Bitcoin Forum

Hi.

Let's delve into a possible development of events in the next weeks/months. Let's say the hard fork happens, two separate currencies appear on exchanges and give us an inevitable choice - to sell one currency and put all of our resources into another. Into the one we deem to be more promising.

One remark though; the miners are trying to tell us that BTC will be finished, because the majority of the mining power will join BTU. This is BULLSHIT. The truth is, the miners will eat their word if necessary and swiftly join the currency with higher price. They do it for the money and they have hardware investment debts to repay. So the only one who will REALLY decide which of the new currencies will prosper, are the USERS.

And I am curious, what the opinion of the users is.

Cheers.

You make a good point op but you forget they also fight to control the block size going forward and even if they fail they still get a huge, massive, enormous gigantic payday when they flash sell all their soon to be worthless BTU coins before anyone else has a chance because they will control the BTU block chain following the hard fork.  When the time comes to switch back to the Bitcoin blockchain they will likely prevent anyone else on the BTU chain from moving coins until they have fully liquidated all their assets.  They will surly make millions of dollars worth of profits.

Eh... do you mean about the bitcoin unlimited dev? I don't think if the miners will be having a big role in that scenario. The splitting the block chain it means there will be a new block chain for BTU. In this case, I just take the enthereum case to be almost the same thing in this case. I mean, if the BTU will be distributed for free to the every bitcoin user/Hodlers. I think the chain will be active and there is no a chance for them to flash sell all of their worthless BTU. Or the miner will be the first worthless BTU receiver and they can do that.

Its my personal belief that the BU faction is enabled and encouraged by the Chines mining pools who are in turn controlled by Chines government oligarchs.  

After a theoretical continuous hard fork between Bitcoin Core and BTU the mining pools who initiated the fork would be in full control of the BTU chain. They would have 95% of the hash power. Its my belief that if they fail to win a majority of the Bitcoin communities support and the price of BTU coins starts to fall dramatically below the price of Bitcoin they will halt all transactions on the BTU chain other then their own coins so they can flash sell for a huge profit before pointing their miners back to the Bitcoin Core chain. They will have lost there bid for complete control over Bitcoin but they will have made millions. It is known that Chines miing pools are sitting on millions hundreds of thousands of bitcoins.

It's very dramatic. But I respect your belief. But I'll try to bolding the true sentence. Looks like most of the Chinese miners have been known about the possibility of the BTU to fail in the future. In conclusion, if the Chinese miners are trying to get a short chance on the BTU chain in order to catch millions in a short time. In my belief, there is a collusion between some parties. They're using the critical part of the bitcion scalability to gaining more support with doing a lot of FUD right now (the blocksize limit).

Any evidence for this, or is this just the result of racially biased people who keep portraying the Chinese as the bogeyman?

This is what I personally believe is happening.

Wealthy people often increase their wealth by leeching off of the flow of money. The wealth they possess is what allows them to be in a position to do that.

With Bitcoin as it currently is, only the miners profit off of the flow of money.

The wealthy are generally not able to mine because of the cost of power, the cost of power has put the mining advantage into geographical regions where power is cheap rather than into economic class.

So what they want to do is change how bitcoin works, so that the miners can only profit from a settlement layer and transactions take place on their side channels where their wealth gives them an advantage and they can increase their wealth by leeching off the flow like they do with traditional banking systems.

That is what I see happening.

Perhaps for me it is a bias against the 1% just like some people have a bias against Chinese.

Your poll lacks an obvious option: Switching to support one or more altcoins.

If Segwit were adopted, I could make a case to friends and anyone else that bitcoin offers the best hope for the future with lightning networks enabling mass adoption, despite the slow and bottlenecked state of the main blockchain and the smart contracts lead of ethereum and privacy advantages of Dash, Monero and Zcash. But segwit looks pretty dead right now.

And if BU wins, bitcoin remains a fossil with only the network effect, which is dwindling every day fees remain high. Why on earth should I encourage a newbie to crypto to use a coin with high fees and 10 minute block times and no privacy when I could steer them to one with faster block times, cheaper fees and built in privacy like the coins I mention above???

So really, I'd go with Dash or Zcash, not either of the bitcoin forks.

Just an interesting note - when I first saw people complaining about the censorship regarding the debate, I thought it was bullsh*t. Bitcoin is full of libertarians, why the hell would they censor stuff?

Then I saw it first hand, especially on reddit but even here I have seen it.

What were they so afraid of to resort to censoring stuff? I wanted to know, so I looked to find out, and that's when I started to see what was really going on.

Segwit. It opens up the future in a way that BTU doesn't. I have much less of an idea of what that future would look like but that's what's intriguing about it. That choice doesn't even include weighing up the competence or hysteria levels of either sect but I'm fucking bored of that now.

lol
but you admit you have no clue.

do you even know what happens on activation day of segwit.
do you know what promises are guaranteed and what ones are empty gestures

Segwit and the LN, if they do not have lethal problems not identified so far, open up the ability to scale bitcoin TX to hundreds or thousands time as much as BU's blocksize increase. I know you are a partisan, but surely you can grasp that simple comparison.

I can argue to a non-crypto friend that they should get into bitcoin if it offers segwit and the Lightning Network. If BU wins, I'll steer them to Ethereum or Dash or Zcash instead. Why on earth would I steer them to a coin with slower block times, lower TX throughput, higher fees, and lacking privacy features?

Segwitt is the way to go, Core's roadmap is increasing Bitcoins performances which is the best possible solution.

We will have a 2-3MB increase with Segwit with another 30-40% on the horizon with integrated Schnorr signatures.

Flexcap is a clever algorithm instead of fixed blocklimit. Core's 0.14 adds more nice features.

Segwit ends transparency of the block chain it allows basically secret transfers off chain.

There is no way it could be good.

That said bitmain like Btu so that may not be good.

Lastly I can now use a 8 gpu pandaminer costing 2200 and spending 1100 watts to mine eth and convert to btc.

To mine the same btc with an s9 I need 44th worth of hash costing 6500 and spending 4500watts.

That math will alter the mining world unless btu and segwit get settled .

So I get to choose between Trump and Clinton  all over again.

At the moment I mine
 s9
Gpu

And hope for btu to win as segwit will kill btc  

I choose segwit for making bitcoin better than bitcoin unlimited,
 I think bitcoin needs update with soft fork be called segwit than
 hard fork with bitcoin unlimited, I don't agree with bitcoin unlimited
 because it will makes​ confuse which are the true bitcoin for new users of bitcoin.

Can you explain yourself here? How is broadcasting your financial history to the world a good thing? What business, for example, can deal with bitcoin with suppliers and corporate customers if competitors can see every transaction they make? This issue is exactly why you don't yet see businesses using bitcoin except to elicit purchases from bitcoin users. It is why coins like Dash and Zcash focused on privacy, not to enable drug deals, but precisely because privacy is _vital_ for mainstream adoption.

Still SegWit.

Definitely SegWit.

When that is through, give Miners their increase of block size... and work on LN!

This is the only way to go. Whoever is against this, is an enemy of the Bitcoin (EOTB).
Taking benefit of the doubt into account, he may not be aware of being an EOTB, so let's clarify this:

Network congestion and rising transaction fees are a problem for the whole Bitcoin ecosystem.
Network centralization is a problem for the whole Bitcoin ecosystem.

If miners - who definitely profit from both problems - (like being fat Kim Jong in a starving country) are not interested to alleviate them both, they are EOTB.

In my opinion, any measure to bring them to reason is allowed. Including change of PoW to a CPU-only version.
The reactions from e.g. Bitfury George
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/duplicates/60ast5/bitfury_george_pledges_to_sue_all_involved_with/
show very clearly how these people think.

They have established a position as powerful stakeholder and they intend to defend it by any means.
=> Therefore, if they will not do what is best for the whole Bitcoin ecosystem (key phrase), the whole Bitcoin community can attack them by any means. Simple as that.


Rico

That's not what Segwit does. I'd expect you to know better. The off-chain transactions already happen everyday:
Coinbase user -> Coinbase user; PrimeDice gambling, etc. Segwit makes secondary layer solutions simpler, but it doesn't really enable "secret transfers off-chain" as in 'enable something not already possible'.

BTU will be an altcoin in the case of a hostile takeover attempt.

I am almost positive that *some* miners are at least part responsible for the spam transactions.

Segwit has the good will to solve the block size issue. It too has witnessed block generation to the maximum of 4Mb, of which 3.57Mb block generation is achieved. Bitcoin Unlimited is a temporary solution which might collapse in a short time period.

Can't we have both? Segwit and block increase?  Offchain transaction is really needed for faster relays and transfer of fund.  As far as I know this kind of transaction is not new as sampled by Lauda so why not  approve it already?  Honestly I hate miners that is so picky and bypass low tx fees and let it rot to oblivion which I think can be solved by future update if Segwit will be given a chance and implemented.

I am more inclined to belive in SegWit because it is more safe approach and this solution offer backward compatibility which BU lacks.
Whatever happens and whoever wins, BTC community should swallow stupid pride and support the winner.
The least thing we want is to have two versions of Bitcoin running simultaneously.

I would vote for it, but SegWit 1st, then block increase. Let it even be hardcoded in the protocol (XXX blocks after SegWit activation, increase blocksize to Y). Else I vote for the nuclear option -> PoW change.


Rico

So here is another opinion, of a user of sorts.

We don't matter. We usually follow the biggest hashrate, flabbergasted by big numbers. Whoever features moar ASICS will catch us. Plain simple.

This powerstruggle between developers, exchange site operators, miners clearly leaves out what joe public would want to experience.

I think Bitcoin Unlimited will change cryptocurrency well, after 9 years of bitcoin began updating and solve problems in bitcoin themselves, and nine years is a long time to collect data, and establish a system that can live much longer. I believe bitcoin unlimited would be better than some of the current technology.

I'd have to say that I'd rather go with Segwit even with all the times that the devs being too close to blockstream and so on, I still feel that they're the best set of people to actually help the bitcoin network with their scaling solution.

I feel as if BTU is just going to be a way for the majority of miners (Chinese) and Ver to be able to fight to make some crazy money off of hard forking bitcoin if they're able to hit the magic number of 51 percent, or more around 70 if they want to actually do it without an issue.

I just don't like the centralized aspect of BTU, I don't feel thats what Bitcoin has and ever should stand for.

SEGWIT!

you do know that the BU code is ok to work with a dozen differing brands to stick to a PEER open and diverse network.
but blockstream(core) want segwit code to set themselves up as the upper TIER main network auditors of the blockchain and have everything non-core as the down-stream filtered second class nodes.

---

core also have all the excessive ban hammering and orphaning code,(bip9 and UASF) not the other way round.
its core that bypassed hard(node and pool) and just went with soft(pool only).
and even this week core want to go a step further by now threatening to move away from PoW if pools dont vote segwit.
pretty much removing community choice and instead using threats.


non-core dynamic nodes want hard(node AND pool) consensus..
so dont blame pools for having the only vote for segwit.. core gave them that privilege over segwit..

where as the dynamics, IS a node and pool required vote so pools cannot alone force dynamics

---

core also removed reactive fee estimates and replaced it with average (meaning no drop in fee when a block demand is low because the price is spread out over many blocks average. thus not helping lower fee's when demand suddenly drops.
core removed priority, and raised the minimum spend.

---

oh and the real clincher

non-core nodes(real baseblock increase) that want dynamics are using real consensus hard(node and pool) so even if pools got to x%.. the nodes still are needed to approve it. so all this 'chinese miners are forcing the issue', only applies to segwits activation/non-activation.. due to core decision to give pools the only vote for segwit.

but dynamics needs node approval too. so pools cant just force dynamics.. pools need nodes there too, otherwise you will see alot of orphans and alot of pool timewasting making blocks that never get added to blockheight if nodes are not there to support it.

non-core implementations set no deadlines or made threats of banning the network.
if any implementation wants to support dynamics without downloading a specific brand they can use their own favourite and just add a few lines of code, yep even core can tweak a few lines and be dynamic compatible..
but segwit is a complete rewrite so anyone wanting segwit has a bigger job to rewrite to be segwit compatible and then be thrown into "its not peer reviewed your team are cramp" war game.(unless you enslave urself and just use their code like a good little sheep they want you to be)

If one iteration smells like a heap of shit but brute forces its way into the lead with a combo of hashing power, ninja PR and deep pockets, it's still not going to last if the majority detests it.

And your vote is to either sell or buy. That's a far more powerful signal than moaning on Twitter.

Bla Bla Bla Bla, here we have another day with uber troll Franky1, the PAID SHILL co-worker from RogerCoin camp.

lol im actualy independant, thats why peple have failed to pigeon hole me.
im all for dynamics and a peer network..
i detest cores corporate tier network owned by blockstream and the other DCG invested corporations

BU is not the only implementation that wants dynamics. so you have failed because you think its just a BU verses core debate.

its a community of many independent implementations on a peer network vs the blockstream tier control

i do however find that you cant rebuttal the context of my post, but instead just throw out an insult or empty rebuttle, thinking that it disproves what i have said.

empty arguments are boring. try to disprove the context of the message next time.

I preffer selling BlockStream coins (whatever symbol and name they get) in exchange for Bitcoins. But I use Coinbase and they going to stop trading for a day until it is clear who the winner is and only allows Bitcoin trades after this. So I guess I will need to find other exchange to sell the BlockStream coins if someone going to be crazy enought to buy coins for minority chain.

Where's the option to do nothing lol? If a hardfork is forced on those two options alone then I'd just abandon ship

Well, I see the poll started to show results. The poll is eager for more votes, but it's better than nothing.

I guess some do not vote because they want the third option - get out of bitcoin and adopt a different currency. I must confess that I am not interested in who goes out, but in those that stay in. I am curious which of two forked currencies to buy and it seems the writing is on the wall, pardon, in the poll  ;D

Since the market will favor BTC over BTU, I will not hesitate to put my resources in the BTC. If I would be filling the shoes of bitcoin core team and all the miners that aren't favorable of segwit would be at least temporarily out of the blockchain I want to change, I would make it really damn sure I seize the oportunity and enforce the segwit soft fork. Hell, once I am there, I would also push through the lightning network and finish the damn thing. Because if something is killing us, it's the damn gradualism.

Yes, but not right now (neither is it necessary). I'd expect a block size increase somewhere down the road.

Someone has been feeding false information in the miners' face, stating that:" Segwit == LN == loss of on chain TX fees". This is known as a slippery slope fallacy. This is *one* of the reasons for which they are either supporting the wrong proposal or doing nothing.

If you were independent, you'd be criticizing both Core & BTU. However, you end up ranting about Core && Blockstream while subtly praising BTU. I wonder why that is. ::)

I wouldn't

Until geo-political tensions calm down (governments stop turning their internet into Great Firewall styled intranets, governments don't look like they're set to start even more military conflicts globally, the threat of major terrorist attacks begins to subside), then it's a stupid, stupid way of handling it.


If there's any risk that average speeds and latencies across the global internet could be degraded, blocksize increases are crazy, especially considering that several true on-chain scaling options exist and do not carry those risks.

Sure that means more development work, but it's win-win if we go that route, we would have the kind of transaction capacity on the Bitcoin network that could both survive and perhaps even help to end major 21st century world warfare. What's not to like, eh Lauda?