if btu get more hash it will become btc period~ the old chain will get ditched quick! lol :-D weee

Yes, I would love to get some free BTC from Ver too.

Is BU still planning on forking if they don't get their way on a hard blocksize fix? Or are they working towards cooperation now?

(likely I should google this .in that the above remark likely blew blood vessels of members watching this thread as they laughed at the concept of 'comprimise')

but anyway ...a hint? maybe ....someplace? of some sanity on getting this whole issue of block size fixed?

greg maxwell: PSA: I've been able to recover the changes in this binary, and they're massive.
Among other things, they've removed all the runtime state corruption protection... so cases where nodes would cleanly and safely shut down in the event of things going wrong, turn into potential consensus splits or even remote code execution.

sheesh. Lucky BU is just a distraction from the real (miner obstruction) issue.

Or he could just apply this diff that the uber coders of BU leaked inadvertently whilst releasing a binary only patch:

https://launchpadlibrarian.net/311815049/bitcoinunlimited_1.0.1.1-yakkety_1.0.1.2-yakkety.diff.gz


+Main Changes
+------------
+
+Changes are as follows:
+
+- Fix unwanted assertion Sending an invalid GET_XTHIN is a serious misbehavior and any node doing so will be DOS100 banned immediately.  Also sending a GET_XTHIN with an invalid message type will also cause the sendder to be banned. This bug cause the node to crash.
+- Fix pruning when syncing a chain for the first time. iWhen  syncing a chain with pruning enabled there are at times new blocks arriving which make the nLastHeight equal to the tip of the blockchain, however this prevents block files from being removed during pruning.  By not downloading new blocks until the chain no longer in IsInitialDownload() the issue is prevented.

I added a sarcasm tag in case it wasn't obvious. Bleh... test is so boring...

I would definitely not recommend anyone use a closed source patch for software holding private keys.

It's cool, just grab the closed source patch.

hard to know which one was the attacker fork 

My thought is the power struggle wouldn't exist if Bitcoin was decentralized.

I presume BU supporters think that their protocol will make the block size issue decentralized, but I think they are deceiving themselves. But I am not going to argue that point further to the extent of needing to write about Andrew's white paper and detailed discussions and tangents that would ensue.

And it doesn't matter any way whether I convince anyone.

Thanks for the encouragement. I don't want an undeserved appreciation. I haven't done anything worthy yet. My remarks were not intended to foster animosity.

@$1400 I'm selling and instantly bid on $600

No.

The goal is to avoid drastic increases to the amount of information which peers are required to share between each other in order to keep the network operational along with retaining the ability to run a full node (which may be required to become a mining node (use your imagination)) on easily accessible consumer grade hardware.

I fully expect outright attacks on Bitcoin in the future. To me it seems like we've passed "peak freedom" in the civilized world, and Bitcoin is an extremely powerful tool for obtaining and maintaining individual freedom.

This is far more important to me than cheap, fast confirmations.

Besides, I have no problem with increasing transaction capacity and decreasing transaction costs through the implementations of a second layer(s) which is perfectly compatible with the above.

I'm not convinced that the people who complain about the cost of transactions (I think they are ridiculously cheap considering the utility the provide) are the type of people who care about the benefits a full node provides. The fact that comparisons are often made to centralized services (VISA, PayPal) which are nothing like Bitcoin is a prime example.

Also, I spent a lot of time and effort in the past warning about the problems that will arise due to mining pools, and did everything I could to promote p2pool, but it's pretty clear that ship has already sailed (p2pool still exists but it never got the type of support it needed to thrive). In my experience, miners hash rate providers are generally near-sighted, care little about the health of the network or the long term viability of Bitcoin, and are only there to make a quick buck in fiat profits. I'm not exactly keen on handing more control over to their bosses (actual miners, aka pool operators).

You have entirely not paid attention where I wrote upthread that the cartel can sign their blocks and propagate the block headers and begin mining immediately with very low propagation times. But for the non-cartel members they can propagate the entire block. That applies no matter what % of the hashrate the cartel has, even as low as 33% (or even lower).

Just because you can't assimilate all that I've written, doesn't mean I have the time to convince you about your forthcoming errors and noise.

You Bitcoin Unlimited people are not competent about blockchain technology and game theory.

Core probably got tired of repeating the same explanations and seeing your inane replies that evidenced to them that you had 0% reading comprehension.

I didn't write that. You don't even understand what I am writing. I understand why Core blocked you guys. It is impossible to have technical discussion with those who can't comprehend it. It becomes noise.