Bitcoin Forum

I am expecting that once Bitcoin Unlimited gets over 50% of the hashing power then they will have enough confidence to attempt to win the battle of the block size.  I am expecting that once they are over 50% they will start their hard fork and hence create two competing Bitcoins.  Then chaos for everybody.

But I also just saw this on the BU website:
"Would Bitcoin Unlimited start a hard fork?  No, Bitcoin Unlimited doesn’t implement a hardfork by itself. Even if 100 percent of the miners use Bitcoin Unlimited. If the economy doesn’t want a hardfork, miners would only waste money trying. This is part of Nakamoto Consensus."

Now I am as confused as ever about when to expect the BU hard fork to occur.  Can anybody explain that quotation in more relevant English for me?  Are they saying that there will never be 2 competing Bitcoins?  Do you think we will have any warning at all before the BU fork happens, or they will launch it suddenly as a surprise some time?  I am afraid this surprise can suddenly come tomorrow, every time I go to bed!

Possible, but unlikely. Bitcoin is permissionless. Trying to make all miners adhere to a single plan is akin to herding cats. That said...

The most widely discussed plan os to achieve >= 75% of solved blocks, hold that until the next difficulty retargeting (0-2 weeks), hold it for an entire difficulty retargeting, then start building blocks larger than 1MB (soft cap at 2MB seems to have some support).

Again, it is possible that some miner jumps the gun. However, he is likely to find his blocks orphaned no only by the stragglers, but also by BU miners that are executing according to the new plan.

There is the possibility that a new plan emerges. I've not heard of such.

With this, the minority (legacy) fork will drop from being capped at ~250,000 tx/day to about 62,500 tx/day, leading to a near-stall. If more miners defect to BU at that point (which would be in their financial interest due to the slow rate), the minority fork may rapidly dwindle down to a hard core of the obstinate 1% true core believers. Which of course, will slow the minority fork even further. It may never make it to the next difficulty retargeting, when the rate could be (partially) adjusted. In no way would the retargeting occur before two months.

The BU fork (assuming 2MB soft cap) would be capable of processing ~250,000 tx/day * 2MB/1MB * 75% = ~375,000 tx/day (more if further defection) until the next difficulty retargeting - in about 20 days (less if further defection), where it would jump to ~500,000 tx/day (more if further defection).

The upshot is that the minority fork will be economically irrelevant. This will create market pressure to consider the majority fork 'The Real Bitcoin', and the minority fork 'that other bitcoin-like alt'.

Accordingly, it would not rip the network in half, more like 99%/1% -- if that.

The percent of hashing power will give them higher probability to mine faster, then hence gives a longer chain. However, even with 51%, they will not initiate the hardkfork as victory is not guaranteed- and will need a long time and lots of luck (probability again).

bitcoin is bigger than "pools have the power"
bitcoin is a symbiotic relationship between nodes and pools

non mining nodes are not just database backups. nodes provide a crucial security mechanism too. which ensures that a simple 51% attack wont cause control issues. and pools have a security mechanism that prevents node sybil attacks wont cause control issues.

thats the beauty of bitcoin.

anyone saying non-mining nodes are meaningless are only saying that because they want to get you to shut down your non-mining node so that it sways the protection of that symbiotic relationship.

pools can have 30000000000exahash and make every block(that pool makes) in a certain funky format very quick.
but if nodes are rejecting those blocks in 3 seconds. they just look for another block from another source that does meet the rules

pools can make new blocks every 4 seconds and build ontop of themselves all they like (within their own local server) but if the network is rejecting that pool. they just wait for the other pools and accept a block that meets node rules..

meaning merchants never see the 30000000000exahash blocks reward because that pool trying to spend its reward had its block rejcted 100 blocks ago.
that pool realises its wasted all its hashpower making 100 blocks that merchants are not seeing.. so the pool cant spend it. thus the 30000000000exahash pool has a choice

continue wasting time making literally orphans in the hope nodes download a new version to accept 30000000000exahash pools blocks.
or
go back to make blocks that do fit the node consensus rules so merchants see the block as normal and the pool can spend its rewards

with all that said.

if you stop reading the reddit FUD drama scripts. you will see that the implementations that are not blockstream endorsed DO NOT want to split the network

they were even offered to split the network many times and refused to take the offer.
they want to stay with a united diverse peer network.

the only group making threats of PoW changes, mandatory dictatorships with deadlines and threats. are the blockstream teams.

non blockstream endorsed implementations are just plodding along waiting for consensus. REAL consensus (node and pool)

the real funny part is. the blockstreamists cry that network splits are bad, but under the same breath are begging non blockstreamist to F**k off.
its all empty drama

Meanwhile with all the infighting, natural evolution to the blockchain in the form of NEM, ETH, and others are maturing. The market will decide which tech is the best in time.

This is one of the main reasons why I am still running a full node. Although I can't keep the node online at all time, I still try to keep at least 6-8 hours online during weekdays.

I think so far the two side still have one thing in common - no one wants to split bitcoin into two.

No, it wont, becouse BU is a shit

and you think core is perfect?
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3ABug

do you even know who has the puppet strings of core
puppeteer-blockstream (https://blockstream.com/team/)
puppet master - DCG (http://dcg.co/portfolio/)

follow the puppet strings
coinbase - litecoin - charlie lee - bobby lee - bitcoin - btcc
   \                                                                      /
        \       core- blockstream - elements:segwit     /
             \                      |                            /
                    digital currency group portfolio

read all the announcements of the 'economic' support of segwit at a closed door agreement session.
guess who's meeting that was  (hint check DCG)

check out who is organising the main "consensus" conferences
coinDESK - DCG - 'consensus roundtable meeting (http://www.coindesk.com/events/consensus-2017/register/)

from what i have been reading lately from around the web, the greater community wants segwit, which seems to be a success on every alt coin it has been applied to. cant see why any miners would want to risk splitting bitcoin and causing a crash when we have record highs in value, volume and fees. the only logical thing for miners to do is follow the money with segwit.

"success"
its not even actually fully functional yet.
segwit is about keypair utility.. not just "activation"

please read things NOT found on reddit/twitter. meaning: look for proper research material

its like reddit is saying, 'lite coin is a teenager that is sexually active'..
by that it means still a virgin but is actively ready to grab a breast at some point.

This made me really laughing hard. Also the fact that we know he could be hiding behind a fake account made by a long time member of Bitcointalk makes it more funny.

It might be true though. There was another case of crashing nodes for BU I believe.

Lies spread by the BTC Core Troll Army ,

None of the alts that activated shitwit are even using it for LN yet.
What is funny is not one of those alts need shitwit, they all have plenty of transaction capacity to spare,
in fact, there ONCHAIN transactions are so fast and cheap , LN will probably never used them.

Shitwit/LN will decrease the transaction fee Profits for the miners , they are a few years from the block halving, so transaction fees or the amount of transaction fees included per block will have to increase dramatically for them to make the same amount of money.

BTC Core can lie all they want , Chinese Miners are not stupid enough to believe Core Lies.


 8)

No, it can't rip Bitcoin. It will be another alt RogerCoin

NEW BITCOIN UNLIMITED WILL BE NEW ALTCOIN ? OR OLD BITCOIN WILL BE BITCOIN CLASSIC LIKE ETHEREUM AND ETHEREUM CLASSIC, ZCASH AND ZCASH CLASSIC ?  ??? ???

okay, thank you for your replies.  It seems that Bitcoin wont' suddenly rip in half overnight.

But wait!  ...Ethereum did...suddenly there were 2 seriously competing versions of Ethereum.

So what's the difference? that means ETH suddenly split in half but Bitcoin won't do the same?  Is Ethereum not supposed to have a sort of clever consensus system also?  

Ethereum has a leader that everyone follows and a smaller userbase most of whom had a serious problem that the ETH rollback would solve.

Bitcoin's far more diverse and there's a lot more riding on it maintaining its integrity.

I have seen almost no one other than the tiny group hawking it state that they want Unlimited. If it did happen then it would be a sad demonstration of Bitcoin's centralisation and I'd be walking away. No doubt many others would too.

is BU a hardfork or not?

I guess bitcoin unlimited will not win in the battle of the blocksize. Just recently many nodes of bitcoin unlimited had crashed since BU code contains many bugs and always ending up in error. I am not against BU but this time around a hardfork is not yet needed but possibly in the future when bitcoin network is ready a safe hardfork may be accepted.

I don't think that the hard fork of BU or Bitcoin Unlimited will rip the network in half because we can see that there is not much user of the that coin and a lot of people still use bitcoin and there is no chance for BU to cut the network in half because the supporters of bitcoin are too big and strong to be defeated.

ethereums split was not "sudden" it was intentional..
(avoid reddit/twitter as a research source as thats just propaganda.. try looking for real sources (hint: "--oppose-dao-fork" may help you weed through the fake fud)
its what has been called a bilateral split.. again it was intentional, via avoiding the consensus security mechanisms and literally banning nodes of opposition to make an altcoin INTENTIONALLY

ok if your a core devotee.. here is your lord and masters own words explaining both ethereums intentional split AND showing that those who are not blockstream endorsed do not want a split in bitcoin.. while also revealing that cores CTO reall wants the split (3birds one stone)


by the way.
a hardfork is not by default a bilateral split. by default with high consensus, only a small minority simply dont sync and instead see lots of orphans and end up turning off their node and joining the network by upgrading to the new rules.

by default with moderate consensus, a more moderate amount simply dont sync and instead see lots of orphans and end up turning off their node and joining the network by upgrading to the new rules

but there then becomes a possibility that the opposition can add code to literally ban communications with opposing nodes and make their own altcoin.
the surprising things is that even going soft there becomes a possibility that the opposition can add code to literally ban communications with opposing nodes and make their own altcoin.

Pools and nodes are the same, all the nodes are operating by pools and miners, if you are not a miner there is no reason for you to be running nodes, if you are not a miner and are running nodes then you can't do anything because miners/pools will be the ones running the majority of nodes all the times.

Of course if a pool with having the minority numbers of nodes tries to change the code then the majority controlling the nodes will block it but if a miner/pool wants to change the protocol they will first make sure to have the majority of nodes themselves.

Let's assume I am not a miner but running 200,000 full nodes I can only make miners work more difficult if they try to change something and my nodes refuse them, they'll have to out number my nodes to be able to change the code and their nodes accepts it as valid.

But why would I be running 200,000 nodes? I don't have any incentive and unlike miners/pools I can't afford to run nodes.

by suggesting people should stop running nodes is the cheapest way to get pools more control.. because telling non-mining nodes to shut down CREATES this situation

however by non-mining nodes continuing to run their nodes causes

---

non-mining and mining nodes have a symbiotic relationship

---

you dont need to run 200,000 nodes.. its much easier to get 200,000 merchants/people to run 1 node each.

or more realistically if there are 20~ pool nodes.. have over 6000 non mining nodes

This has never been true.

Non-mining 'nodes' were never expected to secure the network. There is nothing in the original white paper or code to indicate that. The reason for downloading the full blockchain is so you can check it yourself and not have to trust a third party as to what the chain is.

They were NEVER intended to decide the protocol. Only MINERS that create blocks have any authority over protocol in a PoW system - period.

If people don't like that - use PPC...or Visa

ill repeat your own words
and again

pools can collate the data in any way they like.. but its the NODE NETWORK and consensus, (unity of everyone)
that decides what is acceptable.

if nodes reject blocks, that pool cannot spend the reward in that block 16 hours later, because that block is trashed..
yea that block may exist in that pools list.. but not in the list of merchants and users who will have a different list, which due to the consensus/orphan mechanism ensures a united single chain of good rule following blocks.

a pool can make THOUSANDS of blocks and store them locally on their own system and build on them on thir own system, but if nodes are rejecting them then its just wasting the pools times making something only itself can see that no one else holds and as such that pool cannot spend.

pools learn very quickly unless there is little to no risk of rejection/orphaning, they wont change the rules.

even if pools are told they have been given the vote power. pools still watch the node network to see the risks of making a block
they can wave their ass/hat/flag all they like about preference. but they wont actually make a funky block unless the orphan risk was negligible

EG
even with the 1mb rule, pools in 2009 preferred to only make blocks under 250kb because of many factors, in 2013 there was a big event that caused pools to not want to make blocks over 500kb

pools wont do things if nodes are going to have trouble with the change.

EG
imagine you work in a factory making them yellow plastic bathroom ducks.. you decide "hmm today im gonna make green ducks"
you spend all day making thousands of green ducks, knowing you fellow employee's are making yellow ducks. and when you show your end of day produce, non of your bosses or the companies customers want green ducks. so you have just been told yo didnt meet your quata, you wont get paid.
you soon learn its far easier to just make yellow ducks

Not sure if we're disagreeing or just using different words.

My point is that if you're not mining, you have no say in generating consensus rules. If you don't match the chain, your only option without mining is to sell off and use a different coin (What many did with LTC yesterday). As far as affecting protocol with economic decisions like that, anyone who holds has that power.

If BU miners broke off today, and the minority chain was forced to mine BU or die, the non-mining 'nodes' would be forced to upgrade to use the network, and have no option to force code on the miners. Sure, the 'node' wouldn't accept the larger blocks, but that wouldn't force the network's hand, it would force them to upgrade their node to follow the BU chain.

If ASIC centralization is a deal-breaker for you, then you need to forget about bitcoin and switch to a coin that uses an asic-resistant algo.

you DO have a say
nodes are consensus.

read my examples i added
you as a non manufacturer only want yellow ducks, will refuse to accept green ducks. thus any manufacturer making green ducks is wasting its time.
yes it may have factories sky high filled with green ducks but if all the bathroom merchants and customers only want to buy yellow ducks.. the factory worker making green ducks is wasting its time.

its then the factory worker(pool) who then has to either make yellow ducks and get paid like everyone else. or.. resign and make his own factory and try and get some customers to buy his green ducks in a separate new market(altcoin).

All they will have is an useless coin with a higher hashrate. Meanwhile 75% of exchanges and merchants will reject BUcoin.

The poll done by 21 suggest that around 75% of big players in the space want segwit and the  70.5% reject Buggy Unlimited explicitly:


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

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

Not to mention nobody buy Roger Ver runs nodes.

So it's pretty obvious BU is in general a failure.

I'm curious how this would be possible. How much collusion between mining entities would be required? Has someone done some peer reviewed research on this?

Well yeah, same reason why one person doesn't seed on the pirate bay a million times just to make sure that all the data about a film someone receives is from them.

There's two key fallacies about nodes though:

1.  It's really hard to run a full node (it's not yet, as long as you have a decent computer and decent Internet).

2.  One person is irrelevant overall to nodes.

Obviously 200,000 is a network of individuals all contributing.  If anyone told themselves they didn't matter, nearly no one would be running nodes at all.

that is not the reason, the reason is that exchange will view bu as an altcoin, which is a good think, because it allow core to remain the primal fork, if miners want BU they will make an altcoin, perhaps we end up like with ETH and ETC, both with different value

Let's not turn this into another blocksize debate.

Thank you for all answers.  I had been keeping all my BTC on paper wallets because I wanted the option to import them and own both the
BTC and BUcoin in the event of a sudden network fork & split.  My reasoning was along similar lines to having both ETH and ETC when Ethereum split.

I have a perfectly good Trezor which I'd rather use than paper wallets, but I was afraid to have my BTC on the Trezor because then I would only get the currency which Trezor follows (like only having ETH when Ethereum split).

Bitcoin is PoW system, hash power is the law.  But hostile takeover over bitcoin's network won't end well. It is no longer emergency rollback fork like ETH did.
It is forcing your will against community and minority of miners. It will be a disaster. It is stupid. They know it, we know it. It will crash BTC price and ruin BTC trust.

But Sundark, the way these guys are explaining it is that BU can't really fork now and cause a chaos scenario, they can only do it if the economy all comes to agree with BU first and by that point it's all cool with everyone anyways.  So no competing coins really.  At least that's my understanding (?).

Core is not perfect, but BU is just sad. Might as well stand for Bugs Unlimited.

If franky1 is not around (impossible because he lives on the forums) then jonald will spam the usual anti-segwit bullshit.

Sorry, facts are clear: Nobody in the industry supports Buggy Unlimited. It's game over, finished.

If you want bigger blocks, start thinking about a new name for your new bitcoin takeover attempt.

I don't know why people still fall into so much FUD. Take a look at the BU bitfinex token, the price has dropped considerably, and the volume is really low. In addition to the fact that the hype has declined, it seems that people in the market are not willing to take the risk of investing into it.

Bitcoin is PoW (Proof of Work), not PoSP (Proof of Sybil Poll)

Indeed, and bitcoin also needs users. 99% of people run Core software, nobody trusts Buggy Unlimited. This is why they just don't fork already and compete against bitcoin as an altcoin, because they know nobody would give a fuck. So they are trying to overtake bitcoin instead of fairly competing. If their solution was so good, then it would surpass BTC, but their solution is a joke, that's why they don't do it.
No matter how much hashrate a couple chinese idiots have, it's useless if there are no users and no good devs. Miners are easily replaceable, devs aren't, and people, merchants, and everyone else, will follow the devs, not the hashrate. There will be new miners to take the lead away from Jihad if he keeps mining his meme coin.

Same here, though my non-mining full node has been up 24/7 for over 3 years now.  ;D

Looking into setting up a BU node...

Is that because you want to move from the stability of a node that runs 24/7 for 3 years to one that crashes on a weekly basis because that's more fun?

maybe running core was boring :) he needs some action.
BU won't fork i they to scary to have fail at start and compotation.
I don't think that anyone would give them any bigger money.

For BTC would be idead to break into 2 and Unimited would broke in half way , that would be so hilarious :D

Would it not take more time to develop and test before it can be deployed? Give Segwit more time on Litecoin and let us see what happens. If it is good then maybe Bitcoin can activate it if no then at least we know.



Yes. It is more to hype Litecoin and maybe test the technology for Bitcoin. The outcome could be good.


Then they should hard fork it immediately away from Core to Bitcoin Unlimited. What are they waiting for?

Well, that's just a plain lie:

http://nodecounter.com/#nodes_pie_graph (http://nodecounter.com/#nodes_pie_graph)

That took about 30 seconds to look up. Core has dropped to around 86%. They basically had a kind of 'first-mover' advantage with the perception of being the"official" client. Now they're losing share because of their own actions, ironically.

Those facts aside, anyone who understands how and why Bitcoin works understands that this 'node' count (they're not actually nodes) is entirely irrelevant, anyway.

also worth noting that the 86% includes versions of core 0.8 - 0.12 which are not even segwit compatible.
infact many are INDEPENDENT people that forked the core, and made their own tweaks and updates themselves and not bothered sticking with core.
some are even classic/BU/XT nodes in disguise to avoid DDoS attacks from the core gang who only attack user agents that appear not to be core.


also worth noting segwit is IMPLICITLY at 66% and EXPLICITLY well BELOW 66%

also worth noting and even funnier is that BTCC (highly ass kissing core/blockstream/segwit) doesnt even use cores upto date software, they done their own tweaks to their own pool software
https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/?q=BTCC:0.13.1

Can I add : with closed source update ?

No, you may not. Code for all releases is publicly available.

can i add that even core dont disclose issues for atleast a month after fix
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10364

~65% would be my guess,   :D :D :D


 8)

"%99" is just a saying. In any case, "everyone" runs Core, the rest of software is marginal and anecdotal. Those pushing to hard fork into a network were nobody trusts the software is a total joke and a disaster. Fork into your own altcoin instead of trying to steal the BTC token which is all they care about.

Buggy Unlimited is a mirage, it's literally dead and the mirage is only sustained by the nonsense of thinking the centralized haspower of some chink is of bigger importance than full validating nodes + exchanges + merchants + bitfinex futures indicating BUG will get dumped and so on.

If Buggy Unlimited was so good they would fork and compete as an altcoin but they know they know nobody would give a fuck.

Possibly... Bring back the days when I was switching from CPU mining to GPU mining and things crashed from time to time and you had to do a headscratcher to figure out why.  ;D

Need to look into this BU thingy for myself before I make any opinion on it, and tinkering with it is the best way to start. I didn't say that the Bitcoin full node is going off-line - they can live on different machines.

That would be really sad to see politics destroy what we all have built over the last several years. A new mechanism needs to be put into place to ) fix this so (inability to reach a decision) in the future so we never see a repeat of it.

Its issue like this that keep the sec from approving ETF's. If the issue never came up bitcoin would probably already be $5000.

You can all argue all you want for Bitcoin Unlimited. Everyone including the supporters of BU themselves know that the code and engineering the BU developers are creating is subpar. As a community we have a responsibility to tell everyone this fact. It would be a big mistake to trust those developers at BU.

Yep, its dead in the water

No it wouldn't. Why everyone thinks that jumping to BU would be like a disaster for bitcoin? BU has a strong developers team and their idea to increase the block size limit is really logical, just look at the fees right now, who would use bitcoins daily right now when you have to pay a massive fee of nearly one dollar or even more to just send over a few cents over the network? For me it just sounds ridiculous that's why I'm for BU, I'm fed up with all that core crap we need a big change here and now. Also segwit would be a huge loss for the miners which would mean that less and less people would be mining, thus bitcoin would become less decentralized.

I'm not here to argue with an obvious troll post, but just to demonstrate for others here: What is your proof or reasoning that BU developers are subpar to Core dev Matt Corallo, who's basically just out of high school?

lol yes an (in)valid point. the measurement along a seniority sorority principle seems sorrowrongiglly off shot, sisters. age tells nothing about a programer except perhaps an affinity towards newer languages like Rust or Golang or Node.

I don't believe there will be a fork, I think one way or the other consensus will be reached. It will take a long time and it will be long overdue to fix the scaling issues experienced now but it will happen eventually.

Can some one please explain to me what difference does it make for me with 15BTC in my addresses if the network running on Core or other versions? isn't this all topics about miners and their revenue?
What happens if we go with BU and fees keep going up and with delayed conformations?

What happens if I try to transfer 1BTC from my address to someone else if I use a BU node? will I be able to send without fee or low fees like 120sat/b?

At least SW is providing a way to avoid spam attacks and keep coins safe, yes you will need to move your funds to new keys but what is BU doing about that? nothing they just keep crashing.

I just want to mention this, what ever happens other than hard fork without 95% consensus our coins are fine and there is no need for panic even with hard fork as long as we are not transferring we're fine even if we send transactions we'll be fine as nothing will happen to our coins.

As a bitcoin user that is most important part and concern the rest is just for miners and their rewards+fees.

Full nodes are just a form of wallet which uphold all the rules of the network.  It's hard to create a properly stable full node, as Satoshi pointed out in 2010, and the original version will usually be the most secure (for now). 

Your choice of node won't change the fees you have to pay because a hard fork hasn't happened yet.  Running a BU node would just be running an alternative implementation of the same network rules, which won't have been changed until BU has actually happened (if it does).

I dont think we have "a long time".  I think it might already be holding the price rise back.

No they do not have a strong development team and their plan to increase block size by giving it for the miners to decide has its trade offs. The miners should serve the network not control the network to some certain degree. 


Less and less miners? I would like to see some of the Chinese miners leave and see another more willing take their place.

If you can't see evidence of people getting frustrated, you're not paying attention. Core needs to remember: The customer is always right.

I dont think Core cares. That could be the problem.

Come on, the price is rising like crazy. Just this month it gained close to 500USD in 2 weeks. Do you expect it to go faster, or what?
The fork won't happen, BU hasn't got enough support and it doesn't seem to be changing. If there's any update coming it will be Segwit, not BU, but I doubt any of them will get enough support, because people love to disagree and quarrel. We'll be sitting on our good old block size and complaining this time next year, you'll see.

If bitcoin forked I believe every body would regret i for a very long time. Together we stand....

The customer is always right? Who is the customer here? The users, the node operators or the merchants? Maybe it is the miners who should remember that the customer is always right because they decide if we activate Segwit or hard fork to BU.

Plus your "customer is always right" analysis is wrong. Core is not running a shop here. They are developing the Bitcoin network. Why should they listen to you. You can speak up by running a node.