bitcoin "unlimited" seeks review

[DooMAD]

this is not some political campaign

Could have fooled me with the flagrantly biased, misleading and just plain wrong quote in your signature.  You're hardly the posterboy for neutrality, are you.  Troll harder next time.

[1715274564]

1715274564

[1715274564]

1715274564

[1715274564]

1715274564

[1715274564]

1715274564

[iCEBREAKER]

[dead horse beating intensifies]

Nobody cares about XTurd or Unlimiturd.  They had their chance, but failed to get more than 0.001% of the network to support them.

Bitcoin Ultra is the new hawtness.   

And BTW, what happened to the "Watch out Core, XT is going to take over in January" threats?

Did you forget about that?  Too bad; I have not.

[Fatman3001]

...
This is a clear intent to break everything and make it too chaotic to be usable.

Actually because of the defaults set in BU it is more likely to follow the longest chain regardless of what the blocksize will be. Therefore it can be argued that BU is better for end users since if they where using Core instead they would be forked off the network when the blocksize is increased. BU allows for continued compatibility with the Bitcoin blockchain regardless of what blocksize proposal is adopted, unlike both XT and Core which will need to be upgraded and or patched in order to maintain consensus with the economic majority depending on the blocksize proposal that is chosen. Bitcoin Unlimited on the other hand maintains compatibility with other proposals out of the box from day one using the default settings.

Indeed.  For people who want to track consensus regardless of the who/what/where/when/why of the eventual block size limit increase, Bitcoin Unlimited is the best choice.  

Why are you posting that picture? Is the RED supposed to induce a negative emotion? Is RED supposed to be wrong?

BU is full of flaws and allows for Sybil attacks.

[a]The crowd here are capable of thinking for themselves, this is not some political campaign where you just utter the same words over and over and show us 4 colored boxes. It means absolutely nothing that you draw those boxes. Its insulting how you present your option.

[a] Then what's the point of your post?

If you imagine that the block size issue would turn quickly towards something like bitpay nodes, wouldn't it be "safer" to run BU? I'm not saying that this is the saving grace of BU, just that this point might be more relevant now than it has been.

[dead horse beating intensifies]

Nobody cares about XTurd or Unlimiturd.  They had their chance, but failed to get more than 0.001% of the network to support them.

Bitcoin Ultra is the new hawtness.  

And BTW, what happened to the "Watch out Core, XT is going to take over in January" threats?

Did you forget about that?  Too bad; I have not.

U R [expletive deleted]

[smooth]

Bitcoin Ultra is the new hawtness.   

Okay I give up. What the hell is Bitcoin Ultra?

[theymos]

Okay I give up. What the hell is Bitcoin Ultra?

It's a softfork of XT which makes it compatible with Bitcoin, and also removes all of its other ill-advised changes.

[iCEBREAKER]

Okay I give up. What the hell is Bitcoin Ultra?

It's a softfork of XT which makes it compatible with Bitcoin, and also removes all of its other ill-advised changes.

[smoothie]

[dead horse beating intensifies]

Nobody cares about XTurd or Unlimiturd.  They had their chance, but failed to get more than 0.001% of the network to support them.

Bitcoin Ultra is the new hawtness.   

And BTW, what happened to the "Watch out Core, XT is going to take over in January" threats?

Did you forget about that?  Too bad; I have not.

I gotta admit XT failed miserably.

Hearn ran away...and support for XT is literally dead at this point.

[basil00]

For people who want to track consensus regardless of the who/what/where/when/why of the eventual block size limit increase, Bitcoin Unlimited is the best choice.

PseudoNode is better because it also covers any future non-blocksize related hardfork:



The only rational thing to do is to replace the entire Bitcoin network with PseudoNodes

[VeritasSapere]

...
This is a clear intent to break everything and make it too chaotic to be usable.

Actually because of the defaults set in BU it is more likely to follow the longest chain regardless of what the blocksize will be. Therefore it can be argued that BU is better for end users since if they where using Core instead they would be forked off the network when the blocksize is increased. BU allows for continued compatibility with the Bitcoin blockchain regardless of what blocksize proposal is adopted, unlike both XT and Core which will need to be upgraded and or patched in order to maintain consensus with the economic majority depending on the blocksize proposal that is chosen. Bitcoin Unlimited on the other hand maintains compatibility with other proposals out of the box from day one using the default settings.

Indeed.  For people who want to track consensus regardless of the who/what/where/when/why of the eventual block size limit increase, Bitcoin Unlimited is the best choice.  

Why are you posting that picture? Is the RED supposed to induce a negative emotion? Is RED supposed to be wrong?

BU is full of flaws and allows for Sybil attacks.

The crowd here are capable of thinking for themselves, this is not some political campaign where you just utter the same words over and over and show us 4 colored boxes. It means absolutely nothing that you draw those boxes. Its insulting how you present your option.

Green stands for yes and red stands for no, there is nothing manipulative about this, unless you think that traffic lights and price graphs for example are also propaganda. These associations with colors are well established, and it is a fact that Core does not support an increased blocksize whereas BU does regardless of the blocksize limit and which blocksize increase proposal is chosen by the economic majority, so the way that Peter R depicts potential support and compatibility for these different implementations under different network conditions is accurate.

BU does not allow for Sybil attacks like you claim, since proof of work can not be Sybil attack, and it is proof of work which under BU would allow for a change to the blocksize limit, this is actually not any different to how the network already functions today, BU just further empowers participants by reducing the barriers to entry to effect such change.

Bitcoin Unlimited will just follow the longest chain regardless of the blocksize limit under the default settings, and proof of work can not be Sybil attacked, which is the primary reason why POW is even used in Bitcoin in the first place. It is supposed to be a reliable way to measure consensus since miners would not act against their own self interests by turning against the economic majority.

[Peter R]

This is a simple animation to visualize how the network's block size limit could be increased through a completely decentralized process.  

When enough "forking pressure" builds, individual nodes defect from the historical 1 MB consensus, setting their personal block size limits higher.  A new consensus forms at a higher block size limit with the help of signalling.  When miners are confident that the economic majority will accept larger blocks, they begin to relieve the pressure by increasing their generation limits and producing larger blocks.  

[JackH]

This is a simple animation to visualize how the network's block size limit could be increased through a completely decentralized process.  

When enough "forking pressure" builds, individual nodes defect from the historical 1 MB consensus, setting their personal block size limits higher.  A new consensus forms at a higher block size limit with the help of signalling.  When miners are confident that the economic majority will accept larger blocks, they begin to relieve the pressure by increasing their generation limits and producing larger blocks.  

<sarcasm>Wow thank you for opening our eyes Peter R! This is amazing, how did we all miss this? The animated pressure valve you are showing us makes all the difference! </sarcasm>

How about you write some code for core instead of fixating on one single issue day in and out. Its boring to listen to same broken record player, over and over and over again. Core has rejected your idea, its time to move on, and leave the issue mate.

[JackH]

...
This is a clear intent to break everything and make it too chaotic to be usable.

Actually because of the defaults set in BU it is more likely to follow the longest chain regardless of what the blocksize will be. Therefore it can be argued that BU is better for end users since if they where using Core instead they would be forked off the network when the blocksize is increased. BU allows for continued compatibility with the Bitcoin blockchain regardless of what blocksize proposal is adopted, unlike both XT and Core which will need to be upgraded and or patched in order to maintain consensus with the economic majority depending on the blocksize proposal that is chosen. Bitcoin Unlimited on the other hand maintains compatibility with other proposals out of the box from day one using the default settings.

Indeed.  For people who want to track consensus regardless of the who/what/where/when/why of the eventual block size limit increase, Bitcoin Unlimited is the best choice.  

Why are you posting that picture? Is the RED supposed to induce a negative emotion? Is RED supposed to be wrong?

BU is full of flaws and allows for Sybil attacks.

The crowd here are capable of thinking for themselves, this is not some political campaign where you just utter the same words over and over and show us 4 colored boxes. It means absolutely nothing that you draw those boxes. Its insulting how you present your option.

Green stands for yes and red stands for no, there is nothing manipulative about this, unless you think that traffic lights and price graphs for example are also propaganda. These associations with colors are well established, and it is a fact that Core does not support an increased blocksize whereas BU does regardless of the blocksize limit and which blocksize increase proposal is chosen by the economic majority, so the way that Peter R depicts potential support and compatibility for these different implementations under different network conditions is accurate.

BU does not allow for Sybil attacks like you claim, since proof of work can not be Sybil attack, and it is proof of work which under BU would allow for a change to the blocksize limit, this is actually not any different to how the network already functions today, BU just further empowers participants by reducing the barriers to entry to effect such change.

Bitcoin Unlimited will just follow the longest chain regardless of the blocksize limit under the default settings, and proof of work can not be Sybil attacked, which is the primary reason why POW is even used in Bitcoin in the first place. It is supposed to be a reliable way to measure consensus since miners would not act against their own self interests by turning against the economic majority.

It is obvious you have failed at understanding the basic principles behind Bitcoin. A Sybil attack has NOTHING to do with Proof of Work.

The Sybill attack comes from nodes! Please do yourself a favor and read up on all the posts in this thread, where multiple examples are given for a Sybil attack against BU, without anyone explaining how to prevent it. No matter how many fancy animations Peter R creates, it still does not solve the technical challenges.

[Peter R]

How about you write some code for core instead of fixating on one single issue day in and out.

I don't github.  I prefer to gif. 

[iCEBREAKER]

How about you write some code for core instead of fixating on one single issue day in and out.

I don't github.  I prefer to gif.  

https://www.reddit.com/user/Peter__R

This account has been suspended

Thanks to The Mighty Banhammer, Reddit's signal-to-noise ratio just crept up ever so slightly.  

Ledger needs to follow suit.  Toxic assclowns like Peter R have no place in legitimate academic publications.

BRB, need to milk the lolcows over at /r/bitcoinXT, /r/btc, and bitco.in.   

_{note to self: get a bigger bucket}

[VeritasSapere]

...
This is a clear intent to break everything and make it too chaotic to be usable.

Actually because of the defaults set in BU it is more likely to follow the longest chain regardless of what the blocksize will be. Therefore it can be argued that BU is better for end users since if they where using Core instead they would be forked off the network when the blocksize is increased. BU allows for continued compatibility with the Bitcoin blockchain regardless of what blocksize proposal is adopted, unlike both XT and Core which will need to be upgraded and or patched in order to maintain consensus with the economic majority depending on the blocksize proposal that is chosen. Bitcoin Unlimited on the other hand maintains compatibility with other proposals out of the box from day one using the default settings.

Indeed.  For people who want to track consensus regardless of the who/what/where/when/why of the eventual block size limit increase, Bitcoin Unlimited is the best choice.  

Why are you posting that picture? Is the RED supposed to induce a negative emotion? Is RED supposed to be wrong?

BU is full of flaws and allows for Sybil attacks.

The crowd here are capable of thinking for themselves, this is not some political campaign where you just utter the same words over and over and show us 4 colored boxes. It means absolutely nothing that you draw those boxes. Its insulting how you present your option.

Green stands for yes and red stands for no, there is nothing manipulative about this, unless you think that traffic lights and price graphs for example are also propaganda. These associations with colors are well established, and it is a fact that Core does not support an increased blocksize whereas BU does regardless of the blocksize limit and which blocksize increase proposal is chosen by the economic majority, so the way that Peter R depicts potential support and compatibility for these different implementations under different network conditions is accurate.

BU does not allow for Sybil attacks like you claim, since proof of work can not be Sybil attack, and it is proof of work which under BU would allow for a change to the blocksize limit, this is actually not any different to how the network already functions today, BU just further empowers participants by reducing the barriers to entry to effect such change.

Bitcoin Unlimited will just follow the longest chain regardless of the blocksize limit under the default settings, and proof of work can not be Sybil attacked, which is the primary reason why POW is even used in Bitcoin in the first place. It is supposed to be a reliable way to measure consensus since miners would not act against their own self interests by turning against the economic majority.

It is obvious you have failed at understanding the basic principles behind Bitcoin. A Sybil attack has NOTHING to do with Proof of Work.

The Sybill attack comes from nodes! Please do yourself a favor and read up on all the posts in this thread, where multiple examples are given for a Sybil attack against BU, without anyone explaining how to prevent it. No matter how many fancy animations Peter R creates, it still does not solve the technical challenges.

Exactly my point proof of work can not be Sybil attacked, and under Bitcoin Unlimited the blocksize limit is determined by the economic majority through proof of work. Not the nodes like you claim, therefore BU is not vulnerable to such an attack vector. Of course node count can be manipulated through Sybil type attacks. This is why it is not a reliable measure of consensus unlike proof of work. Bitcoin Unlimited does not change this, it is no different to how the network operates today.

I do not need to explain how to prevent such an attack since nobody has successfully explained how such an attack would even occur, once you have done that I can counter your critique, though I would presently consider this attack vector completely ineffectual under BU. Therefore the burden of proof is on your end. Since previous posts on this subject have already been discussed, to me it seems clear that BU can not effectively be Sybil attacked, not anymore so then Core can, presently at least.

[Peter R]

Here's an interesting thought experiment to drive your point home, VeritasSapere:

How could we ever know for sure if the economic majority had upgraded to a client that would support larger blocks?

The answer is we can't.  Instead, we could talk to people, read comments on forums like this, attend conferences, listen to statements from influential people, and check sites like xtnodes.com to see how many nodes have upgraded.  

These could all be "spoofed": people could lie, forum comments could be from sock puppets, conferences could be frauds, influential people might be confused, and xtnodes might be Sybil attacked.  

In other words, there is no way to be 100% sure--instead we must make our best judgements.  Fortunately, this is fairly easy because most people don't lie, sock puppets are outnumbered, conferences are usually legitimate, influential people have accurate information, and Sybil attacks are often obvious.  

[Bergmann_Christoph]

Indeed.  For people who want to track consensus regardless of the who/what/where/when/why of the eventual block size limit increase, Bitcoin Unlimited is the best choice.  

Why are you posting that picture? Is the RED supposed to induce a negative emotion? Is RED supposed to be wrong?

BU is full of flaws and allows for Sybil attacks.

The crowd here are capable of thinking for themselves, this is not some political campaign where you just utter the same words over and over and show us 4 colored boxes. It means absolutely nothing that you draw those boxes. Its insulting how you present your option.

Who are you?

Now, that peter was banned from reddit, you feel strong enough to offend him?

And who are you, to speak for the crowd?

Like Peter or like him not, but listen to him, when he's right: As a result of unsuccesfull discussions, unlucky decision-finding and bad behavior we face a future, where hardforks without consensus become more likely to emerge. Like it or not. You can blame, whoever you need to blame, but it's better to be prepared.

Like Peter said: Bitcoin Unlimited could help you to manage forks.

If you had read anything in this thread, you should know.

Ah, btw

It is obvious you have failed at understanding the basic principles behind Bitcoin. A Sybil attack has NOTHING to do with Proof of Work.

The Sybill attack comes from nodes!

There is no sense in debatting, when you don't read. Scroll back to  page 2 to see that this kind of attack we are talking about has ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING to do with Proof of Work.

"Something about 2.000 Nodes sybilling everybody with 200 MB blocks

Sorry for stepping in.

If someone tries to sybill the networks and sets up 2,000 nodes with a blocklimit of 200 MB, no responsible miner would take this as a reason to set his own limit to 200 MB.

When one of the miners was corrupted too, he could release a 200 MB block and 2,000 Nodes would propagate it. All the other nodes with lower limits would reject the block untill it reaches some depth. For that to happen the majority of miners has to be corrupted.

Small-Block stalward brg444 helped. Even he knows that this simple sybill doesn't work.

The attack is a lot more complex than that. I think you're on the BU forum? Taek had a nice explanation of the centralization pressure enabled by BU. Someone could leverage a sybil attack to effectively do just what he proposed: slowly but surely prune nodes out of the network until it gets consolidated into a few more controllable hands.

The attack is that a majority of MINERS that controll a mass of nodes pushes the network step by step into centralization by pruning the weaker parts of the network out. Several people did answer this attack in this discussion. Also it was answered in another forum, where you have been linked to. None of it was answered by you. Instead you are still insisting on the sybill-attack that was denies even by your own teammate.

You don't need to have to be willing to learn. But please, stop disrupting people, who want to learn and discuss, with your insults.

[iCEBREAKER]

please, stop disrupting people, who want to learn and discuss, with your insults

Says the Gavinista who just wrote an entire post insulting the mods (IE our gracious, tolerant, and generous hosts) and "small block militia."

Your already unseemly self-pity is becoming nauseating.  The sooner you Gavinistas are herded into /v/bitcoinxt to circlejerk yourselves the better.

[smooth]

Exactly my point proof of work can not be Sybil attacked, and under Bitcoin Unlimited the blocksize limit is determined by the economic majority through proof of work. Not the nodes like you claim, therefore BU is not vulnerable to such an attack vector.

BU nodes do not accept the longest chain if it disagrees with their idea of validity (e.g. block size), until that longest chain is a sufficient number of blocks ahead. This creates forks that will persist for up to an hour or even longer, and can be used for attacks. Many merchant systems currently use 1-3 confirms on Bitcoin and will either have to change that to a higher number or be easily attacked.

[Bergmann_Christoph]

Exactly my point proof of work can not be Sybil attacked, and under Bitcoin Unlimited the blocksize limit is determined by the economic majority through proof of work. Not the nodes like you claim, therefore BU is not vulnerable to such an attack vector.

BU nodes do not accept the longest chain if it disagrees with their idea of validity (e.g. block size), until that longest chain is a sufficient number of blocks ahead. This creates forks that will persist for up to an hour or even longer, and can be used for attacks. Many merchant systems currently use 1-3 confirms on Bitcoin and will either have to change that to a higher number or be easily attacked.

Yes, that's a good point

There are situations where you should wait longer with bu to be sure a tx is really confirmed. But this only happens when the First block your tx is in raises the size.

If You receive tx you should set your limit very conservativ to ne sure you are not on The wrong chain.

Every miner doing this risks to loose his block, so the theory is that this kind of active consens seeking will rarely emerge.

Sorry, typos, Smartphone ...