Bitcoin Forum

We already know that Bitcoin Exchanges won't allow BU to usurp the throne and will treat it as an altcoin.
Maybe it is time to stop supporting Bitcoin Unlimited and/or set real consensus conditions for BU to take over.

Please watch this video and share your comments below: Bitcoin Unlimited Won't Ever Be The "Bitcoin", Exchanges Vow / MelonPort on Kraken / Much More! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHBHP3-Chx0)

Almost everyone on the forums knows that and don't support BU however, sadly, It's not up to the community to decide and even If the exchanges took their decision on listing BU as Altcoin, we still see miners supporting it and that's what counts for the moment.

No, it's a game of "chicken", a battle of wills.

Miners are trying to frighten regular users into switching, and that is all they can do. If no-one uses their hard-forked blockchain after the fork, they have nothing but wasted block solutions for a currency no-one is using.

Ultimately, the users actually hold the balance of power.

It is already an old news for the community and everybody here knows about this. If miners continue to support BTU we may see price of BTU over 1 BTC even as an altcoin. However i don't think BTU will gain that much value even after hard fork, core team may win this battle. 

how can miners sell their coins if they are only accepting it as altcoin without real value or that need to have new value? for them would be like mining a sha256 altcoin, that has without any doubt a worst value than bitcoin which make it less profitable, and for now only antpool is pro bitcoin unlimited all the other are not supporting it hopefully

The opinion of centralized exchanges matters little.

Hashpower matters.

True, but it also matters what investors do on the exchanges.

Exchanges can call it whatever they want -- but the market will vote accordingly on which asset is more valuable.

Personally, I think a coin that offers clear scaling now and that a majority of hash power supports is
the no-brainer, but if you disagree, you can put your money where your mouth is  :D  ...or just
play it safe and let the market duke it out.

It's unfortunate but without these centralized exchanges functionality of bitcoin is very limited. 
We can argue that bitcoin can be traded in p2p environment or used directly to purchase goods.
But realistically how big is volume of p2p bitcoin trading compared to centralized exchange volume?
Users vote with their money and so far they choose (or are doomed to use, depend on how you view it) centralized exchanges.

Please do remind me where you plan on dumping those newly mined, worthless, altcoins called BTU coins? ::)

This is not the subject of this thread.

I think that *some* of these *people* (excluding state & corporate sponsored actors supporting BU) are so deeply entrenched in their false belief that nothing can make them change their mind.

I strongly disagree and wish them to fork Bitcoin asap

They should certainly feel the pain. They wanted to compete with Bitcoin? Okay, no problem with that, there are a dozen of worthy altcoins which BU should first deal with. Just because it would share the bulk of blockchain with Bitcoin won't automatically make it the next Bitcoin. As to me, the main issue with BU is that they are not really going to fork Bitcoin, especially now when exchanges openly denounced it. Forking Bitcoin today will put an end to all this endless cheerleading and quickly decide on the matter who's got real stuff behind their claims and who is just loud mouths. Release the Kraken

So in your mind, the one true Bitcoin is not the one with the most hashpower, but the one from the Core team?

You must have missed my thread about this issue in the Economics section

I strongly advise you to read it. My point is certainly beyond this seeming dilemma. Hash or horse power is irrelevant in this case. What's the purpose of all that might and power if ordinary users won't be interested in this new Bitcoin? That's what ultimately matters, and exchanges know that better than anyone else. Even if all mining pools leave and switch to new Bitcoin while Bitcoin users remain reluctant to this "Bitcoin", that will just mean time, effort and money down the drain on the miners' part. Miners certainly think themselves as indispensable or impossible to replace (or make it look so), but this is obviously not the case. Someone else will come and mine the old "genuine" bitcoins instead of them, so good riddance to these rogue miners. Though, I'm afraid, that they are not really going anywhere from Bitcoin

Hi folks can someone tell me when this fucking fork will start ?

And me :)

I agree its not just hashpower but economic power as the miners must have someone to sell to.

Exchanges giving ticker symbol BTC to 1mb is bad for BU but i don't think it will stop the exodus.

There's no date. It can happen or not, right now BU is:
1. Bugged and not ready to take over even if it were supported by the majority
2. Not supported by the majority

Now this can change in the matter of weeks or months or it may never... I personally think it should happen, but when the upgraded version is 100% safe and stable and it doesn't have to be the version pushed by Ver and his colleagues.

Just in case, I'm all in, as I said above

The problem is that the mining pools which are allegedly supporting the BU project have too much at stake and got too much to lose if this project is set to fail. Basically, they will lose all, and their place will get taken immediately. This is a great divide for them, a tipping point of sort. Obviously, they won't be able to sit on two chairs, it is either here or there. Personally, given the hefty profits they are earning right now with Bitcoin, I don't see any rational reason behind switching to something which has been openly declared as failure by folks which do matter in the grand scheme of things in the Bitcoin world (I refer to exchanges)

Ok great man thx for all that info.

I have found good comments posting
Anyone know that BU is a joke and this the main reason that no one take it serious.
Even with support of the biggest miner no one can fork the network with this code.
The real problem and the root of this recent drama is the Lighting Network and miners fee market.
It is very clear now that miners or the most part of them afraid that if segwit activated they will lost their fee "launch". And ofcourse Lighting Network cant work proper without segwit.
The best solution for miners is BU because they can agree from time to time for the block size of network and always protect their fee market.
Unfortunately for them there is a serious problem in Bitcoin Unlimited and this is the main reason no one take them very serious.
The problem is that the code is completely broken full of flaws and it came from unskilled and non tech developer team.
The only solution for Bitcoin drama is all parts of bitcoin ecosystem miners, exchanges, startups, users to come together and find a win-win solution based on everyone economical interest.
Everyone must not forget that is very easy to Destroy something than to Built it.

BU has serious bugs,thay are not able to fix it
It all fraud btcchina is on the way

The last critical bug that caused nodes to go offline was fixed in about an hour.

You mean, after it was been present for weeks/months? ::)

What about trojans what has been found in BU China,whatever me and my frends greatcdev,we are on the way to dvelop BTC super,super,we will than make fork,and release btcsupersuper
Money like silance so we dont want to make noise,you will see will be great ,stay tuned

Exchanges will go with whatever is chosen if BU end ups winning and being accepted by the community then it will become bitcoin whether some don't agree with that and the exchanges will have to accept it too.

OP references a video of a guy living in a trailer..yep he must be well connected..


secondly OP and the video guy have not really understood bitcoin, the concepts or even the exchanges announcement

here is a subtle hint
"in the event of a contentious"

the announcement did not say
in the event of consensus

the announcement did not say
in the event of any split

just in the event of a contentious split..
oh and by the way, even places like bitfinex have been more refined with the announcement
if core lose majority. their alt is BCC
if non core lose majority their alt is BCU
devil is in the details of the announcement... "contentious"
https://twitter.com/bitfinex/status/843226656940679170
https://i.imgur.com/XNerMzk.png

they've been franked again!   

The bug caused a crash to the BU network making a drop to 32% support from the miners. Same time the nodes fell from 781 towards 490 which has been recorded as the lowest since October 2016. Now it has regained and reached 690 nodes. I believe now too developers might be with plans to crash if it evolves as a threat getting listed as BTU on exchanges.

It's really up to the miners to decide not community itself we're all just spectators in this war and BU had still gained 40% support even after the BU nodes crashing down in the recent attack i thought BU is finish but then again miners started supporting them again.
Let's just wait see how this all go's and hopefully it will benefit us all.

Ultimately, it is not up to miners to decide on the fate of Bitcoin

You should understand if all today's miners decide to mine the new Bitcoin but users choose to stay with the old one, miners can do nothing. And all their hashing power will be totally irrelevant and inconsequential. Hashing power decides how many miners can actually mine bitcoins but the monopolization of mining (which is where hashing power rules) works against miners in this case since they are no longer representing the community. If half of a dozen miners that are mining 99% of bitcoins today are gone, half of a hundred miners will immediately jump in and substitute for them. And what the gone miners will be doing with all their hashing power and their multimillion dollar hardware?

Yep, most of the bitcoin and altcoin exchanges including Poloniex, Bittrex, Bitfinex and the like are making a public statement saying that Bitcoin Unlimited will be listed as an altcoin on the exchange instead of BTC itself.

Bitcoin core will remain to be the "BTC" on exchanges which you deposit and withdraw with.

If there was to be a fork with two coins in the end, then bitcoin's value will probably drop dramatically.

BTU + BTC would be the price that bitcoin is supposed to be at at any given moment, just like what happened with ETH and ETC.

The video is really nice, at least someone is taking a stand against Bitcoin unlimited. I wish the community would unite and make the miners hear their voices, but. Sadly we are a divided lot and the miners are taking full advantage of our situation. I yet will say let's send a strong message to the miners. We could make a campaign on change. Org maybe that would help us. I would suggest the community to wake up and contribute as to how we can make the miners hear our voices.

I don't really see how this could possibly happen. Bitcoin EC (https://t.co/iLrozFrYZH) seems to make more sense right now.

It didn't, really. The reason for this is that in reality, miners are actually running Bitcoin Core. ::)

Almost all of the nodes were back up in <24 hours, which one might think is a good thing, but in reality it just raises more questions.

Correct. Some seem to have the false understanding that "hashrate == Bitcoin".

"What's in a name? Would not a rose, by any other name, smell as sweet?"

You can keep the name, we will keep the truth

This is an unlikely event

I don't actually know much about the exact circumstances of the ETH versus ETC showdown, but I think I can safely assume it is not the case there either. Really, the only chance that the Bitcoin price could theoretically be made up of the BTU and BTC prices (if there would be no split) is when people holding old Bitcoins sold them and bought exactly the same amount of new bitcoins (or didn't sell and buy anything at all as an edge case). Obviously, this won't be the case in real life because some people will just sell their bitcoins and switch to something else (to fiat or another coin), while other people may just add new bitcoins to their portfolio. And the chances that the prices would be perfectly balanced in the aforementioned way are even less than those of people selling and buying the same amounts of old and new bitcoins

Most exchanges favour bitcoin core.
They have stated as you said in their press announcements that their position on it is that if a hard fork happens and there ends up with "two different versions of bitcoins", then they will add BU as an altcoin whilst keeping bitcoin core as the main "BTC".
Most people still favour bitcoin core, but bitcoin unlimited is gaining traction + hashing power.

I wonder when the hard fork is going to happen, boy it's going to be damn interesting.

Kraken is under the same DCG portfolio as blockstream, so don't be surprised if their view point is biased.

Interesting, and a chance to win big or lose even bigger :D
I cannot say it doesnt worry me, I still didnt figure out what is best to do, to secure my investment in bitcoin.

Did you ever wonder how strange the whole shebang looks?

The BU project claims to make Bitcoin better, and it would be really bizarre if they claimed to the contrary. But somehow instead of thinking how you would personally profit from the development of this project and its activation in the nearest future, you actually come to think about how to secure your Bitcoin investments. What you may want to ask is what are the real intentions of the folks behind BU? Do they really want so much to make Bitcoin better or just want to stifle its current implementation even if that will hurt the majority of Bitcoin users? Are they mad or what?

If Bu forks bitcoin with hash power alone they can go for sure and sell their stash but when they see exchanges are not accepting their coin as btc it would be too late to switch to Core, so instead of being idiots and avoid your pools to lose at least 1000BTC a day just switch to Core and let us to continue as one strong chain because no matter if BU forks or not SW will be activated regardless :D

I cant call myself bitcoin specialist, so I'll keep it simple, as simple I see it. So... With large enthusiasm I entered in bitcoin world, not to fool anyone, it was purely as a chance to make profit, as more I learned, I started to see other good things about it, but not relevant for this story.
At this point, my main concern is to keep my investment as it is now, not to make profit, but not to lose either. I think that says it all, I do believe that money makes you go crazy, and forget about other people interests. But I feel small enough, so I wont start blaiming and accusing BU, without any proof.

We want A) on-chain scaling and B) free of centralized development.

Are those "mad"?  And why would you doubt that's what we really want?

The fact that he is living in a trailer has nothing to do whether he might be credible.
Would it be more pleasing for you if he broadcasted from his house in Hollywood Hills?
This guy might be not technically skilled but you don't have to be on the level of G.Maxwell to express concerns about bitcoin's condition.

A)

No you don't, you want on-chain bloating, not scaling. If blocksize and tx/s increase 1:1, which they do, that's not scaling. Real scaling increases transaction rate with the same amount of block space. Scaling means making transactions smaller, not the blocks bigger.

Or are you trying to make up your own definition for the word "scaling", like you do with other words that get in your way?

B)

All you want is to replace one centralised team with another.

It's not possible to have contradicting ideas existing in the same concept, that makes zero sense, lol.

Either someone's in charge or no-one is, if that's communism to you, you came to the wrong place

The road to hell is is paved with good intentions

And this is not a trite metaphor which lost its meaning. If your intentions are good as you claim, why people are complaining en masse then? Whatever you say is irrelevant if folks lose money in the end thanks to your "goodwill". In other words, they will make more harm than good. On purely technical grounds, I don't see how on-chain scaling can be good in the long run. This doesn't fix the issue, this only postpones it somewhat. That would make sense if there were no viable alternative as of now, but there already are a few such (though in the latter case miners may eventually become completely inconsequential)

I disagree with the OP. These exchanges are profiteering ventures. They will go wherever the market brings them. If bitcoin unlimited gets to see the light of day then most likely these exchanges will be the sun that will support the growth of bitcoin unlimited. Exactly because of the fact they follow the trend where they will make more money.

let the market decide what is the right blend of on-chain and off-chain, not Adam Back and Greg Maxwell.

And what's wrong with that?

I don't see any reason why they should support headlong something which could potentially incur heavy losses to them. If BU gains traction, exchanges will certainly accept it. In fact, they didn't reject it in the first place, they just rejected it as the legit successor to Bitcoin and, as to me, this is a perfectly legitimate decision on their part since there is no reason either to consider it as such successor altogether. On the other hand, are today's miners not profiteering vultures? If anything, exchanges are not trying to sell a pig in a poke to anyone after all

As I said it already, no problem with that

Let's bring it on after all and let the market decide whether there is something behind this hard fork or it is no more than just empty talk. But are you certain that the dudes which are involved in this project (developers and miners alike) do really intend to go for it? Okay, some developers may be sincere (though even this is dubious), but why miners would want that? I mean that would be a huge risk for them since they would be risking their profits and their investments in Bitcoin mining, so they may of course pay lip-service to these developers but they might not be in fact going to actually switch to mining this new Bitcoin

life is not without risk.

Bigger risk is allowing capital to flow out of Bitcoin and into alts (already started happening) and Bitcoin dies.

You can't possibly claim that

By claiming that you either keep other folks for fools or not thoroughly weighing your own replies and checking them against reality yourself. Bitcoin price has been more or less consistently rising for over half a year by now. If not for the BU FUD now being raised to new heights Bitcoin would most certainly have continued its intrepid growth. Even the Chinese central bank couldn't stop it (it tried twice). Now your time to try to coherently explain how this is ever possible if capital is actually flowing out of Bitcoin. I guess you will have hard time to tie up the loose ends

My statement is based on the fact that Bitcoin's market cap used to be over 80% of the total cryptocurrency market.  For the first time ever, now it is below 80%.
Check https://coinmarketcap.com/

This is exactly what I expected you to answer

Basic logic failure, no? So if Bitcoin market share dropped, it necessarily, inevitably and inexorably means that money is flowing out of Bitcoin into altcoins, huh? You don't obviously think that money may actually be flowing in, not out of Bitcoin? Again, you have to explain how Bitcoin prices could be surging (and Bitcoin market cap consequently rising) if money was going out of Bitcoin as you claim. This is a simple reality check for you

You're not wrong but obviously some other coins are surging.  My original point here was that sure, its risky for the miners to change the status quo, but also risky for them not to change it.  I think you're smart enough to understand my point.

No, I don't understand your point

As I said it before and repeat it again, I don't see any rational reason (apart from the deliberate FUD, of course) why would a top miner want to do something which basically comes down to abandoning the business which brings him hefty profits. It seems that I should repeat one time more that they won't be able to sit on two chairs at once. It is conceptually impossible since if a miner which supports BU switches to mining this new Bitcoin, he would most certainly expect it to outperform the old Bitcoin eventually (otherwise mining it would be like flogging a dead horse), but in that case he should as well expect a tough competition in the business. Thus, the miner in question should necessarily burn all the bridges behind him, there will be no way back if he is serious about BU

Which is not gonna happen anytime soon. It's always a matter of compromise and obviously, profits. All these drama appears to me as a conflict of interest between big companies with the community sandwiched in the middle.

My point is that Bitcoin doesn't have a future at 3 TPS (or however much Adam and Greg decide Segwit should give us necessarily).  They don't like the path we've been on, or where we're going based on Core's roadmap.   
With 75% consensus, they feel it will be a small risk compared to staying on that path.

Why should I repeat the same things again and again?

I told you already that you may not want to bind me to your dilemma of choosing between two evils. It is not about Adam, Greg, or whatever. SegWit is obviously an interim solution. I see the future and I don't see miners in it. At least, not the miners which brought Bitcoin into this state of affairs (I refer to transaction fees losing ground and users competing between themselves for the inclusion of their transaction into the blockchain). The Bitcoin future (if there is any) is certainly with massive off-chain transactions (like what LN proposes). This is the only viable way to scale Bitcoin up in any meaningful way

Fundamental misunderstanding of the implications of on-chain and off-chain growth, jonald


On-chain blocksize increases come with a serious cost: network resources (processing power to check all blocks and all transactions, bandwidth to relay transactions and blocks, hard disk space for the blocks, space in RAM for transactions in the mempool)


Off-chain Lightning transactions reduce the costs by several orders of magnitude: only processing transactions to check whether they're valid needs to happen with Lightning, and it's only those transactions which are routed through your channel, not every transaction on the whole Bitcoin network, so only processing and RAM are consumed, and not much. The bandwidth is negligible for that, and there is no hard disk cost, because it's off chain there are no blocks to store.

But, even better, we have....

On-chain transaction scaling: by making transactions more efficient using the same blocksize we already have, far safer methods of increasing on-chain capacity can be achieved. They're all hard forks, and they will all consume more processing, there's no getting around that. But of course, BU hard forks every time the blocksize changes by 100 Kb, so I know that doesn't concern you; actual on-chain scaling changes would only need a 1-off fork each, instead of once a week for all eternity.


Now, can you address any of these facts directly, or will you derail and divert because you're, as usual, too afraid to face the truth

No need to repeat.  You've made your point and I've made mine.  Cheers. ;)

You are wrong. Miners' opinion is worthless. Lets say the biggest pools left mining core bitcoins and started unlimited coins instead. What difference will it make if nobody buys their product? They'll be mining for nothing.

There will be major difficulty decreases on the core and maybe we'll even return to gpu mining. And that's a good thing.  8)