Bitcoin Forum

Hearing some news on soft fork/hard fork and Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Unlimited, but is Bitcoin Unlimited being traded right now? 

What is the status on the soft fork?  Has it been implementing yet?  If not yet, what is the expected launching schedule?

BG

Not yet happened and no fixed date ... it will occur once the miners finds a consensus.

There is actually public voting in progress. Miners can signalize which fork they prefer and once a majority signalize one of the options within certain timeframe then the given fork will lock in.
(not sure about exact details, it's something like 70% of last 2000 blocks must signalize the fork before it happen) 

You can check the current status at https://coin.dance/blocks

Thank you for your answer. 

I see emergent consensus as top one.  Do you have detail on that? 

Also, is the "extented block" the bitcoin Unlimited's solution?

And is the lightning network playing a role on any of those proposals?

the voting proces is easy...
Each pool decide wich fork they prefer...
each miner, according to his preference, mine in the pool who choose the same fork preference.

But which party does the "emergent consensus" stand for?  And how about for the "extension block"?

No. There is no Bitcoin altcoins of split.
There is only one pure and only chain of Bitcoin.

For now, we will see how Segwit will be introduced.

Don't even mention Bitcoin Unlimited, LOL

Yes there is no split yet and no BTU coins. And hope it stays that way.

For sure, to introduce a blockchain fork it 's really risky.
And until now, I think it's better to continue with this bitcoin chain until the ideas are more clear!

That's Bitcoin Unlimited. Due to the massive incompetence of the BU developers and frequent failures in their software, they have started renaming the listing from BU to emergent consensus (e.g. on coin.dance).

That's a separate, and inferior proposal to Segwit.

The cancer of the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Not necessarily. Plenty of coins are forked as far as the code is concerned. You could fork Bitcoin right now, with existing balances and nothing will happen as it isn't a controversial split. There are scenarios in which a split can be very damaging though (e.g. no replay protection).

I just learned from you guys that Segwit can only expand twice the blocks.  That is definitely not enough.  Hope we can find a better solution.   Imagine if someone with a deep packet lanuched an attack on the blockchain by making 1M transactions with 1 satoshi each, it would probably put the whole blockchain on hold.  Assuming each of the transactions fee is $2, that is only $2M + a bitcoin, but enough to take down the whole system.

Segwit does not expand anything, but changes the calculation of the block size by adding a weight parameter. 2 MB worth of transactions being "not enough" is a claim backed up by vapor.

There is no better solution. Increasing the block size limit != solution.

The blockchain would not be on hold. It would function as designed.

Nope. You would not take down anything with this attempt. Good luck burning millions and accomplishing nothing but a little temporary congestion. ::)

1. lauda has no clue, he is just a mouthpiece of blockstream

2. his rebuttle ends up with waffle that he usually ends up saying 2 words  "nonsensical" and "ad-hominem"

3. dynamics has always been much wider than just BU. its not bu rebranding to emergent consenusus.. its actually coin.dance realising that there is more to it than just BU

4. UASF and segwit has more lines of code that will kill off more full nodes and pools than any other bip/implementation/brand. making UASF the main cancer

5. right now the DCG cartel are making 4 segwit  debates to confuse the community to hope it convinces the community that the only way is segwit.
much like if hilary was being elected at same time as trump. hilary would also get bill clinton on the ballot paper and then get another listing where its a dual hilary and trump presidency and a hilary in trousers and hilary in skirt ballot... all in an effort to try diluting trump supporters, and get the media only talking about the many hilary options which in the end have the same crapy cludgy manifesto

its all just distractions

my take is that DCG got fed up with blockstream and forced the compromise..maybe bitcoin still gets SW but it also gets HF and upgrade not authored by Core. 

untill i see code that includes an activation date of 2mb... its all just drama
remember its the same 2mb +segwit that was proposed in late 2015 roundtable..
then again at spring 2016 roundtable

pretty much every round table its the same thing...

Whines about ad-hominem, but uses ad-hominem in his first point whilst making a baseless claim. ::)

Pretty much everything that you've ever posted was debunked in one way or another.

Nonsense. Emergent consensus has nothing to do with the "previous dynamic", and is a cancerous proposal which aims to radically change the security of Bitcoin.

UASF and Segwit are two completely independent things. Segwit kills off nothing because it's backwards compatible.

Good to know.   :D

Inaccurate to the point of misleading.

The initiative is emergent consensus. BU is just one tool which implements this initiative. Specifically, BU reduces the friction of its users from advertising their preferences with respect to consensus parameters.

The upshot is that there is no 'BU Coin'. BU is Bitcoin, pure and simple.

And indeed, Emergent Consensus holds the plurality of mining support of any known such initiative for scaling. And mining is the only measure that is not subject to near-zero-cost sybil attack.

All will be traded as it has happened this last time, but it all needs a voting sound to be done. Every miner, according to his choice, I am in a pool that selects the same fork preference.

What you describe is viable if you have billions to burn, but all you are doing is pay more to be in front of the queue.  If you are paying $2 fees, someone can easily just pay $3 and get in front of all of your transactions. Note: These *absolute fee measurements* can only be used for transactions of the same size.

No, stop denying reality.

The BU implementation is a clear manifestation of cancer, and the emergent consensus proposal is radical on its own. It is very clear that the renaming started right after the name BU lots a lot of *respect* (arguably it had none to begin with) due to their own negligence and incompetence.

The day that you fork, is the day that you become BU coin. In other words, BU will diverge into an altcoin. For now, it is not an altcoin, correct.

Useless measure if you buy out the main ASIC producer, who just happens to be running a pool as well which incentivizes even more corruption. ::)

Cancer is a manifestation of biological pathology. The nexus between biology and cryptocurrency is the null set. The reader can make their own judgement about the veracity of the information coming from a person who would claim that some thing is some other thing, when it so clearly is not.

The real cancer are the core developers, whom obstinately refused to listen to the bitcoin community and increase the blocksize. This has been going on for over 2 years. Their obsession with segwit when the community and miners are divided shows how pathetic these developers are. They do not own Bitcoin. They can add 'Core' calling it 'Bitcoin Core', but they still do not own Bitcoin. Their arrogance, pride and ego knows no boundaries.

Question, is Bitcoin Unlimited still a thing? What chance do you guys assign to that or any HF this year?

https://coin.dance/blocks seems to have them with as many blocks as ever. why are they still bothering if its a dead effort? #confused

Are there any parties that want to trade Bitcoin Unlimited, and what about "extension block"!