530 nodes affected..
vs thousands of core nodes affected in 2013..

OP's link atleast needs to try better and be accurate, otherwise it just becomes a biased narrative

if core was humans.. it would be called several generations of imbreds

lol i think you need to learn diversity. you know totally different groups/families with different genetic makeup (code/language) all co-existing

and as for lauda

your the one that mentions BU in nearly every topic. you keep failing to pigeon hole me into one brand. because i am not someone that wants just one brand..
while i try to talk about diverse decentralised bitcoin peer network that way it minimises risks

EG lets say there was a bug in version 0.3 of core.. and 0.4 and 0.5 and 0.6 and 0.7...
but doesnt trigger until 0.8
... oh wait that happened..
and that was not just a 5 minute bit of comedy/drama..

now imagine if there was btcd (written in go) and other implementations that didnt have the berkeley db...
we would not have had much of an issue in 2013 as what actually happened.

please dont have the blockstream defender hat on and scream KNOTS because that too is blockstream.. im talking real diversity..

even to the point of where the devs allowed users to set their own settings at runtime to not be spoon fed from the same group of devs.
= real independence and diversity.

seriously, take just a 10 minute break from the keyboard and remove your blockstream adoration cap.. and think critically about bitcoin 120 years
not blockstreams next 3 years.

devs come and go. and kissing one butt cheek will leave u lonely when they retire, get bored, or move onto something else.
think beyond blockstream and think about bitcoin

thats the titanic, big bank "too big to fail" mindset... especially ignoring past fails to pretend it will never fail

2013 leveldb transition
now imagine if in 2013 there were implementations wrote in Go and other implementations that had other databases that would not have been hit by the berkely locks

the implementations running non-berkely db's would have been fine and that includes the one running Go too and only the small amount using the old Berkeley with the lock problem would have been held up

all nodes you highlighted are all blockstream managed..
yep knots=blockstream too
=not true diversity, just pretend diversity

your still not seeing the big picture

its about some people thinking core should be king. or thinking th debate is only about BU vs core and who gts to be king

there should be no king. just a diverse decentralised peer network
meaning
lots of "brands" all uniting with a consensus of rules they all follow

that way we dont have a issue with core should they have a bug (EG 2013 leveldb would not have been such a drama event) because there would be other brands keeping core the network alive while core sort out their implementation

that way we dont have a issue with BU should they have a bug (EG assert drama event) because there would be other brands keeping the network alive while BU sort out their implementation

trying to get everyone using just one implementation is where attacks externally can cause mega issues, and dictators internally can cause mega issues

out of this entire topic there seems to be only one post that is seeing the big picture

also you cant compare any coin based on market cap..
market cap is a bubble number.
we all know how easy it is to move a price.. and multiplying that easily movable price by the amount of coins in circulation becomes manipulatable to the  XXXXXXXXXXXXX multiple.

EG i can make an alt with 5trillion coins, and just put 1 coin in an exchange and sell it to myself for $1, to set a coin price to $1
now the market cap is $5trillion

bitfinex did not get $65m from exchange fee profits.

they grabbed funding from https://bnktothefuture.com


£42.66m=$54.5m

and now using that to pay out to users in debt

but taking from peter to pay paul is also known as a ponzi. so dont think that bitfinex's finances/drama is over anytime soon

bitcoin prices are not stable. from my view its the lack of spending on exchanges due to lack of trust of exchanges



we are no longer in the days where people are spending $10k per orderline
note above is bitfinex which is having some fiat issues hence the  price being $100 higher than other exchanges

but here are some other exchanges showing recent (only a few minutes old at time of posting) under $500 to move the bitcoin price up or down by $1-$3

out of all the answers so far, this guy has the closest


why.
well ill quote something i noticed last month. about how easy it was to move the price up or down by $1-2, without it costing millions of dollars

edit, i just checked the prices again

core ammended a few of them in 0.13 but didnt think to edit 0.12 with a patch.
core just release a new version but dont patch old versions. leaving older version vulnerable

because core didnt advertise how to attack their own..

but did advertise how to attack others.

major difference

there were many assert bugs..
hense why core were real quick to advertise ways to attack it. because they knew of the issues in 2016 because of the issues within core

https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/43373/bitcoin-core-error-message-assertion-failed

google found thousands of results
"bitcoin core assertion failed"

lol try telling core how the 1mb was tested in 2012 when blocks could not surpass 500kb

if your saying EC is not tested.. then 1mb was not tested for 6 years

the assert bug was part of core v0.12 in 2016

have a nice day

segwit does fix/guarantee anything, the only thing you can expect it to do as a soft fork is create a tier network

nope.
if it doesnt get accepted and doesnt stay in the chain. then the pool never had it

there are 20 pools and only one block gets it in an average of 10 minutes
put it this way

EG thats why if a pool put in a reward of lets say 1000000btc..
it would get rejected.. does not mean it had it and lost it.. it just means it never had 1000000btc

yes it wasted hash trying..

but doesnt mean it lost 12.5btc or 1000000btc.. it just means it didnt win..

when you play the lottery.. you dont lose millions.. you just dont win, someone else does

your reading the reddit "gigabytes by midnight" old scripts..

dynamic concepts are not about visa by midnight. ..
but instead natural growth over time

no reward = 120 years time
also pools wont jump to "gigabytes by midnight"

they will find a natural growth level that nodes accept and allows transactions in

LOL you need to go check
the crashes were due to a core bug.

also many nodes have limits of 1mb-8mb active right now.

much like core had the 1mb limit even when there was a 500kb issue that would have held things back at 500kb 2009-2013

EG are you saying that the cores 1mb limit was not active in 2009-2015 when blocks were only going upto 0.75mb

cancer=mutated cells, foreign cells that are rejected from the native body which need to be cut away from the main body to not cause harm..
sounds like segwit to me