So who the hell is still supporting BU?

[pereira4]

BU has proven to be unreliable, untested software developed by amateurs, who the hell is still delusional enough to support those guys instead of Core?

It's time to wake up and admit defeat, Core wins again. BU is joining the list of hardfork attempts that failed along with XT and Classic soon.

Core calls the shoots and everyone copies then, then they tweak something here and there and manage to fuck up bigly.

We are lucky BU is irrelevant. If this happened and BU was as big as Core is, we would have ended up in a tricky ETH/ETC style situation with the consequent disaster.

Looks like some guys will never learn. They think magic solutions exists to the current issues, BU being nothing but a failed magic trick attempt.

Now if they could behave as adults and start signaling for segwit as advice by every expert on the field including Andreas Antonopoulos, we could move on from this mess and continue improving.

[hv_]

As seen as an adult from above - you can solve this only with a proper compromise and with re-union of the community.

[pooya87]

BU has proven to be unreliable, untested software developed by amateurs, who the hell is still delusional enough to support those guys instead of Core?

It's time to wake up and admit defeat, Core wins again. BU is joining the list of hardfork attempts that failed along with XT and Classic soon.

i don't support anything and usually don't get sucked in the block size drama but i am very curious to know why in the world you are saying Bitcoin Unlimited has failed?

i would like to mention that according to coin.dance the number of blocks mined by BU has gone up a little bit while SegWit has dropped a tiny bit!
https://coin.dance/blocks/historical

[DannyHamilton]

BU has proven to be unreliable, untested software developed by amateurs, who the hell is still delusional enough to support those guys instead of Core?

I am.

It's time to wake up and admit defeat, Core wins again.

Wins how?  Is SegWit activated?

BU is joining the list of hardfork attempts that failed along with XT and Classic soon.

Perhaps. Or perhaps not.  Time will tell.

Core calls the shoots

And you don't see a problem with that? Isn't bitcoin supposed to be more open than that?

and everyone copies then, then they tweak something here and there and manage to fuck up bigly.

Bigly?  Nah.  Just a small bug.  It's happened to Core as well.  They aren't gods. They're just human like the rest of us, and have their own share of bugs in the past.

We are lucky BU is irrelevant. If this happened and BU was as big as Core is, we would have ended up in a tricky ETH/ETC style situation with the consequent disaster.

Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  It would be interesting to find out.

Looks like some guys will never learn. They think magic solutions exists to the current issues, BU being nothing but a failed magic trick attempt.

Can't argue with logic like that.

Now if they could behave as adults and start signaling for segwit as advice by every expert on the field including Andreas Antonopoulos, we could move on from this mess and continue improving.

You've got a strange definition of "expert" there.  Perhaps it would be better if Core would behave as adults and start signaling for larger blocks?

[Kprawn]

You are just throwing fuel on the fire with talk like this. BU is still a contender and this is good for Bitcoin. Bitcoin was developed to allow

for people to adjust and tweak and to improve and if the consensus is reached and people are satisfied with those changes, then it is

used. If there were no competing ideas and Bips, then the Blockstream guys would have implemented whatever they wanted, because

nobody else would have come up with counter strategies. These guys are not the enemy, they just offer another solution to a problem.

[ImHash]

Lucifer and Crawly king of hell lol. Are you sure we would've ended up like ETC/ETH? like everyone could profit 10% on their stashed bitcoins instantly?
I think not. good thing about open source always majority wins but if you put it that way then the majority is the central authority only with the exception that everyone is free and capable to join or become part of the majority.

[pereira4]

And you don't see a problem with that? Isn't bitcoin supposed to be more open than that?

Don't get it twisted, what im saying with Core calling the shoots means that they are still the number 1 coders doing all the hard work.

Listen.. im okay with other people making their own bitcoin software, what I disaprove is /r/btc trolls talking shit about Core developers all day, when everytime they have tried to hard fork, they do so thanks to riping off all the Bitcoin Core's code and changing a couple of things (again, while taking FUD about Core)

Most BU people are trolls and the software is not as good in any case.

[Carlton Banks]

BU has proven to be unreliable, untested software developed by amateurs, who the hell is still delusional enough to support those guys instead of Core?

I am.

And you're very unwise. This event demonstrates how prone BU is to forking the blockchain: very


If you actually believe that giving every user the ability to essentially write and promote their own chain fork, then you deserve everything you'll get backing it. And what you'll get is severely diminished asset value from your UnlimitedCoins. Have fun with that

[franky1]

as usual C B above is just reading a r/bitcoin script instead of looking at the actual "event"

it was a non event
a simple reject.

what was overdramatic.. was cores response. banning nodes at the sight of a simple reject.
funny part is without banning nodes no one would have seen it as "an event" and instead seen it as just another reject that happens daily, yep even to core.

but nah, core needed an excuse to ban nodes. core needed to cause drama.
kind of smelled like desperation..

the part i found most funniest. is that what it actually proves (if you ignore the core aftershock dramatics) is that consensus works.
the block was rejected in seconds.. event over.

[BitcoinBarrel]

I support my QT with deprecated alerts

[Yakamoto]

I should be more active with things like this, but I never really do simply because I don't really care what happens, and I guess I'm subverting the entire decentralized system that way.

Core is winning probably because there are too many forks or solutions that are put forth at one time, and since Core just "exists" they don't have to maintain a support level.

Put forks up one at a time; too many takes away from the support of each of them.

[jbreher]

I support BU. Run it too.

As measured by hash rate, more and more continue to run BU as well.

So sad for you.

[franky1]

I should be more active with things like this, but I never really do simply because I don't really care what happens, and I guess I'm subverting the entire decentralized system that way.

Core is winning probably because there are too many forks or solutions that are put forth at one time, and since Core just "exists" they don't have to maintain a support level.

Put forks up one at a time; too many takes away from the support of each of them.

or instead of having
team A wants X
team B wants Y

and have the war and conflict

have
Team A.13.x release
Team A.13.y release
Team A.13.xy release

Team B.13.x release
Team B.13.y release
Team B.13.xy release

then let the communty not have to choose a "team" and just base their desires on code.. including code where all proposals are included
that way if people hate team B. then they can still either eat the cake, have the cake .. or even have the cake and eat it with team A

remember there is a difference between RATIONED choice.. and RATIONAL choices

[Yakamoto]

I should be more active with things like this, but I never really do simply because I don't really care what happens, and I guess I'm subverting the entire decentralized system that way.

Core is winning probably because there are too many forks or solutions that are put forth at one time, and since Core just "exists" they don't have to maintain a support level.

Put forks up one at a time; too many takes away from the support of each of them.

or instead of having
team A wants X
team B wants Y

and have the war and conflict

have
Team A.13.x release
Team A.13.y release
Team A.13.xy release

Team B.13.x release
Team B.13.y release
Team B.13.xy release

then let the communty not have to choose a "team" and just base their desires on code.. including code where all proposals are included
that way if people hate team B. then they can still either eat the cake, have the cake .. or even have the cake and eat it with team A

This is probably one of the best ideas, however I don't know if it would be worth having a bunch of patches like that. What I'm thinking is that;

Team A puts up patch X for a vote (essentially)
Patch X is supported by (%) of the community and passes
Team B puts up patch Y for a vote, to be applied alongside patch X
Patch Y does not reach (%) support and is removed
Team C puts up patch Z
Patch Z passes
The result is patch XZ, which is then applied.

Not great, and might go against some of what Bitcoin is, but your idea sounds bretty gud

[classicsucks]

And you don't see a problem with that? Isn't bitcoin supposed to be more open than that?

Don't get it twisted, what im saying with Core calling the shoots means that they are still the number 1 coders doing all the hard work.

Most BU people are trolls and the software is not as good in any case.

I'm sad to say that I now support and run BU. Core doesn't call the shots anymore because their last few releases aren't being adopted.

Core IS the number one dev team by miles, but they are stubbornly clinging to the poorly supported, overcomplicated, and likely failed Segwit solution, and they are not listening to the miners or the critics. Running BU is the only way to communicate to them that Segwit needs to go away. Meantime, Ver and his team will gain more steam with BU because Core has buried their heads in the sand. Likely we'll be at a deadlock for 6 months+. I think when BU passes Segwit hashrate we might see some debate or compromise proposals. I've already heard talk of merging Segwit with larger block support.

Miners currently benefit from small blocks because fees keep climbing. Anyone who has waited 2 days for their transaction to confirm knows the horrible feeling that is ironically similar to getting your Paypal account banned.  At some point when BTC fees are too high and/or transaction times are unacceptably high, more people will switch to an altcoin like Monero, which has better anonimity than Bitcoin anyway. Bitcoin is running on inertia with name recognition, exchange support, and Wall Street money.

I would be truly saddened if Bitcoin faded into obscurity due to this conflict.

[DannyHamilton]

- snip -
it was a non event
a simple reject.
- snip -

I find it entertaining to see franky1 and I on the same side of an issue.

[RawDog]

BU being nothing but a failed magic trick attempt.

BU is a very boring mechanical solution to the problem.  Nothing mysterious about big blocks.  

SegWit conversely is 'slight of hand' and 'magic trick'.  It is MORE data, not less data.  Just because you move some data behind smoke and mirrors, doesn't somehow make a reduction in transaction weight.  

SegWit is an altcoin.  SegWit is promoted by hooligans who are actively trying to merge the network into their own proprietary system (Lightning).  

The OP is nothing more than a paid shill.

I support BU.  Hope you will too.

[franky1]

This is probably one of the best ideas, however I don't know if it would be worth having a bunch of patches like that. What I'm thinking is that;

Team A puts up patch X for a vote (essentially)
Patch X is supported by (%) of the community and passes
Team B puts up patch Y for a vote, to be applied alongside patch X
Patch Y does not reach (%) support and is removed
Team C puts up patch Z
Patch Z passes
The result is patch XZ, which is then applied.

Not great, and might go against some of what Bitcoin is, but your idea sounds bretty gud

nope.
because that means for upto 12 months months the community has to run team A software to get patch X enabled
then the community has to jump over to team B to get Y enabled.
then the community has to jump over to team C to get Z enabled.

however
having ALL THE TEAMS allowing ALL proposals/patches.. means no node flip flopping or 'favourite brand and im sticking to it' civil wars.

because its no longer about "favourite brand" .. its just about code. because you can get xyz in A..  AND in B...
none of this drama of everyone jump to brand A for six months.. everyone jump to brand B for 6 months.

its all the same.. ALL nodes could/should flag X,Y,Z at same time. and whenever they get to 95% it activates.
which also removes the wait in the queue delay tactics of 'we wont do Z untill 2019. because 2018 is dedicated to Y and 2017 is dedicated to X

all proposals can be flagged simultaneously(concurrently) and not staggered(consecutively) by ALL nodes
and they spark into life when 95% is achieved.

imagine it this way.
you want a well cooked Steak, chunky fries, and some salad on the side.

logically.
you wont want to go to a steakhouse to get the steak. then drive to a chunky fries takeaway to get the fries.. and then drive to a salad grocer..

you want to go to one of 20 restaurants that offer it all on one plate..

secondly.
you wont want to sit at such a restaurant and instead of just asking for "a well cooked Steak, chunky fries, and some salad on the side."
you begin asking for the steak.. and then get interupted by the waitress and told to wait for the steak to cook before she takes the rest of your order.
the steak gets cooked. and then as soon as you say the word chunky fries, she interupts you again and tells you to wait for the fries to cook..
then when cooked.. you then mention the salad

logically you want to be able to make all your choices in one go. and be able to enjoy your meal when its prepared.


however yakamoto.. the idea of downloadable 'patches' / addons. or even just a built in 'settings->options' window to manually change things.. in a user friendly manner for average joe would be of benefit. again to not need to have the 'band camp' games

[merlinsbeard]

I am purely in favor of innovation that will allow BTC to become a more commonplace, everyday currency rather than some sort of financial stock.

Therefore, I think it needs to be almost as fast as a credit card. 30 minute confirmations is too long for the modern age.

I think people are scared SegWit and its convenience will bring the scrutiny and wrath of national denominations and stifle any growth as an investment. But I think more popularity and legitimacy would be good for the crypto scene.

[franky1]

I am purely in favor of innovation that will allow BTC to become a more commonplace, everyday currency rather than some sort of financial stock.

Therefore, I think it needs to be almost as fast as a credit card. 30 minute confirmations is too long for the modern age.

I think people are scared SegWit and its convenience will bring the scrutiny and wrath of national denominations and stifle any growth as an investment. But I think more popularity and legitimacy would be good for the crypto scene.

sgwit doesnt offer faster confirmations..
segwit doesnt offer much but temporary empty gestures of moving forward.

segwit does offer a preliminary tweak to bitcoin to then enable permissioned transactions. (which effectively end up feeling to averag joe like they are just using paypal/banks)