Bitcoin Undead for all I care.

They need better and more experienced people behind to make things working well and really be deserving to be the one chosen to solve the current problems bugging Bitcoin for years. This another crash can already be putting more nails into its coffin as confidence and trust are two important elements in the cryptocurrency world. We all have our own financial interest and we should be able to protect them as no one else will.

imagine this though..

ALL nodes had a 1mb block consensus rule

but below that they had lets say a preference of .. well lets say the majority was viewed as preferring 0.25 in 2011 and where they would accept 0.25+ only after 6 confirms

it does not break the consensus rules. but does publicly show pools that the majority of node prefer only 0.25mb blocks.

pools wont want to go passed 0.25 because the majority of nodes wont like it.
(the nodes would accept the blocks, but wont treat them as set in stone unless 5 other blocks are ontop)

the pools would weigh upt the pro's and cons of going passed 0.25 much more wisely, rather than just doing it
EG pool A may want to make a block 0.26mb but pool B,C,D,E,F,G  are building blocks that are only 0.249
so theres a chance pool A's block may get orphaned.

but all nodes would still be all on one chain due to all blocks being under 1mb.. the dynamics is just about orphan risk not chain splitting(altcoin creating)

now say its 2012 and nodes moved their preference of to a majority of 0.5mb..
EG pool B,C,D,E,F,G that were listening to community demand will happily make blocks over 0.25mb meaning so can pool A without any orphan risk

as you can see this is not about causing chain splits because all blocks under 1mb are acceptable. all its doing is keeping pools under control

Sorry franky1, but I think under BU's acceptance depth mechanism, every time some miners want to up the limit there becomes a temporary chain split with orphan drama as the miners fight out whether the block size can be upped or not. An acceptance depth of '1' simplifies things a lot.

Who said anything about small amounts? Now you are advertising LN? That is ironic.

I don't make any signature campaign payments on Bitcoin. You're confused.

False comparison.

There is "us", as in the people who are in Bitcoin for the right reasons. Then there is "them", all kinds of groups wanting to attack Bitcoin (see BTU).

You don't even understand how EC works. Your comparison makes zero sense. EC allows for chain reorganizations, it's technically a "feature". Your script is wrong.

its not a chain split.
both blocks are stored and accepted. just not treated as set in stone until which ever one gets the 6th confirm (5 blocks ontop)

its actually avoiding chain splits happening so easily because both block A at 0.26 and block B 0.249 sit in the node.

however if block B gets built on for next 5 blocks then block A is rejcted.

its not about altcoin creation.. just about orphan drama.. which if you check the stats is happening all the time anyway.
orphan mechanism is a good thing. its the shield that throws out what the network as a whole doesnt agree with.

it makes pools think before they act. and to keep pools inline with what the network find acceptable.

You could end up with a network with a multitude of different excessive block and acceptance depth settings. That sounds like a complete clusterfuck to me.

get your mind out of first world only mindset

8 hours labour for millions of people you deem ok.. you have said it many times.. "40c is cheap"
... right up until you start seeing that fee's of 8 hours .. are in prices of first world countries '8 hours'

atleast wake up to the point.. you have been dribbling for a year now that 8 hours labour is ok.. so whats wrong with you paying $60

$60 is only 8 hours labour. you have been telling the third world and many unbanked countries that 8 hours labour is fine/cheap for a year

or
pools see it can be a cluster fuck and dont go passed a limit unless majority of preference says its not going to be a clusterfuck

A simple block acceptance size with an acceptance depth of '1' achieves that without the unnecessary complexity.

the blocks are "accepted" EG say a block A 0.251 received and also block B 0.249
(both accepted because they are both under 1mb consensus)
both sit there accepted.. but not set in stone.

yes some nodes are happy to accept blocks upto 0.5 some are happy with 0.25 and some are happy with 0.25 only after 6 confirms.

but all are holding both blocks until conditions are met.

the acceptable depth is the deterrent.. for pools
it adds a bit of risk to the pools to not push forward too quick, because nodes may reject them if other pools are following the node 'preference' majority

pools wont want to risk going to 0.26 unless high majority say its ok. because their is a risk their 0.26 block may get rejected if the majority dont want anything above 0.25

thus if the other pools were building on block B.. A will drop off once B gets its 5th confirm

however lets say the 'majority threshold was 75%

if there was 75% acceptance of 0.3 where by looking further at nodes its seen 80% acceptance of 0.25
pools would work out the risks of going to 0.3. by looking at the acceptable depth of the group below 0.3mb.
if everyone had only 1 AD then pools will say yep very small chance of orphan risk going to 0.3..
but if there was AD12.. pools may say, hmm maybe best to stick with 0.25mb and re-assess later as there is a chance that if i make a 0.26mb block other pools may not. due to such a high AD

(yes im using low numbers of blocksize so people can imagine dynamics in a scenario of 1mb consensus but where nodes had dynamic 'preference' below that since 2009) thus nodes having more control over what pools move to.

(please dont just take the reddit doomsday scenario rhetoric as gospel. do proper independent research)

remember all these blocks are still under 1mb. so its still going to be just 1 chain. in the end. its just a way to deter pools from jumping the gun rushing to 1mb 2009-2017 by knowing some nodes prefer only 0.x..
and pools become more obliged to follow node preference because their competitors pools may only build ontop of node preference.

Acceptance size set at 0.25, Block A gets rejected end of. Block B gets built on. Acceptance size moved to 0.3, Block A or B win the block propagation race as exists now an will get built on with blocks of up to 0.3MB in size.

Personally I think it's time to get rid of this protocol enforced block size limits all together. We have SPV wallets now. Miners should be able to create blocks of dynamic sizes which they see fit to maintain the network and manage the network mempool demand with slight fee pressure.
The protocol enforced limit is creating problems that need to be solved. Removing it means it will be working as intended in accordance with the original whitepaper.
There are enough exchanges, online wallets, payment providers, other businesses that can cope with data centre traffic levels to ensure the blockchain database is validated and distributed. Let the miners get on with building the blockchain.