bigger blocks = more than just BU

[jonald_fyookball]

BU is just the catalyst.  Once the train takes off, you'll have miners mining
of BU, Classic, XT, even compiled versions of Core that have bigger blocks.

Core will have to capitulate or fork off.

Then the choice will not be BU vs Core...

It will be BU,Classic,XT, alt-core  BITCOIN vs SegwitBlockstreamCoin

[AgentofCoin]

...
Then the choice will not be BU vs Core...
It will be BU,Classic,XT, alt-core  BITCOIN vs SegwitBlockstreamCoin

No, the choice becomes either just centralize and regulate Bitcoin now or lie to all
the incoming future users/investors thinking it will remain resistant to the governments
and other entities that are enemies of this form of liberty.

IMO, we can not handle what you are describing at this point in Bitcoin's life.

[Holliday]

Core will have to capitulate or fork off.

We have a status quo now.

The first dude to make a block bigger than 1 MB is the one forking off...

I know that doesn't fit your narrative that BU = Bitcoin, but it's the reality of the situation.

I mean, afaik BU doesn't even have a plan to roll out a hard fork for a smooth transition. Just randomly dropping it on users when they see fit. Emergent Chaos if you ask me. Exactly what I want from systems that protect my money.

[jonald_fyookball]

Core will have to capitulate or fork off.

We have a status quo now.

The first dude to make a block bigger than 1 MB is the one forking off...

I know that doesn't fit your narrative that BU = Bitcoin, but it's the reality of the situation.

I mean, afaik BU doesn't even have a plan to roll out a hard fork for a smooth transition. Just randomly dropping it on users when they see fit. Emergent Chaos if you ask me. Exactly what I want from systems that protect my money.

I say the longest chain (most hashpower) is Bitcoin.  I know that doesn't fit your narrative that Core/Status Quo = Bitcon, but hey... you say Tomato , I say Tomahto.

[Holliday]

I say the longest chain (most hashpower) is Bitcoin.  I know that doesn't fit your narrative that Core/Status Quo = Bitcon, but hey... you say Tomato , I say Tomahto.

You have no idea which chain is going to be the longest and neither do I (although I know what I'll be doing).

I do know, however, that the miners won't be the ones deciding.

[Carlton Banks]

Emergent Chaos if you ask me. Exactly what I want from systems that protect my money.

This is likely the reason why certain shills keep endlessly repeating re-definitions of the word "consensus" as part of their regular propaganda.

"consensus" apparently means "everyone disagreeing"

[jonald_fyookball]

I say the longest chain (most hashpower) is Bitcoin.  I know that doesn't fit your narrative that Core/Status Quo = Bitcon, but hey... you say Tomato , I say Tomahto.

You have no idea which chain is going to be the longest and neither do I.

Agree.

I do know, however, that the miners won't be the ones deciding.

Deciding what?

[AgentofCoin]

Core will have to capitulate or fork off.

We have a status quo now.

The first dude to make a block bigger than 1 MB is the one forking off...

I know that doesn't fit your narrative that BU = Bitcoin, but it's the reality of the situation.

I mean, afaik BU doesn't even have a plan to roll out a hard fork for a smooth transition. Just randomly dropping it on users when they see fit. Emergent Chaos if you ask me. Exactly what I want from systems that protect my money.

I say the longest chain (most hashpower) is Bitcoin.  ...

I disagree.

Longest chain or "most work" was intended only to prevent what you
are now describing. If some miners can be co-oped to build a malicious chain
and regulate it for the Chinese government to help find their enemies, then
your definition is that they are Bitcoin, and the weaker or minority chain is not.

Satoshi used that mechanism ("longest chain/most work") only as a consolidator
after the fact, and not as a determiner prior to the act. It was really for accidental
splits. Not as a measurement during a contentious hardfork.

[jonald_fyookball]

I disagree.
 

That's fine.  Its just labels.   Call it whatever you want.
 

[AgentofCoin]

I disagree.
 

That's fine.  Its just labels.   Call it whatever you want.
 

Yes, we can disagree and that's fine.
But I explained my rational based on how it was used by Satoshi.
So, I'm not disagreeing just for the purpose of being contrary.

[jonald_fyookball]

I disagree.
 

That's fine.  Its just labels.   Call it whatever you want.
 

Yes, we can disagree and that's fine.
But I explained my rational based on how it was used by Satoshi.
So, I'm not disagreeing just for the purpose of being contrary.

Yep, what constitutes an "honest node" is subjective.

Point of the OP wasn't to argue about this anwyay -- just pointing out that if bigger blocks start coming on the bigger chain, we may
see many implementations participate , not just "BU".

[xhiggy]

Could it be summed up as the software/hashrate combination providing the most value, will have the most valuable coins. There's nothing to stop any formulation of bitcoin from emerging and 'attacking' the other, the most valuable one will endure all the attacks. To me, at this time, this seems to be the hashrate majority.

[AgentofCoin]

I disagree.

That's fine.  Its just labels.   Call it whatever you want.

Yes, we can disagree and that's fine.
But I explained my rational based on how it was used by Satoshi.
So, I'm not disagreeing just for the purpose of being contrary.

Yep, what constitutes an "honest node" is subjective.

It wasn't subjective to Satoshi when he spoke about it.
An honest node is simply one that is following the current rules.

Point of the OP wasn't to argue about this anwyay -- just pointing out that if bigger blocks start coming on the bigger chain, we may
see many implementations participate , not just "BU".

Yes, we are offtopic from your OP.
I won't continue.

[Holliday]

Deciding what?

Which chain survives...