Hell yes! I've been waiting for ages for someone to fork Bitcoin so I can sell my newly minted fork coins!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1076412.0

Those Classic and XT people did disappoint.

Same thing is going to happen here. If you don't have the economic majority's support, you won't fork, you just whine a lot and very loudly.

Maybe you could clear that up for those of us who don't follow BU? It seems like a default client would accept 16 MB blocks (after 4 blocks?), but it's all Greek to me.

My mistake, I was remembering this post from PeterR.


...and I somehow was under the impression that was default.

Still, BU will increase the size, because there will be a back log of transactions (one already exists in most cases), and blocks will be slower than normal because the hash rate will be divided (further increasing the back log). I mean, that's the goal of BU, isn't it? Scale on chain to get rid of this back log and reduce fees for coffer drinkers?

There is already several 10s of thousands transactions waiting for confirmation at most times. As you said, the chaos of a contentious hard fork would possibly increase transaction rates for a time (there will definitely be a lot of people disassociating their bitcoins coins from BUtcoins, which requires transactions). Also, there is the potential for additional spam attacks on both chains. I expect that should BU fork, they will go with the default size of 16 MB at first, just because who changes default settings? I fully expect those BU blocks to be full for a long time (they may even increase soon because of that, I mean, that is their MO). That means, in 60 days the BU chain will have doubled the size of the existing 8 year old chain, plus some.

Just something to ponder.

More like: Block chain based crypto, due to the resources required to maintain it, isn't well suited for everyone to use for everything, all the time, aka buying a coffee.

Can a Ferrari carry a cinder block? Yes.
Would a sane person use a Ferrari to transport the cinder blocks required to build the foundation of their new home to the construction site? No.

Can a chainsaw cut a blade of grass? Yes.
Would a sane person mow their lawn with a chainsaw? No.

Can a barrel hold water? Yes.
Would a sane person use a barrel to bring water along on their bike ride? No.

Just because something is technically capable of doing something doesn't mean it's the right tool for the job.

Using a block chain based cryptocurrency for mundane and micro transactions doesn't make sense because of the fact that every full node must keep a copy of every transaction since the very first coin base reward.

Resources matter. We should be encouraging wise use of resources. There may come a day when those resources (the internet, specifically) come under attack by people who want to control us instead of promoting and allowing freedom. If you think this idea is paranoid, take a look at some of the capital controls that first world, western countries around the globe are implementing against their citizens, in the name of "security". Imagining "information controls" is not that far fetched, in the slightest, and we can even see examples of them today!

Wouldn't it be nice to know that Bitcoin is a lean, robust protocol, which if required can easily function on fewer resources (less bandwidth), should the need arise?

With that in mind, wouldn't it be best to build layers on top of Bitcoin which will give those people who want cheap, fast micro transaction the ability to do exactly that, while allowing those layers to be peeled away in a worst case scenario? Isn't that a worthwhile compromise to make?

Why do coffee purchases need to be censorship-proof again?

Of course not, that's not how Bitcoin works.

They can, however, cause a lot of uncertainty.

That was a fun read.

This is my favorite part. "Truly innovative business models don’t need to resort to old-fashioned law-breaking, and when Bitcoins, like any traditional currency, are laundered and used to fuel criminal activity, law enforcement has no choice but to act."

Prohibition: Creating innovative business models since the dawn of government.

I still don't understand why people are so interested to sell when the price spikes down or interested to buy when the price spikes up, but do nothing when the price is flat.

If I was selling coins, I would have wanted to do that the past few days at 1250, not now and get much less at 1190. But the volume says most people are morons.

I guess that's why speculating is the 20% taking money from the 80%.

Spike down to 1186. 500 coin ask wall placed at 1190 (stamp). Wall instantly gobbled up.

We aren't talking about "big boy" protocols, we are talking about Bitcoin. By it's nature, the client dictates the protocol. If we actually switch to BU, that is the implementation which will determine the protocol, as clients with different rules will be isolated from the network (once that rule comes into question when a block is crafted accordingly), due to the very mechanics of Bitcoin.


I think trivial is marginalizing it, but whatever. I've been running a full node for 6 years now and I can't recall an instance where it shut down and the underlying OS wasn't to blame. And again, the bug is less of a concern to me than how the entire event surrounding it was handled, but you don't seem to want to discuss that since you keep ignoring it.


Recent events say otherwise. I'm not sure why you would make this claim.


I never made that claim.


I've seen plenty of efforts to develop formal specifications in the Bitcoin ecosphere. I've also seen plenty of efforts to intentionally avoid or sidestep attempts at formal specifications. It's an open source project, so people are obviously going to do as they please.


That sounds great, except that's not how Bitcoin works if the "interoperating implementations" have different rule sets, once those rules come into question, those clients will isolate themselves. Example: If a block bigger than 1MB is mined by a miner using BU, the Core nodes and BU nodes will no longer be on the same network. I know you know this, but you are using flowery language to suggests otherwise for some reason.


Well at least you admit that BU is a marginal implementation. It's also a bad design. But hey, that's just like... my opinion, man.

You know, it's obvious we aren't going to agree, and I really think that's a shame. I think this constant infighting is exactly what people opposed to Bitcoin want to see (and the alt-coiners love it as well). Of course, there has been plenty of drama throughout Bitcoin's short existence and I'm confident that this will eventually just be another speed bump in the road.

As recently as Jan 2014...



Someone is certainly grasping.


I was forced to install Bitcoin Core. <----- Things that happen only in the mind of a BUtcoiner.

Reality check:



https://coin.dance/nodes/share

You nailed the reason for the image, but didn't see how it applied specifically to your post. Here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg18203837#msg18203837

You guys are giving me shit about "no trust needed in Bitcoin" blah blah blah... but you do want BU to actually become the solution to what everyone considers "scaling Bitcoin", don't you? Otherwise, what the fuck are we talking about here? If that happens, their code will have to define the protocol which runs the network, right? This is obviously what I'm talking about when I made my flippant comment about trust and both of you should be smart enough to understand that.

Remember that time when the culprits who stole 850,000 bitcoins from Gox were caught thanks to block chain forensics?

Besides, I'm referring to moving bitcoins from address to address via the block chain, and you know that. I'm trying to think of an instance where trading one asset for another with another party doesn't require permission.

Maybe you have reading comprehension issues, but I just said I'm less worried about the shit code than the way the entire thing was handled. Oh, no, you intentionally ignored that part and focused on something else entirely.


Bwhahahahahahahahahaha.

Way to ignore the meat of my post and focus on my flippant comment at the end.

When I say "trust these people with the Bitcoin network", I'm referring to their ability to employ responsible techniques when dealing with their own code base and when dealing with those who choose to run their software. I'm talking about all the BUtcoiners, who are so worried about paying some tiny ass fee because they want to use the best tool for censorship-proof value transfer in the world to purchase a fucking cup of coffee, pushing this shit down our throats and having the entire fucking network run according to it's fucked up rules.

You run BU and you apparently don't give a shit about how this entire event surrounding this bug went down. I'd be pissed. I was certainly pissed when rnike heam's migration to leveldb caused a fork.

Evil plot to take over Bitcoin!

Step 1: Ask for 95% activation threshold!

Wut? o_O

I think, in the grand scope of things, the way the bug was handled is the bigger issue (even though the bug itself was terrible). Every step of the way BU handled the situation poorly. The code was apparently barely reviewed in the first place. Publishing the fix on a public technical platform, such as github, does little to warn the actual users, while highlighting the issue for any savvy malevolent attackers! What was BU's plan to inform users, after-the-fact ridicule memes on r/Bitcoin? Then... they have the nerve to blame Core for their own fuck up. This is hardly inconsequential.

It's a shit show, and I'm expected to trust these people with the Bitcoin network?