So who the hell is still supporting BU?

[Invincible]

um hello, wakey wakey

core need to release it
other implementations need to release it.

but that involves core dropping their crown and being part of concensus, on an equal playing field with the other implementations

How are you going to make them to do what you want? If they don't want it and consider it unnecessary?

[hv_]

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.

So you think Andreas Antonopulos is wrong? (someone who is always neutral and is learning about bitcoin stuff 24/7)

Get real, the only thing not tested here and proven to fail is BU. If BU gets anywhere notably we are fucked. Segwit is safe compared to BU. BU depends on Core's hard work, if Core stopped updating their software, BU wouldn't have anywhere to rip off and copy and paste code from, it would be the end.

Here is Andreas explaining why segwit is the way to go:


https://medium.com/segwit-co/segregated-witness-and-aligning-economic-incentives-with-resource-costs-7d987b135c00#.yrq6jipqg

Having multiple dev teams wroking on scaling is a luxury and good.

I'd like to see that those teams check each others code by reviews / 'pair programming' in a help like manner, based on healthy competition.

I've seen even Adam Back starting such a thing on the tech thread.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1312371.0


That's the way we all can win.

[franky1]

um hello, wakey wakey

core need to release it
other implementations need to release it.

but that involves core dropping their crown and being part of concensus, on an equal playing field with the other implementations

How are you going to make them to do what you want? If they don't want it and consider it unnecessary?

if people wake up to reality. so that they stop kissing team X ass and stop following like sheep and start asking their favourite team to do it.

[franky1]

Here is Andreas explaining why segwit is the way to go:
https://medium.com/segwit-co/segregated-witness-and-aligning-economic-incentives-with-resource-costs-7d987b135c00#.yrq6jipqg

here is what andreas is saying summerised

'if people let segwit happen then people can run an LN node and earn income'

thats the sales pitch refined..

however the reality is .. LN hop nodes wont earn much/ if anything, but now they are locking their own funds into permissioned contracts and having to run 2 nodes, hoping and praying for someone to hop through them.

this will be the reality though.

if you ignore using a hub and instead go for the 'hop' idea of LN... the costs are even bigger and penalty risk is higher

eg
A<->B
B<->C
C<->D
D<->E
imagine A wanted to pay E using the 'hop' concept.
first A move funds to B..
B wont change his funds with C for free so A has to pay a fee to B to thank him for his involvement
next B move funds to C..
C wont change his funds with D for free so A has to pay a fee to C to thank him for his involvement
next C move funds to D..
D wont change his funds with E for free so A has to pay a fee to D to thank him for his involvement

so to pay E is 4x the fee compared to just trading with B

this is what blockstream are hoping for. so this is where they become X (a hub)

A - X - E
   / | \
 B  C  D

now everyone only has to pay 2x hop fee (A pay A->X, A pay X->E).  but everyone can trade with each other.(via X)
downside.
now X has 50% authorisation permission status with everyone.
now X has can be the deciding factor of how long they want to make customers funds mature for after settlements confirm (CLTV)
now X has can be the deciding factor of chargbacking their customers funds after settlements confirm (CSV revokes)

yea they may get some competition where starbucks or walmart become a hub. and offer a cheaper fee. but thinking that the 'hop' concept will be used dominantly is not a rational end result.

every day LN node users will not get income. because every day LN node users wont want to pay fee*N where N is the number of hops needed
they would join a hub to cut their own costs.. but that hub, becomes the 'paypal2.0

[Invincible]

if people wake up to reality. so that they stop kissing team X ass and stop following like sheep and start asking their favourite team to do it.

So far it appears you are far outnumbered. No people is going to "wake up" and asking their team despite all your attempts. What more can you add to that you're saying everyday? some new fact to convince anybody?

[franky1]

No people is going to "wake up" and asking their team

those wanting to remain asleep have themselves to blame.
if you have surrendered and given up your independence. i feel sorry for you

what im glad about is most trolls dont run a full node.

as for those running a full node, they are the ones that really matter to the network

[Carlton Banks]

So far it appears you are far outnumbered. No people is going to "wake up" and asking their team despite all your attempts. What more can you add to that you're saying everyday? some new fact to convince anybody?

Spoiler alert (lol): the trolls will continue to plaster this forum with a careful mixture of facts and lies, and they will repeat-repeat-repeat-repeat the lies to make them seem like facts.

(well, to some minority of people only, the repeating will somehow make lies magically factual)

[franky1]

again C B shows no technical knowledge or a willingness to learn.

many months ahve passed and he has had ample opportunity to learn about bitcoin. but never shows real knowledge. and ends up relying on his usual rhetoric of
'im not going to waste my time learning unless you are going to pay me'

all he has is himself to blame for not wanting to improve his life by gaining real knowledge.

the r/bitcoin trolls and blockstream kingdom fighters are getting desparate with their empty unknowledgable scripts

learn consensus
im not asking people to read every line of code (though those truly wanting to know the details can), but atleast spend 20 minutes learning consensus instead of months of empty arguing

[aarturka]

[Lauda]

again C B shows no technical knowledge or a willingness to learn.
-snip-

I see that you are still fighting each other pointlessly. I guess your defending of BU is probably what makes you lose credibility, especially after the latest event.

-snip-

Amazing. You only need to add something to Gandalf, (Core?).

[Carlton Banks]

again C B shows no technical knowledge or a willingness to learn.
-snip-

I see that you are still fighting each other pointlessly. I guess your defending of BU is probably what makes you lose credibility, especially after the latest event.

No, I've not entertained Franky's ramblings for months now. He's still pretty obsessed with me though, he likes referring to me by my initials for some bizarre reason too. Weirdo, frankly.

[franky1]

again C B shows no technical knowledge or a willingness to learn.
-snip-

I see that you are still fighting each other pointlessly. I guess your defending of BU is probably what makes you lose credibility, especially after the latest event.

actually i am not defending bu.
i am defending bitcoins diversity and decentralisation..

i have not even suggested core should fork off either. if you read my posts i have been telling people that blockstream/gmaxwell want core to fork off.. by desparetly trying to get others to fork off, so that blockstream can play the victim card and win sympathy
as a warning to those devoted to core..

much like shoot a middle easterner to get his family to bomb america to then allow america to play the victim card and invade a whole country...

for me its not a band camp fight. its a bitcoin consensus wakeup call.

if you think its about band camps and are trying to push everyone into a band camp. then you have already surrendered to centralist control

[franky1]

"No, I've not entertained Franky's ramblings for months now. He's still pretty obsessed with me though, he likes referring to me by my initials for some bizarre reason too. Weirdo, frankly.
"

yet CB is the one obsessed with me.



and there was more

[hv_]

"No, I've not entertained Franky's ramblings for months now. He's still pretty obsessed with me though, he likes referring to me by my initials for some bizarre reason too. Weirdo, frankly.
"

yet CB is the one obsessed with me.

Dont mind, we need some Core Bankers here or it gets boring too much

:-)

[hv_]

And the community / fellowship was forked after - for good!

[Carlton Banks]

nice Photoshop work in this thread, lol, you people have too much time on your hands

[mezzomix]

I see that we are not going to easily achieve this consensus and what should we do? What can you suggest?

Those who want BU fork unconditionally and create a BU Coin. The rest continues with Bitcoin.

learn consensus, learn diversity, learn decentralisation, learn zero-trust

75% of the miners (~ 3-7 persons!) is not consensus. When there is no chance to reach consensus it's better both parties go their own way. Splitting a new BU Coin is the best solution in this case.

[franky1]

Splitting a new BU Coin is the best solution in this case.

the sheep being hugged by the wolf, making the sheep sing "bar ram ewe, bar ram ewe" because the because a little pig and friend of the wolf has told them to.

when a dictator pretends to want liberty. and freedoms. but then decides to build a wall and send certain people over the wall. you know something is bad.
when a dictator pretends to want to remove regulation. but secretly desires the corporations to make more profit at a cost to citizens. you know something is bad

[Carlton Banks]

When there is no chance to reach consensus it's better both parties go their own way. Splitting a new BU Coin is the best solution in this case.

This has been suggested multiple times, but BU supporters insist that their wacky implementation must force Bitcoin's hashrate onto their coin. BU wouldn't stand up in the marketplace as a separate coin, no investor is going to risk real money on something that is designed to be super-easy to fork.

[jbreher]

... BU supporters insist that their wacky implementation must force Bitcoin's hashrate onto their Coin.

And again ,a core devotee calls for forking the chain.

Meanwhile, d(coreHashrate)/dt is negative, and d(BUHashrate)/dt is positive.

[core doom intensifies]