SegWit vs Bitcoin unlimited

[Kprawn]

I think both sides are over complicating the issue and this leads to confusion. Satoshi would most probably just up'ed the block size a tiny bit,

and addressed all the other issues on their own. Now Blockstream added all these extra features/fixes to make it more attractive, and people

got confused. Most developers make this mistake.... over engineering the solution.   ....The answer is simple, keep the protocol clean and

secure and do off-chain payments for scalability... Oh, but that is what Blockstream is trying to do, or not... see, now I am also confused.  

[1713919465]

1713919465

[1713919465]

1713919465

[1713919465]

1713919465

[1713919465]

1713919465

[hv_]

BU in short removes a single mostly unimportant line in the bitcoin protocol.

SegWit is a brutal hack into many places of the bitcoin protocol that is still not understood fully how it finally plays out and now litecoin tries to test it in real live soon.

You decide whats a bigger risk and could be called an altcoin.

[LegendaryMiner]

I think both sides are over complicating the issue and this leads to confusion. Satoshi would most probably just up'ed the block size a tiny bit,

and addressed all the other issues on their own. Now Blockstream added all these extra features/fixes to make it more attractive, and people

got confused. Most developers make this mistake.... over engineering the solution.   ....The answer is simple, keep the protocol clean and

secure and do off-chain payments for scalability... Oh, but that is what Blockstream is trying to do, or not... see, now I am also confused.  

Recently I saw the quote in which satoshi talked about changing the block size as a possible solution to such problems.

The point is, this quote was made in 2010. At that time there was no SegWit.
So, in fact, perhaps larger blocks were the best solution at that time. However, it's hard to know what satoshi would say these days...

[shinratensei_]

SegWit is far more progressive solution and it solves several problems not just scalability. Besides SegWit is softfork and Unlimited is hardfork. Remember what happened with Etherium after hardfork?

What happened with Etherium was due to the DAO hack and then the hardfork ultimately divided the community.
This won't be the case at all with Bitcoin unlimited, if it ever comes to fruition.

And why the DAO happened? Becouse several lamers decided that they are great programmers and make shit code.
With unlimited we have the same situation. Who will fix bugs in unlimited? Roger Ver?

Andrew stone will fix it, LOL

OMG this game will never be ending
https://coin.dance/blocks
What's next? 95% signaling is impossible for me.  

[shinratensei_]

SegWit is far more progressive solution and it solves several problems not just scalability. Besides SegWit is softfork and Unlimited is hardfork. Remember what happened with Etherium after hardfork?

What happened with Etherium was due to the DAO hack and then the hardfork ultimately divided the community.
This won't be the case at all with Bitcoin unlimited, if it ever comes to fruition.

And why the DAO happened? Becouse several lamers decided that they are great programmers and make shit code.
With unlimited we have the same situation. Who will fix bugs in unlimited? Roger Ver?

Does anyone know how much of that Roger Ver has?

Roger Ver still has the last 51% mining pool supports.

[pawel7777]

Does anyone know how much of that Roger Ver has?

Roger Ver still has the last 51% mining pool supports.

Roger Ver has his own pool, currently 1.4% of hashpower. ViaBTC, other pool that openly opposed segwit softfork has 7.9%, meaning, if nothing changes, segwit will struggle to get 95% support.

[franky1]

Does anyone know how much of that Roger Ver has?

Roger Ver still has the last 51% mining pool supports.

Roger Ver has his own pool, currently 1.4% of hashpower. ViaBTC, other pool that openly opposed segwit softfork has 7.9%, meaning, if nothing changes, segwit will struggle to get 95% support.

gmaxwell has already stated he is ok with causing a network split below 95% just to get his softwork activated

If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90%  ... then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signalled activation.

just to clear the terminology up
orphaning off a block not because its invalid but because of which pool sent it. is controversial because its not an invalid block. meaning different nodes are accepting different blocks. this causes orphan drama that then leads to needing to ignore the opposing nodes too..
this is not consensus

consensus is agreement to accept the same data and same rules where the majority accept all the valid blocks (without any biased pickyness) leaving the minority simply unable to sync

[Kprawn]

I think both sides are over complicating the issue and this leads to confusion. Satoshi would most probably just up'ed the block size a tiny bit,

and addressed all the other issues on their own. Now Blockstream added all these extra features/fixes to make it more attractive, and people

got confused. Most developers make this mistake.... over engineering the solution.   ....The answer is simple, keep the protocol clean and

secure and do off-chain payments for scalability... Oh, but that is what Blockstream is trying to do, or not... see, now I am also confused.  

Recently I saw the quote in which satoshi talked about changing the block size as a possible solution to such problems.

The point is, this quote was made in 2010. At that time there was no SegWit.
So, in fact, perhaps larger blocks were the best solution at that time. However, it's hard to know what satoshi would say these days...

Increasing the Block sizes have it's drawbacks. It can open up the network to new attacks and it will also bloat the Blockchain, if it is used

incorrectly. So something like SegWit is the better solution to the scaling problem, but I would have wanted it to be without all the bells and

whistles. You will never satisfy everyone's needs, and most of the criticism is actually just politics and has nothing to do with the code. 

[franky1]

Increasing the Block sizes have it's drawbacks. It can open up the network to new attacks and it will also bloat the Blockchain, if it is used

incorrectly. So something like SegWit is the better solution to the scaling problem, but I would have wanted it to be without all the bells and

whistles. You will never satisfy everyone's needs, and most of the criticism is actually just politics and has nothing to do with the code. 

if you are talking about bloat. w all know its not a hard drive killer. 8 years of data fits on a fingernail after all.

but cores 4mb deadweight for future features vs communities desire for real 2mb lean tx's...  2 vs 4 which sounds more 'bloat'

[calkob]

BU in short removes a single mostly unimportant line in the bitcoin protocol.

SegWit is a brutal hack into many places of the bitcoin protocol that is still not understood fully how it finally plays out and now litecoin tries to test it in real live soon.

You decide whats a bigger risk and could be called an altcoin.

Both run the risk of being labelled an altcoin, BU especially if they achieved 51% and forked.

[Ironsides]

You will never satisfy everyone's needs, and most of the criticism is actually just politics and has nothing to do with the code. 

Fucking politics... Why do we need this threshold of 95% at all? There're always people trying to disturb just because they are assholes.

[Carlton Banks]

something like SegWit is the better solution to the scaling problem, but I would have wanted it to be without all the bells and

whistles. You will never satisfy everyone's needs, and most of the criticism is actually just politics and has nothing to do with the code. 

Ok, so what does your "bells and whistles" comment have to do with Segwit's code? I'm assuming you mean "frivolities" when you say that, please tell us all which parts of Segwit are frivolous

[Ironsides]

Both run the risk of being labelled an altcoin, BU especially if they achieved 51% and forked.

What do you think happen if BU activates ? I'm sure BU drops in first 3 days at 0,001 of Bitcoin. and become another useless alt.

[Loganota]

I see a big difference in relation to Ethereum, what was done with the ETH was decision totally thinking about the self interest of some people (who lost money). Whatever is done with the massive support of the community with the intention of improving I do not see as a problem.

[Variogam]

gmaxwell has already stated he is ok with causing a network split below 95% just to get his softwork activated

If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90%  ... then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signalled activation.

You technically need over 50% to activate SegWit via orphaning other blocks. But I agree it would split the coin because you would piss off good fraction of Bitcoin users (lot of individual miners losing money, plus those who oppose dirty methods to achieve something) if the activation goes through orphaning attack.

[JayJuanGee]

You will never satisfy everyone's needs, and most of the criticism is actually just politics and has nothing to do with the code.  

Fucking politics... Why do we need this threshold of 95% at all? There're always people trying to disturb just because they are assholes.

This whole system is supposed to be decentralized, and therefore no one can really impose anything on anyone else, so these threshold numbers are proposed as what would be projected to be the safest to get the most folks going along with the longest chain and preserving the longest chain and avoiding some of the ETH/ETC bullshit, if possible.  

95% seems as if it would be pretty safe to get everyone sufficiently going along, but it is possible that 88% or 92% may be deemed to be sufficient, when the time comes and a calculated risk of whether, in the end, the forking off of the minority (whether that is 5% or 8% or 12% or more) would have any sufficient negative effect on the majority coin..... and maybe in the end, it may be o.k. to just let them fork off into a minority coin, in order for the overwhelming majority to implement the largely unambiguous advantages of the innovation and what an overwhelming majority want to do.

As long as you want this BTC thingie majigie to be related to the values of humans (rather than bots), I just don't know how you get around the politics of the matter while preserving decentralization  - in which no small group is imposing their will on the others.  What is a better proposition of going forward?

[franky1]

gmaxwell has already stated he is ok with causing a network split below 95% just to get his softwork activated

If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90%  ... then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signalled activation.

You technically need over 50% to activate SegWit via orphaning other blocks. But I agree it would split the coin because you would piss off good fraction of Bitcoin users (lot of individual miners losing money, plus those who oppose dirty methods to achieve something) if the activation goes through orphaning attack.

read my post again .. edited to further clarify
"just to clear the terminology up
orphaning off a block not because its invalid but because of which pool sent it. is controversial because its not an invalid block. meaning different nodes are accepting different blocks. this causes orphan drama (which will eventually sort itself out to one chain with the minor chain unable to sync)
[this is a contraversial fork that just creates orphan drama then settle down as one chain,  and minority unsynced from network]

that then [can] lead to needing to ignore the opposing nodes too [if you want the minor chain to start building its own chain without orphaning.. or if the major chain doesnt want to see the minor chain endlessly requesting and rejecting blocks.]
this is not consensus, [nor controversial, this is a intentional split aka bilateral fork]

consensus is agreement to accept the same data and same rules where the majority accept all the valid blocks (without any biased pickyness) leaving the minority simply unable to sync [ignoring blocks and nodes simply due to a 'brand war' leads to an intentional split] "

[TKeenan]

Every hardfork without overwhelming support can cause a network split.

Do not fear a network split.  Network splits are how we get to the most efficient system the fastest.  Who cares if 'bitcoin's reputation suffers'?  Who cares if the price goes down?  Only the speculators.  Price will go up even more if we achieve a very high performance system in five years.  Network split only fucks up the price in the short term and messes with speculator profits.  However, if we have 10 network splits, or forks, we will have ten great versions to learn which one kicks the most ass. 

[Carlton Banks]

So, where is your long-threatened split, splitters? You've been saying "hard fork" for, how long is it, 2 years yet?


Hurry up. I actually mean that, get on with it

[franky1]

everyone ignore the troll with the initials C B
he does not know the difference between a consensus fork and a intentional split

especially when its only been core that have been begging everyone else to intensionally split(bilateral)
kind of foolish for him to bait a reply with twisting the rhetoric of who wants what, by pretending its the community wanting it when its obviously the segwit fans..

a hard fork is just an empty umbrella term that has several subcategories.. a hard fork buzzword is meaningless if you dont understand which subcategory has been proposed.

softfork: consensus - >94% pools no banning/intent of minority. result: small 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: controversial - >50% pools no banning/intent of minority. result: long big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: bilateral - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

hardfork: consensus - >94% nodes, then >94% pools no banning/intent of minority. result: 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: controversial - >50% nodes, then >50% pools no banning/intent of minority. result: big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: bilateral - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

funny how when they say softfork they use best case scenario.
funny how when they say hardfork they use worse case scenario. as if worse case is the plan, when its not.

the community want in general "consensus", preferable one where nodes have involvement (harder to achieve).