Bitcoin Forum

I think the argument is finished.  It is now clear that Blockstream won't be able to take over the blockchain to run their proprietary (patented) bullshit and pay back their $70 million to AXA.  Whew!, that was close.  But in the end, people are watching out and they don't like private takeovers.  

The 'Antbleed' thing might be the last final effort to shit the bed.

It won't be long and we will have 8MB blocks and finally get rid of those Core idiots who think they own the world.

Who have they lost to?

I haven't followed anything in the last months...

When did Core lost? I mean last time I checked they were still pretty dominant here.
Oh not that I have a side, I don't really understand what's at stake here anyway, it just seems that 2 teams are fighting like hell each of them trying to keep control over the blockchain xD

If you're dismissing Antbleed for political reasons, regardless of who you're supporting, you're nothing but an outright idiot. There is nothing that can justify planting backdoors is over half the network.

Nobody. This is a classic propaganda post.

They haven't.

What you wrote is complete nonsense. Bitcoin Core is not fighting anything nor anyone. They don't even want any kind of control, i.e. they do not attempt to force any consensus change. On the other hand, BU is trying to force an unwanted HF.

Disagreed:
You got one side trying to force HF. You got one side trying to stop it.
Pretty fair to say that both sides are trying to keep control on the blockchain...

Though I do agree that "control" was maybe not the right word because it could refer to actively being able to change the blockchain at will which is not what I wanted to say.

Core isn't trying to stop anything. The community & economy is against the fork; those are the people who are actively trying to stop it.

I'm calling you out on this bullshit until you can properly elaborate how and provide sources. As I have clearly stated, most of the people contributing to Core are not doing anything in regards to this. They continue to develop, which is what they should be doing.

Isn't developping and working on current system the same thing as trying to keep control over its development? Oo

You say it like I think it's a bad thing... I'm not putting any judgement here. Just saying that Core is dominant and they're the ones deciding how the blockchain evolve simply because they work on it and people use it. That's all I'm saying, there is no conspiracy theory or whatever.

I am not against Hard Fork. I support it as a core fanboy. Working to prevent it will make the core supporters to look "weak".

Sooner they have it, better for us. Let them have their HF so they won't be posting nonsense crap anymore. Let them have their "altshitcoin." So bitcoin can reach its true potential without any disruptions.

No. You can't force anybody to run your client, therefore you are not in a position of any control. The recent developments of Bitcoin Core do not attempt to alter consensus rules.

No. Bitcoin Core does not decide anything for the network. You apparently don't understand how Bitcoin works.

If there were the win/lose battles they would have to take place in the same ring, they haven't as far as I can tell. Maybe something important happened? 70% network security? Lots of noise from the fringe while works getting done going forward. The inertia and resistance of bitcoin is allowing for safe as possible progress while working.  And then there is WU/BU but I don't have a side except for bitcoins side. If it breaks it breaks. Guess that's trust for ya. If you try and succeed to control it, just burn it to the ground and start over.

Rha you're just very picky about the meaning of words xD

I perfectly understand that what Core develops, the clients have no obligation to use.
I'm not saying they're some kind of God that decide how things work. I'm just saying they're in a dominant position of power: they're trusted, their development are used by nearly everyone etc...
And some challengers are trying to force a HF. So you got people "in control" (and by that I mean that they're the one currently in force position) and people challenging them.

The last time I see the charts Bitcoin unlimited has 49% votes leaving the core at somewhere between 30 to 40%. But this does not mean that the core has lost since there are still group of miners who have not placed their sides. Even with the lead of the BU the core have not yet lost nor BU has won. We will only be convinced that the core had lost when BU is activated and the Core will be disabled.

Don't use strong words when you don't know the meaning behind them.

They have deserved this. I take it that you haven't been keeping track of the development on GitHub. Whilst BU tries to fill in all of their loop holes (whilst using an outdated Bitcoin Core version), there have been some pretty nice changes proposed.

https://i.imgur.com/OelZGzk.png
https://i.imgur.com/qY6wCQ0.png

I'm not sure whether you're a signature campaign spammer or just very ignorant or both. "Core will be disabled" makes no sense, in any context.

And I've never said they haven't deserved it. You're the one interpreting my words here ;)

dont worry about lauda he has not learned c++ to learn/read the code or read more than a couple paragraphs of the documentation. he spends too much time on reddit with the tl:dr; short scripted bias thoughts to defend blockstream.... not the bitcoin network

but i will not waffle and will keep things short for his benefit

1. blockstream(core) went soft to bypass node consensus.
2. blockstream(core) are getting angry all their all-inclusive long weekends they paid for pools, was not enough to buy pools into automatic yays
3. blockstream(core) have now employed their pool banning ambassador to turn say 80% to 95% or above
4. blockstream(core) and their flock of fanboys pretend chain splits are bad, but then demand all implementations not core to F**k off

evidence
1. december 2015 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki
2. round table events.. p.s BTCC jumped in real quick due to the DCG funding linking blockstream to http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b
3. samson mow USAF https://blockstream.com/team/samson-mow/ - chief strategy officer @ blockstream, marketing strategist,
4. ReKT campaigns, calling them altcoins begging them to fork off

however its the other implementations that are not core that are the ones plodding along, no threats, no demands, no deadlines no biased node/pool killing code.. just letting people have a free open choice . infact when actually offered a change to split off. they refused and laughed at the desparation

lauda may post "wrong because wrong" or "wrong because i insult you to make you sound bad" or "you are just a shill"
but all he is doing is protecting blockstream by trying to put people into different groups. a couple years ago it was xt, then classic now bu.. purely because he doesnt understand people care more about a diverse decentralised peer network.. rather than blockstreams puppet master devs

It is only a matter of time.  It is now clear that the community is not prepared to have 1MegGreg and AdamBack be the overlords.  Blockstream tried lots of very dirty tricks - the people figured it out. 

That low down censorship stuff sometimes comes back to haunt you.  Fuck them.  Can't wait for them to be sitting on the minority fork. 

^ self admitted "core fanboy"   :D  :D

I was wondering if the Antbleed news would finally cause BU/Bitmain defenders to admit they have been wrong, or if they would go full bore insane. Guess I have my answer. Defending an exploit that could be used to wipe out much of the network is stark raving insane, as is the notion that exposing it somehow helps the clowns who perpetrated the exploit.

bitmain having a switch in its own server, that only affects only its own equipment, which will cause its customers to request refunds.
hmm

oh and also if they wanted it as a weapon they would have pulled the trigger already

however
this last month has all been about blockstream flock trying to find any bug in anything not blockstream advocated.. but not willing to listen when code made by blockstream has flaws

You're a clown if you think anyone is going to say "derppp antminers have a flaw, now i need to change my whole opinion about the blocksize debate."

https://blog.bitmain.com/en/antminer-firmware-update-april-2017/

Bla bla bla bla like ussual from paid shill Franky1.

Bla bla bla bla like ussual from paid shill Darkbot.  At least Franky1 isn't a new made up username like yours.  pathetic how low Core will go.

Anti Core guys keep living in lalaland where people aren't using their software even to mine blocks for other stuff because that's how good Core's code is (and how bad BU and the rest are). They also keep ignoring the fact that BU is no longer relevant. Futures show BTC-U has been dumped into oblivion. Nodes keep crashing while you claim they are production ready, f2pool already joined segwit, 75% of everyone running relevant services want segwit. BU rejected by 70%!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8HwIp7VwAEGPBb.jpg

https://medium.com/@21/using-21-to-survey-blockchain-personalities-on-the-bitcoin-hard-fork-1953c9bcb8ed

Will their stances ever align with reality and face facts?

pie charts of nodes but doesnt show proof of backing (no ip lists) - result, ignore it and trust bitnodes as better source

"community measure" weighted to exaggerate results. where some of the advocates are just consultants that dont need nodes, or have listed their 3 subsiduaries as 3 separate votes even though its the same 'team' in all 3 votes..
also only a small selection of bitcoin merchants - result biased limited overview

questionnaire of 61 people, hmm who got told where to vote - result biased by spamming link to only one side

---

also if pereira4 is not around billy bob will daily spam the same biased stuff..
if billy not around lauda will

each day the same stuff is posted but none of them even think about researching behind the numbers. they just post it


P.S
want to see the narrative control
https://i.imgur.com/dR6MqLJ.png

P.P.S
question 4 (as advertised by lauda and other) is
do you want MINERS to activate BU

..
if the question was "do you want community consensus to activate BU" results would be different
this is where people need to learn CONTEXT and source of data

This BTC Core vs BU thing is very stupid and border on playground politics. Let's say for one moment ONE of the two sides win this and the other

side {no matter who they are} stop supporting Bitcoin... Who will be the winner then? We will see one HUGE rage quit from a lot of people and

the support that we have been working on for years will be halved. We should make compromises on both sides and concentrate on finding a

better solution for a scaling solution. { because both of them suck }  :-[

:D finally someone gets it

Based on 61 votes out of what? millions of BTC owners.

Well there are some of us advocating a simple 1mb to 2mb blocksize increase for this year. It could then go to 3mb then 4mb when certain blocks are reached.

This will allow more txs now then developers can go back to the drawing board. However Core will not listen to the community and want 1mb to stay. Ask yourself why? Even Miners agreed to 2mb with segwit. So forget segwit and do 2mb. Miners should be onboard and so will the users. Problem solved.

I think it's actually the other way around. The "big blockers" failed to block Segwit on LTC. When LTC activates LN, pressure will arise to BTC miners to adopt a malleability fix on Bitcoin (Segwit or another one) and so LN will be enabled here, too. Raiden (ETH) may cause additional pressure.

Miners can't simply be that stupid to allow a "flippening", be it to LTC or ETH - they would lose too much. So eventually they _will_ have to agree on a solution. I don't think it will be "pure Segwit" (they would lose their face) but a very similar solution like Segwit2MB, Segwit+BIP-100 or Extension blocks could get traction.

The poll cited by @cellard and @franky1 shows not that a side "won" but instead what I'm observing a lot of time now: People consider Bitcoin Unlimited too dangerous or too centralist (with too much power for miners), while most would support a conservatively increased block size.

Don't you find it weird that some the most talented and experienced developers aren't? (Pieter W. , Matt Corallo, etc) 

There is no such thing as the "flippening" for ETH. ETH scalability is at least 10 times worse than Bitcoin. The only reason for which they don't have this problem yet is because they don't have the 'scale'. The case for LTC however may be different.

No. Segwit == big blocks. The top size that can be generated by Segwit is already 2x of the conservative approach. Bundling Segwit together with a conservative block size increase == possibility of 4x the size of a conservative increase.

2x??
only if EVERYONE moves funds to segwit keypairs..

pretty much the same empty promise of 7tx/s only if everyone does lean tx's in 2009-2016

guess what we are only at ~3.5
so even with segwit. and then needing everyone to use segwit keys.. only then the network MAY SEE 7tx/s

so its still as empty as the 2009-2016 expectation of 7tx/s

WAKE UP
the 1mb base 4mb weight 2merkle segwit does not promise or guarantee 7tx/s at all.. plus its not a "it will happen at activation". there are other factors at play.

however a 4mb single block 1merkle segwit where both segwit tx's and native tx's all fit inside the 4mb block as a single peer network without the tier network* of (gmax upstream filter nodes)(lukejr bridge nodes)

would allow more tx/s without people needing to move funds to new key pairs for hopes and dreams to come true

*https://btcmanager.com/why-segwit-builds-a-network-within-a-network/
*https://bitcoincore.org/assets/images/filtering-by-upgraded-node.svg
*https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/#not-upgrading-1

I am confused, isn't Asicboost the patented bullshit? Is Blockstream supporting BU? I thought it was the other way round? I need some sleep. :P

google: blockstream defensive patent strategy

It seems that the BU supporters has gone insane. Who lost?
from ive heard BU's nodes just crash for the 3rd or 4th time so people should avoid investing their money to some buggy code and amateur coders.
This should really stop and start solving the scaling issue.

+ $1500

I am the point where I don'r really care who wins as long as they agree on something.  If these elementary-school-level crybabies would just agree and get 'er done, then (my prediction) is that BTC price would immediately shoot waaaaaayyy up.

But, if the fix the whole scaling issue, please guys: Do.It.Right.  Think and plan ahead!  Let's do this again.........

Oh RawDog is back again haven't seen him in a while, saying Core lost is like saying bitcoin lost, so far from 2009 the majority are using Core because well we have one Bitcoin and we should have one Version(code) otherwise where have you ever seen a child born with 2 male DNA?
I'm struggling to figure out whether asicboost can work with even 2 merkle roots or only 1 merkle root code is asicboost friendly? did I touch a nerve by asking that?
I'm sorry I'm not at all a nerd but from what I know after some readings asicboost process ignores some calculations aka POW or better say it actually doesn't do the work but makes it look like as if it did do the work.

Let me see, 20% advantage by skipping the work(like government employees watching porn behind their desks instead of completing people's tasks) it means 10,000 S9 will mine as 12,000 S9.
I think I'd go with blockstream $70M debt at least they don't have ties to miner(s) farm.