Just a note to apologize for my rudeness. I think your stated positions are ludicrous, but I didn't need to be a dick about it. Sorry.

Firstly, node operation does not require SSD latencies. HDD speeds are fine. So 25 bux. Yet... so what? Less than 0.2 BTC? Waaaaaah. Buck up buttercup - those that refuse to invest shall be rightfully cast aside. And good riddance to you too. It would be one thing if you even tried... but... I guess you're just too. damned. insignificant.


I see you seem to love wallowing in your public display of ignorance. Suit yourself.... imbecile. When you actually absorb the reality, I'll be happy to respond in a more conducive manner.


Oh god! I hope he doesn't abuse his power by actually ... ASSIGNING A BUIP NUMBER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAIIIIEEEEEE!!!!!

Last 144 blocks (24 hours):
BU: 43.8%
8MB: 6.9%

Yeah, variance could be a major factor, but that's over half for BU compatible blocks.


Not at all. See, for example, the recent BitcoinEC effort. Not to mention any branch of Core that simply implements a larger maxblocksize (of course, that would have to keep chasing the emergent consensus)


Of course. The absolute rejection of the users of any chain containing blocks that deviate from the established reward schedule.


That sounds a lot like the earlier reference to 'American Exceptionalism'. I mean, I don't know different, but do we really think Maxwell and Wuille get a seat at the hall of fame alongside Rivest, Merkel, and Nakamoto?


Be still my heart! I'll need to spend $25* per year to handle the onslaught. How will I ever cope!?!

* or the cost of a handful of smallblock bitcoin transaction fees. oh-the-huge-manatee.png!


Really? You don't think the fact that they each control a hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars prize is reason enough for the rubber hose cryptography treatment?


Umm... yeah. Did you even bother to read your linked article? Not a president of Bitcoin, but a president of the organization. What are the president's powers and duties?:


oooh - scary! well ... not.

---

As a side note of commentary on delusion... all y'all are responsible for your own pain.

dorain-not-bad.png

Certainly plausible, but it seems doubtful to me. What evidence leads you to conclude this?


Agreed. Good thing the most-widely-distributed 'plan' for BU cutover is 75%. That would be amongst all compatible clients. Including BU, simple 8MB, the upcoming BitcoinEC, and others. Today's support is at 43.8% + 6.9% - looks like we are well on the way to an end to this war. Some will lick their wounds, but I like to think that the victors will be welcoming of all.

I like the longer list. Thanks.

Unfortunate that our unbroken string was halted, but we're still flying high!

Core wallet works with BU. Note that BU and Core are currently the exact same blockchain. Once larger blocks start being mined, however, the Core wallet would require a rather trivial patch (to accept larger sized blocks) to remain compatible with the resulting chain.

Umm... BU is Bitcoin. Merely with a user set max block size. What they are waiting for is a clear indication that a large enough majority supports this concept of emergent consensus. At which point, all but an intransigent 1% will accept the new paradigm and switch to a larger-block-capable client -- be it BU, patched core, or other.

Yeah. All the major exchanges have been listing Bitcoin Unlimited since its inception over a year ago. You can usually find it by searching for the symbol 'BTC' or 'XBT'.

Yes. It demonstrates that we realize that a sub-optimal implementation of the right principles are more valuable than even an unrealizably- ideal implementation of the wrong  principles. For the former can asymptotically approach perfection, while the latter is doomed to forever head off in the wrong direction.

As a professional protocol developer (yes, really), I advance the notion that 'big boy' protocols are not defined by a single code implementation. Significant protocols have definitions that exist outside the various tangible implementations of their specifications. Indeed, many significant standards agencies will not recognize a protocol as ready for the big time until such time as there are multiple interoperating implementations from multiple sources.

These rather trivial bugs exhibited recently by BU merely serve to illuminate the problems that may arise when a single implementation is the only implementation of a given protocol. A failure in one implementation is a failure in the entire system. To assume there are not bugs of similar scope in Core is a blindered approach.

Yes, as there has been a resistance within the community to develop a formal specification, we are reliant upon duking it out in the marketplace. Some day, I hope we can move past these baby steps to where we have multiple interoperating implementations from many teams.

In the meantime, a marginal implementation of the better design is far more valuable than any near-bulletproof implementation of a bad design. I continue to advocate BU.

Fundamentals?

ETH fundamentals?

OK, help me out here... fundamentally, what is ETH good for?

Hmm... Bill Murray, I know... Google Image Search tells me 'Groundhog Day' - a movie I've never seen (despite my finding Andie MacDowell (she was in that, right?) a room-filling brilliance). Relevance? You and I have been kicking around these parts publicly since mid-2011 (somewhat longer as an unregistered lurker for me). The movie is something about the same events playing over & over?

This is Bitcoin. If we need to trust anyone with it, it has already failed.

My (admittedly drunkenly-expressed) point is... in the grand scope of things, this bug was inconsequential. The only thing at risk was connectivity. Yeah, it was an issue. Now its over. We move on. So what?

Mmmmhh hmmm.....
Tell you what, chicken littles... I've got well over a first world salary parked on my BU node. First of you loudmouths harping about 'crappy BU code' who can actually exploit this so-called weakness is welcome to my stacks.

All I ask is that you first announce your attempt. Not that I'll invoke any countermeasures... I just want to make clear how fail-full your attempt is.

All right... who's first to eat it?

Woo-Hoo! We've run the table!

It's really quite simple. And actually quite obvious. If you lift a stupid production quota that artificially hard-caps the number of transactions Bitcoin is capable of to about a quarter-million per day, then more people can each make more transactions. This is by definition greater utility. Greater utility leads to greater value, and greater value leads to greater price. All boats are floated.

Indeed - if we hit it, it would be an unbroken string since 2017 Feb 23.

dorian-not-bad.gif

Perhaps all the outsiders have figured out that there will not be an ETF to make it easy for them, and are buying in directly.

Yeah... seems to quick for that.