|
Title: BitcoinABC is Satoshi's bitcoin that we signed up for....not this segwit2x crap Post by: 25hashcoin on July 17, 2017, 05:58:40 PM http://www.bitcoinabc.org
Let's finally scale bitcoin truly and take this baby to $100k a coin and worldwide adoption. Segwit2x is proven garbage that will keep stifling Bitcoins growth. https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-fork-too-far-87d6e57a4179 Segwit coins are not bitcoin: https://youtu.be/VoFb3mcxluY Title: Re: BitcoinABC is Satoshi's bitcoin that we signed up for....not this segwit2x crap Post by: 25hashcoin on July 17, 2017, 06:47:01 PM I can't find much about BitcoinABC, but i think raising block size a lot could risk decentralization especially the block sizes adjusted through votes among miners and i totally disagree with "Miners can choose the size of the blocks they want to mine, with a default of 2 MB." since it could cause disaster if all miners choose minimum block size while there are many unconfirmed transcation. Just CMIIW since i can't find much info. If you really think BitcoinABC is the best/true solution, maybe you should give link to article which can explain more about BitcoinABC rather than say SegWit is bad/unsafe/evil. Did you read the article in the original post? Also, you have been misled about blocksize increase causing centralization. Sounds like you need to read the Bitcoin Whitepaper https://www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf Title: Re: BitcoinABC is Satoshi's bitcoin that we signed up for....not this segwit2x crap Post by: franky1 on July 17, 2017, 07:34:02 PM i dont have issues with the EB
i dont have issues with dynamics i dont have issues with increasing block sigops... but what i do think needs to be sorted are: " maximum allowed size of a single transaction is 1,000,000 bytes (1MB) maximum allowed number of sigops for a single transaction is 20k . " this is seriously just leaving a window open for abuse reduce the bloat per tx reduce the sigops per tx Title: Re: BitcoinABC is Satoshi's bitcoin that we signed up for....not this segwit2x crap Post by: 25hashcoin on July 17, 2017, 08:24:23 PM Segwit coins are not bitcoin! https://youtu.be/VoFb3mcxluY
Title: Re: BitcoinABC is Satoshi's bitcoin that we signed up for....not this segwit2x crap Post by: Goms on July 17, 2017, 08:28:39 PM Don't worry, people will finally arrive at the conclusion that segwit coins are not Satoshi's btc by the time they have to pay through their nose for transaction fees.
Title: Re: BitcoinABC is Satoshi's bitcoin that we signed up for....not this segwit2x crap Post by: Iranus on July 17, 2017, 08:59:19 PM "Bitcoin XT is satoshi's bitcoin that we signed up for"
"Bitcoin Classic is satoshi's bitcoin that we signed up for" "Bitcoin Unlimited is satoshi's bitcoin that we signed up for" "Bitcoin ABC is satoshi's bitcoin that we signed up for" The last thing Bitcoin needs right now is even more proposals that only have small distinctions from the previous ones. More proposals = more FUD about division. If you're going to support larger blocks and/or a dynamic block size, why not stick with Bitcoin Unlimited, since you supported that anyway? Title: Re: BitcoinABC is Satoshi's bitcoin that we signed up for....not this segwit2x crap Post by: gentlemand on July 17, 2017, 09:06:29 PM "Bitcoin XT is satoshi's bitcoin that we signed up for" "Bitcoin Classic is satoshi's bitcoin that we signed up for" "Bitcoin Unlimited is satoshi's bitcoin that we signed up for" "Bitcoin ABC is satoshi's bitcoin that we signed up for" The last thing Bitcoin needs right now is even more proposals that only have small distinctions from the previous ones. More proposals = more FUD about division. If you're going to support larger blocks and/or a dynamic block size, why not stick with Bitcoin Unlimited, since you supported that anyway? Because each iteration turns out to be shittily put together joke. So they have to slink away and glue a new name on in the hope of attracting more saps. As Bitmain is introducing their new fork on August 1st we'll see what the market has to say. I think it might consist of two words. The first starts with an F and the seconds ends with two of them. Title: Re: BitcoinABC is Satoshi's bitcoin that we signed up for....not this segwit2x crap Post by: Iranus on July 17, 2017, 09:37:10 PM "Bitcoin XT is satoshi's bitcoin that we signed up for" "Bitcoin Classic is satoshi's bitcoin that we signed up for" "Bitcoin Unlimited is satoshi's bitcoin that we signed up for" "Bitcoin ABC is satoshi's bitcoin that we signed up for" The last thing Bitcoin needs right now is even more proposals that only have small distinctions from the previous ones. More proposals = more FUD about division. If you're going to support larger blocks and/or a dynamic block size, why not stick with Bitcoin Unlimited, since you supported that anyway? Because each iteration turns out to be shittily put together joke. So they have to slink away and glue a new name on in the hope of attracting more saps. Quote from: https://www.bitcoinabc.org/ A fork of the stable Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin ABC aims to build on this base with improved code quality. They only seem to have popped up in the last couple of weeks, and they're already claiming to create better code than Bitcoin Core?Title: Re: BitcoinABC is Satoshi's bitcoin that we signed up for....not this segwit2x crap Post by: jbreher on July 18, 2017, 12:10:19 AM If you're going to support larger blocks and/or a dynamic block size, why not stick with Bitcoin Unlimited, since you supported that anyway? Because each iteration turns out to be shittily put together joke. So they have to slink away and glue a new name on in the hope of attracting more saps. Meh. I'm still running BU. An older version from before the DDoS attacks even. Still fully protecting my non-insignificant nest egg. Title: Re: BitcoinABC is Satoshi's bitcoin that we signed up for....not this segwit2x crap Post by: Mark537 on July 18, 2017, 12:21:57 AM Another useless thread with another useless Bitcoin proposal.
Title: Re: BitcoinABC is Satoshi's bitcoin that we signed up for....not this segwit2x crap Post by: jonald_fyookball on July 18, 2017, 12:57:44 AM If you're going to support larger blocks and/or a dynamic block size, why not stick with Bitcoin Unlimited, since you supported that anyway? Because each iteration turns out to be shittily put together joke. So they have to slink away and glue a new name on in the hope of attracting more saps. Meh. I'm still running BU. An older version from before the DDoS attacks even. Still fully protecting my non-insignificant nest egg. I am told that both the next scheduled release of BU and ABC will be compatible with the UAHF. The official name of the big block chain is Bitcoin Cash. |