Can we start talking about splitting amicably...

[Killerpotleaf]

We have 2 possible outcomes.
1. BTU splits and we get rid of Jihad Wuss and Vermin which is good, but we may have temporary reduce in price.
2. BTU doesnt split and bitcoin remains intact which is also possitve, but those rats continue to poison the community. 

i'm worried about outcome #3

3. there is no spilt and nothing changes, 6 months from now we are no futher along, expect that, TX fee go up thru the roof, and altcoins continue to profit from this problem which will never be solved!

[kiklo]

That is a simple idea but it is very hard to do. Well for me instead of splitting up why not unite and work as one for the betterment of bitcoin. This problems ans issues within bitcoin has bring bad impact not only to the price but also to the credibility of bitcoin itself. Aside from that it is not only bitcoin who is affected but the whole cryptocurrency economy who are dependent on bitcoin.

I'm starting to think "working together" is not an option.
it seems clear that what is causing problem is "trying to work together", consider how segwit AND bigger blocks both have not been activated.
it seems to me without a split nothing will change, the only way for bitcoin to move forward at this point appears to be a split.
i mean how many more months ( years!?!? ) are we willing to waste watching 30% segwit 30% BU +-10%??

Maybe, the current stalemate not being resolved is more damaging to bitcoin than a split would be.

BTU only needs 15% more to FIX BTC, so the transaction fees are not sky high anymore.

BTU needs to FIX BTC when they reach 55% and then the deadWIT supporters can rejoin BTC or split off to SEGPAL.

Funny thing is When SegPal switches PoW to a CPU only version, the remaining ASICS miners have no choice, but to support BTU or lose their entire investment.
Since 100% of the ASICS will then be on BTU, why does anyone not believe it will keep the name Bitcoin.

The only ones splitting off will be Core and a few greedy nodes that think they can profit from the PoW change.
SegPal will be their New Altcoin, it will not resemble BTC at all and definitely won't have it's security.

 

[Kakmakr]

I think the only option to split in an "amicable" way would be that BU starts as an altcoin, in the way I described here (taking a BTC snapshot as a starting point).

A hard fork is too risky to be considered "amicable". It would lead to extreme market insecurity and volatility and put adoption and confidence in the BTC currency in severe danger, while a BTU altcoin could grow organically if it demonstrates that their technology (EC) is sound.

This will have too many negative affects for the reduction in hash rate and also decentralization of the network, when a large quantity of miners are split to mine another new Alt coin. The people behind BU knows that Bitcoin has the advantage of the network behind it and would not go the Alt coin route.

Most Alt coins do not make it, because they do not have utility and a network that use their coins. BU is nothing more than a attempt at a hostile takeover. ^grrrrrrr^

[Sadlife]

The miners gets to decide not the commumity.
The best way is not splitting, it would reduce the hashpower of bitcoin and all this BU vs Core debate is just a power grab on who takes control this crypto currency. I bet alt coin owners are happy in what is currently happening to btc.
People are scared that they might lose their profit so they cling to whatever hope they can get like the BU and Core supporters.
In the end we all want to make profit.

[freedomno1]

There can be only one.

Highlander versus the Borg


The Joke is the Blockchain on a Meta Level
We are fighting over Blockchains
https://commsrisk.com/beyond-bitcoin-networks-will-love-blockchains/

(To OP: Sure you can have the Blockchain over here that does this I'll take the one that did this and eat my cake)

[Carlton Banks]

I think the only option to split in an "amicable" way would be that BU starts as an altcoin, in the way I described here (taking a BTC snapshot as a starting point).

A hard fork is too risky to be considered "amicable". It would lead to extreme market insecurity and volatility and put adoption and confidence in the BTC currency in severe danger, while a BTU altcoin could grow organically if it demonstrates that their technology (EC) is sound.

And why wouldn't BU want this?

If EC is the greatest idea ever, why would they pass on being the early miners earning 50 BTU per block? The early Bitcoin miners who enjoyed that are now mega-rich.


Their excuse has always been "I want to protect my BTC holdings, and the BTC of others". It's just bizarre reasoning, and (strangely) has the effect of doing the opposite, as they want to use hashrate to prevent the actual BTC chain from existing

Am I the only one who thinks they're lying from one side of their faces to the other, and that they're just trying to be as disruptive to Bitcoin as possible?

[Juggy777]

Why in the world would anyone support spillitng, you are coming in my house as my brother, then suddenly claiming you have a better right over my house and then you want me to keep some share and loose the remaining, no way, we are going to fight it out till the very end to make sure we can yet save Bitcoin and this is what is needed, it is the need of the hour that bitcoin members get up and fight for their rights.

[meriane]

We stand united as one Bitcoin, We do not leave it broken