you should check out blockstreams LN code at code level bitcoin protocol measure people holdings in satoshi's. where there are 2.1 quadrillion units of measure. LN wants 1000x more units of measure (millisats) cap was 2,100,000,000,000,000 LN want 2,100,000,000,000,000,000 have a nice day |
|
|
|
The conclusion of this thread, which you fail to admit considering you're a paid, is that BTU is to the Bitcoin network what cancer is to the human body.
bu has been running for years segwit 6 months BU uses native keys (cells) segwit wants to change the keys (mutated cells) segwit changes the design of blocks and needs to cut off the cancer just so it wont be rejected by the native "body" core have the body killing code |
|
|
|
then you will see that SWHF has been proposed as a single dynamic block (1 merkle) with features like segwit and dynamics and lowtxsigop count and other things ontop. all in one go. not the tier network your reddit rhetoric want
Where exactly can one find this SWHF proposal?  well you wont find it then the core censor cabin.. time for you to look beyond core and do some research. prove you can do research without being spoonfed. ill give you time and then maybe ill help you. but i hope you can actually do the search yourself without insults and without replying with empty comments. start researching. show your research abilities and not your insult replying ability. if you can find it without being spoonfed then you will gain some rep. P.S it does exist, its not a trick |
|
|
|
The only way that the fees will be "high as hell" is if people are using Bitcoin very heavily and highly valuing the transactions they make.
lol you removed the priority fee you removed the reactive pricing and replaced it with average pricing you included the larger relay min fee you are the one pressuring the fee's to rise even if demand was low dont start blaming users. but then again you bypassed node consensus. by only giving pools the vote and then went on a rant blaming pools do you even listen to the community. or just echo chamber your own thoughts |
|
|
|
34% of miners support Segwit
That is 34% of hashpower, it may well be 99% of miners. That is also signaling rather than support-- there are miners that support segwit who are not signaling it due to pressure or payments from others. Gmax. remember all them fully paid for all inclusive weekends you offered pools, al them social and roundtable events.. closed door meetings etc |
|
|
|
A small amount of miners (how many really? Jihan Wu? and a couple other pools, no more than 5 guys) are blocking hundreds of people involved in BTC services, exchanges and so on.
by a tiny amount of miners
lol wait last month you were saying that they owned the majority.. now your saying a small amount. tiny amount come on get your story straight Segwit is officially held hostage by a tiny amount of miners with a hashrate monopoly, probably state-sponsored. Meanwhile, LTC will eat BTC's lunch as segwit activates.
segwit is not held hostage. consensus is about only moving forward with majority approval.. if there is not majority approval. then take no as an answer and then start listening to the community to try something that will get approval trying to bypass consensus and then play the victim card, and then have tantrums is silly and childish lastly if segwit is sooo "backward compatible" then they can activate at any level and uptopian promises of segwit will still occur.. (if you beleive in the backward compatibility promise) |
|
|
|
I rarely read Reddit.
So you're cool if Rog was to hijack bitcoin.com to push BTU?
That's symbolic of the actions of a decent human being to you?
by you using terms lik BTU shows you have already swallowed the reddit narrative. because your using their buzzwords. so you have already failed the pretence that you havnt been suckered into the reddit rhetoric. secondly bitcoin is a diverse network of many independent implementations. you should be more worried about the TIER network that core desire the other non-core implementations know what a peer network is and what a tier network is not. and so if all the dynamic implementations activated there wont be a BTU.. because they only activate with real consensus. if you think its a roger vs the world or a china +roger vs .. then please actually stop reading the reddit scripts and do some proper research |
|
|
|
Why Roger Ver won't actually push for the hard fork:
bu and other diverse implementations that want blocks over 1mb want consensus of a diverse single peer network stop reading reddit its only core that want anything not core to f**k off. so core can dictate bitcoin. core have the ban node code the pow killing bips and the threats and drama. |
|
|
|
We all know BTU will result in an altcoin that vanishes overtime just like ETC did. It will be a way to make some free money while it lasts. Just look at the futures on bitfinex or whatever exchange did the BTC-C BTC-U tokens, BTC-U has been dumped already. Market will not trust amateurs with their money, and most big players have already rejected BU. Nobody is talking about anymore except the usual suspects.
Actually i am starting to think this whole block size debate is being made up artificially by Ver&WU to suppress the bitcoin prices and get cheap bitcoins from us. Because a hard fork doesn't make sense in the first place, as you said, it will end up like another scam coin. If their product was so good, and if they lost hope on bitcoin; nobody's stopping them to dump their coins away and start their own. They can't dump their coins because they love bitcoin so much <3  They know nobody will give a fuck about their scam coin so they are spreading FUD to get cheap coins. There isn't any other explanation to these recent stuff going on. you got it the whole wrong way round anything thats not core want consensus diverserse peer network of everyone on the same level playing field.. not an altcoin core want a TIER network of control and then everything blindly following their dictation look at core begging for them to make an altcoin to go get REKT, to BUgger off, to fork off.. its core code that is pushing up fee's and causing the drama. its core code with all the ban node rules and the PoW killing code. atleast stop reading reddit and you will start to see passed the scripted narative. |
|
|
|
Others are at their will to follow or not. I wonder, which pool will take the risk of losing 12.5 BTC by raising the block size?
unlike core that bypass node consensus. bu and other dynamic and >1mb blocks wont make blocks over 1mb unless they have both node and pool consensus. dont start thinking they are gonna make a 4 or 8mb block instantly .. thats more reddit fud drama creating false narative they will start slow like 1.000250 and test the water for issues (like the 500kb level db issue core had in 2013) , orphan risk and timing to propagate.. and slowly increase increments when demed safe and it actually forms blockheight logically and naturally. which if the block does not get accepted its not "losing 12.5" .. its just not winning /gaining 12.5.. you only gain 12.5btc after 100 confirms. so you cant really risk losing 12.5 unless you had it in the first place |
|
|
|
We all know BTU will result in an altcoin that vanishes overtime just like ETC did. It will be a way to make some free money while it lasts. Just look at the futures on bitfinex or whatever exchange did the BTC-C BTC-U tokens, BTC-U has been dumped already. Market will not trust amateurs with their money, and most big players have already rejected BU. Nobody is talking about anymore except the usual suspects.
the ethereum event was an intentional split.. those wanting a peer network which is what bu wants too. dont want an intentional split. however if BU gets the threshold to activate consensually, .. core will not join the peer network of consensus majority.. and core will be the one with the banning of communications on their minority by initiating their own split to form their own altcoin its already been begged and pleaded by the core group that other implementations should split away. and they all refused.. its core that are the ones that want the split.. What you are describing is what I and others call a bilaterial hardfork-- where both sides reject the other. I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this. The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right-- but they want it to happen before consensus is reached so that they are not left with a small minority. this is why core have made so many threats and why implementations that are not core have just plodded along letting the community decide |
|
|
|
In other words, SWHF does not imply a 4 MB block size limit (as opposed to the SWSF 1 MB base && 4 MB weight). It retains the same 1-to-4 ratio that the soft fork variant has.
and thats a failure of using an opportunity to do a proper peer network upgrade.. maybe if you read code and documentation and the terms like hardfork consensus.. you would see that a peer network of a 1 merkle block where everyone is on the same level is possible due to everyone needing to upgrade Another straw man argument. This is how you deflect the actual argument instead of admitting that you were lying about the differentiation between SWSF and SWHF. Classic shilling. you need to look passed the reddit stories there are more than 2 implementations.. look at bitcoin as a whole. not the reddit stories of narrow minded rhetoric. then you will see that SWHF has been proposed as a single dynamic block (1 merkle) with features like segwit and dynamics and lowtxsigop count and other things ontop. all in one go. not the tier network your reddit rhetoric want |
|
|
|
I don't like bitcoin unlimited, it will decrease the price and make it become less valuable, and by making bitcoin to hardfork it will risk all of the investor to go away, this can lead to bitcoin domination to end and cause a lot of investor to lost their money, bitcoin should never being hardfork to maintain the investor trust level
hard fork does not mean automatically making an altcoin even going soft can result in an altcoin learn high consensus(unity with no split , just minority nodes that cant sync(orphan drama)) learn controversial consensus(orphan drama with eventual with no split , just higher minority nodes that cant sync( higher orphan drama)) bilateral split. (intentionally having nodes not communicate to avoid consensus/orphaning mechanism (altcoin maker)) ^ those scenarios can happen soft or hard stop reading the reddit scripts al you have seemed to have read is the narative of soft best case and hard worse case but not researched the whole picture or run all scenarios |
|
|
|
(*) ... but you give me an idea: if anyone wants actually to PAY me for me continuing to post, please send some funds to LRcK7eiVzyTEG8s4scRKMvxdAm4kCpfUVu (a LTC address, as BTC will soon be too expensive I guess  ). ages ago i was going to jokingly put up a post where people pay me to shutup about my open opinions that i have. (secretly donating funds to seans outpost cos i dont need handouts) |
|
|
|
https://github.com/UASF/bitcoinThe only ironic thing here is that the UASF implementation is already much more advanced than BU is. BU is based on outdated Bitcoin Core code (0.12.x). lol try reading the code and documentation plus you are obsessed with the reddit bu vs.. debate. there are MANY dynamic block implementations. i know your finally realising something i have said months ago. but things have moved on since. but to address your issues with BU because you brought it up.. unlike it taking months to get core to update their issues when core moved from 0.12-0.13.. bu patched cores 0.12 issues in a quicker time. its just that segwit as a SF 2 merkle half gesture is a cesspit creating network so bu havnt just thrown in the 2 merkle segwit half baked code. In other words, SWHF does not imply a 4 MB block size limit (as opposed to the SWSF 1 MB base && 4 MB weight). It retains the same 1-to-4 ratio that the soft fork variant has.
and thats a failure of using an opportunity to do a proper peer network upgrade.. maybe if you read code and documentation and the terms like hardfork consensus.. you would see that a peer network of a 1 merkle block where everyone is on the same level is possible due to everyone needing to upgrade |
|
|
|
Hard forks allow for cleaner code fixes than soft fork kludges.
This is a common misconpcetion and lie spread by BTU fanatics. SWSF vs. SWHF is a very trivial different and SWHF does not fix any kind of "soft fork kludges" (as they don't exist in this context). try reading code and documentation in a segwit HF there wont be any "upstream filter" tier network. the blocks will just be blocks that everyone recieves. EG just a upto 4mb block. not a 1mb block inside a upto 4mb block that gets stripped to 1mb. everyone will get the upto 4mb block. segwit done as a hardfork where everyone is part of the same level playing field peer network.. non of this soft fork tier network crap |
|
|
|
I wouldn't really call it an "altcoin" but it's basically a different coin, in the same way that ETC and ETH are separate coins. It was my understanding that in a hard fork without a very, very high consensus (which Bitcoin won't achieve, it's most likely that BU will have less than 80% miner support and possibly only slightly over 50%), a split would occur and that would cause uncertainty.
If you can explain to me in reasonable terms why that wouldn't be the case, I'm definitely listening. But from anything that I know so far I don't see it happening, especially when hard forks aren't backwards compatible.
ok 2013 there was an issue with blocks getting over 500kb are there now 2 bitcoins?? nope |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Unlimited is a dead meme, it has failed. Only paid shills keep shilling it. Buggy Unlimited's Emergent Consensus is technical nonsense. We'll get segwit in Bitcoin one way or another, meanwhile Litecoin is about to go to mars as it eats Bitcoin's lunch demonstrating the efficiency and functionality of segwit and full working lightning networks. ATH is incoming, but a couple miners with interests (ASICBOOST) will not make it happen in BTC.
lol the only bug of BU was the one that was part of core 0.12 and only fixed in core 0.13. yet BU fixed it before core devs publicly shouted out exactly how to attack nodes that didnt upgrade but anyway dynamics and a 1merkle segwit (which MANY independent implementations) can run with is something that core really should have as their august 2017 backup plan then atleast the community can be united. |
|
|
|
change in the structure of power? i guess he doesnt understand diverse decentralised peer network lol sorry but many independent implementations are ok with it. and if core pulled their thumb out of their behinds they too can run on the same level playing field with many other implementations its what bitcoin is , a diverse decentralised peer network. however segwit is the creation of a TIER network (upstream filter nodes). here if you cant read the guide maybe a picture from the guide will help  If you still don’t wish to upgrade, it is possible to use a newer Bitcoin Core release as a filter for older Bitcoin Core releases.
In this configuration, you set your current Bitcoin Core node (which we’ll call the “older node”) to connect exclusively to a node running Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 or later (which we’ll call the “newer node”). The newer node is connected to the Bitcoin P2P network as usual.
secondly hardfork does not automatically = altcoin creation.. hardfork is an umbrella term just like soft fork.. where many possibilities belw each can occur. just mentioning softs best case scenario and hards worse case scenario is not being informative, its creating a false narative.
thirdly even 'going soft' not only could create altcoins. but if you run scenarios using soft segwit. it does not fulfil ANY promises. and the expectations are not much better, even if it reached 100% utility take the capacity "promise".. to get 2.1mb blocks requires everyone not only running segwit but also moving their funds to segwit keys. emphasis on the second part. and guess what that 2.1mb is.. yep 7tx/s.. we wont get 100% moving over to segwit keys so just like the expectation of 7tx/s in 2009-2017.. we still will not get 7tx/s if segwit activates. nor will quadratics be 'fixed' due to spammers who love to quadratic spam will still quadratic spam after segwit is activated simply by not moving funds to segwit keys. same goes for malleability. oh and malleability 'fix' which meant to fix the trust of unconfirmed tx's not getting messed around with. yet the "promise to fix" the unconfirmed tx messing with, became a broken promise because now we have RBF, CPFP, and CSV which all means you still cant trust unconfirms. along with ofcourse those that wont move to segwit keys because they prefer to contin malleating tx's in short its all empty temporary gestures wasting time upto 2019 for things the community will not really get massive utility of.
lastly if segwit not showing positive chance by august. and thus becomes UASF (real un buzzword translated to hardfork) we should use that oppertunity to do a proper 1 merkle segwit + dynamic blocks plus other features peer network consensus. not wast august 2017-late 2018 pushing the half baked soft and empty gesture that is the current 2 merkle segwit |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
