So who the hell is still supporting BU?

[thejaytiesto]

Get real, the only thing not tested here and proven to fail is BU.

xt, classic, knots, BU and others are already running on mainnet and have been for months/years.

funny part is. core based pools have a 1% reject/orphan risk everyday..
BU caused one once in a year.

but social drama made a mountain out of a mole hill about a non event.

its a non event because rejects/orphans are a natural thing. its what protects the network

rejecting a block is a good thing. it shows consensus works. it was not a fail event. it was something that happens daily (more so by core pools) and should be applauded that rejects occur. because it shows the network is secure.

Yeah im sure franky1 the resident troll with 11k+ FUD posts against Core and Blockstream know much better than Andreas Antonopoulos someone that actually does research and gets out and talks to people instead of posting on forums 24/7 about how great of an idea it is to put in charge a bunch of idiots that would depend on Core keeping updates of the software so they can copy all the hard work and paste it within BU/Classic/XT/whatever.

[1715163678]

1715163678

[1715163678]

1715163678

[1715163678]

1715163678

[franky1]

to put in charge

you are just not getting it.

no dev should be "in charge"
if you think devs should be kings. you have already surrendered and missed out on what bitcoin is all about.

[Carlton Banks]

... 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]

Spending fiat on hashrate isn't really going to work is it? Are you going to use sock-puppets to make it look like people use the UnlimitedCoin network after your fork? It's going to be a little bit more difficult faking a $15 billion dollar economy than just a bunch of clowns getting paid to post nonsense on forums.

And, where is your fork? Remember, the fork you've been threatening for 2 years? Why does the fork never happen?

[marcoman22]

Once again, the issue revolves around the size of blocks.Bitcoin blocks have limited storage of 1 MB under the current Bitcoin core system.However BU argues that the size of blocks should be increased to ensure smoother running by decongesting the blocks. But opponents believe that increasing the block size would result in hard fork in the code which would split the network.They also believe that flexibility could mining power in the hands of few miners, which will result in the centralization which is opposite to the idea of decentralization.BU proponents claim they willnot fork the blockchain. They say that if any other entity causes a fork, then BU nodes will follow the most work fork.For a hard fork to happen in bitcoin,BU miners needs to increase the block size on their own.So until BU miners are in majority,they will not do a hard fork until they get consensus.

[RealBitcoin]

"cheap fees" - is a matter of prospective

though im in the UK and although i have many bitcoin and my average btc transaction is about £300($360) and so the fee of

(70sat/byte 450byte=0.000315) ~25p(30cent)  its less than 1%. so seems cheap to me.
to me yes.

No it's not, it is an objective thing. Whether 30 cent is cheap for you or not, that is not the point.

THe point is that it's a 1% tax in addition. Bitcoin is supposed to be a demurrage currency, but you already have minting in progress (12.5BTC/10 min) and you have tx fee as well.

It's either one or the other, so I dont really want to see high TX fees until we have bitcoin inflation.


So i'd expect a very very tiny fee until 2100 or whatever until all coins are mined.

The mining pools are very greedy motherfuckers, they want both inflation and transaction fee income.

we need to look passed our own greed(hoping we can make income being an LN hop node) or personal status(living in a developed country).. and instead think about bitcoins ethos, of
not having permissioned fund holdings,
not having fee's/penalties hurting the poorest parts of the world.
not having settlement features that lock funds and revoke funds to just do exactly the same as fiat banks.

the only excuse i see for having these LN nodes is the empty doomsdays of "gigabytes by midnight wont work". where as the reality is that bitcoin adoption is slower and more natural that would take a couple decades to get to say 5% world daily utility. not 100% daily utility by midnight.

we should not halt onchain natural growth using fear. just to push bitcoin ethos breaking services that are not essential today(not everyone trades more then 2 a day/week/month to see utility of LN)

LN's niche market is for gamblers, daytraders and faucet raiders. not every day folks who may only make 2 transactions a fortnight. 1 for groceries another for rent.

I havent seen any evidence that LN will be a permissioned ledger, are you sure that LN will have a trust element to it?

Because in that case it sounds very very bad. I dont want it.

But as I have heard about it, it was marketed as something decentralized. Explain to me.

[jonald_fyookball]

I support Bitcoin unlimited.

Core/Blockstream is out for themselves and their investors.

I'm sick of their stonewalling the blocksize increase and I don't believe
the maximum blocksize should be part of the consensus rules.

[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]

Spending fiat on hashrate isn't really going to work is it? Are you going to use sock-puppets to make it look like people use the UnlimitedCoin network after your fork? It's going to be a little bit more difficult faking a $15 billion dollar economy than just a bunch of clowns getting paid to post nonsense on forums.

And, where is your fork? Remember, the fork you've been threatening for 2 years? Why does the fork never happen?

I've never threatened a fork. WTF you babbling about?

We don't need to pay for hash rate. After all, d(coreHashrate)/dt is negative, and d(BUHashrate)/dt is positive.

Cheers!

[Carlton Banks]

I've never threatened a fork. WTF you babbling about?

We don't need to pay for hash rate. After all, d(coreHashrate)/dt is negative, and d(BUHashrate)/dt is positive.

How will BU run the network without forking it? How do BU mining nodes hash without any miners ?

[jbreher]

I've never threatened a fork. WTF you babbling about?

We don't need to pay for hash rate. After all, d(coreHashrate)/dt is negative, and d(BUHashrate)/dt is positive.

How will BU run the network without forking it?

Same way it is today. My node is a BU node. No fork so far. Observedly.

You seem to be seeking demons where none exist.

[franky1]

I havent seen any evidence that LN will be a permissioned ledger, are you sure that LN will have a trust element to it?

Because in that case it sounds very very bad. I dont want it.

LN uses mutisigs..
its not the legacy way of you make a transaction, you sign and you send..

its a joint party thing. like a joint bank account. requiring 2 signatures.
you cant move it without someone else.. = their permission required

But as I have heard about it, it was marketed as something decentralized. Explain to me.

its falsely promoted as 'independant multisigs'
imagine we had 5 people A,B,C,D,E

A and B connect up as a multisig..
B does more business, B also connect to C
C also connect to D
Dd also connect to E
 
A->B
B->C
C->D
D->E

for someone to get from A-E they need to pass through B, C, D because A doesnt directly connect to E
^this above is the promotion people hop their funds around, .. and take a fee per hop if they are the middleman^

here is the problem and blockstreams known chain of events to gain them hub dominance to repay their investors

for someone to get from A-E they need to pass through B, C, D because A doesnt directly connect to E
so A needs to pay B. and
A needs to pay C and
A needs to pay D to ensure A reaches E

costing A 4 hops

so what A does instead is when the contract times out. they avoid the hop method and find hub X which has multiple data streams to everyone.
A - X - E
   / | \
 B  C  D

instead of
A-B-C-D-E

now A can travel to E just by paying X twice
a-> X
X-> e

much cheaper than 4 fee's of the hop concept
a->b
b->c
c->d
d->e

blockstream want to 'default' fee hop at, lets say y*100 and then offer hub at y*10 thus instead of costing a 500y using hops.. it would only cost 20y using hub

you will probably see that they twist the hop= y*100 because hops are less common so cost are higher.. many node users wanting income would applaud them for rewarding them more.. but that reward is a actually a twisted sales pitch of a punishment to make hops expensive and undesirable...
 
now blocktream becomes the hub and gets all the fee's to repay back the $90m investment. which they are getting desperate need to release ln before investors make demand..

[franky1]

I've never threatened a fork. WTF you babbling about?

We don't need to pay for hash rate. After all, d(coreHashrate)/dt is negative, and d(BUHashrate)/dt is positive.

How will BU run the network without forking it?

Same way it is today. My node is a BU node. No fork so far. Observedly.

You seem to be seeking demons where none exist.

jbreher. ignore CB
he has no clue. he doesnt care about keeping bitcoin decentralized. he loves core as his king.
CB is so lacking in knowledge he doesnt even think bitcoin can run without a king.

for months now i asked him to just spend 20 minutes learning consensus.. he refuses..

[Carlton Banks]

How will BU run the network without forking it?

Same way it is today. My node is a BU node. No fork so far. Observedly.

You seem to be seeking demons where none exist.

BU nodes today don't enforce BU rules, they enforce Core's rules. Because BU hasn't forked the chain yet. BU can only run it's rules when it's the dominant mining software.


Or are you trying to pretend that more than 1 set of rules can be run simultaneously? This is so boring, you've tried these nonsense arguments before.

[franky1]

BU rules is anything under Xmb

1mb blocks are under Xmb.. meaning bu is doing as intented

classic/xt rules is anything under Xmb

1mb blocks are under Xmb.. meaning classic/xt is doing as intented

the non-core nodes are not rules of blocks must be over X.. they are rules of blocks must be UNDER X.. but where X is higher than core.

..

its basically the same as say 2013
blocks were only being built at 500k at the time.. but the rule was anything under 1mb is fine..

imagine if the Sipa LevelDB bug resulting in sipa and gmaxwell deciding to enforce blocks stayed under 500kb. (i know shock horror at the thought)
the other implementations would still accept blocks under 500kb because 500kb is still under 1mb

[Gimpeline]

I havent seen any evidence that LN will be a permissioned ledger, are you sure that LN will have a trust element to it?

Because in that case it sounds very very bad. I dont want it.

LN uses mutisigs..
its not the legacy way of you make a transaction, you sign and you send..

its a joint party thing. like a joint bank account. requiring 2 signatures.
you cant move it without someone else.. = their permission required

But as I have heard about it, it was marketed as something decentralized. Explain to me.

its falsely promoted as 'independant multisigs'
imagine we had 5 people A,B,C,D,E

A and B connect up as a multisig..
B does more business, B also connect to C
C also connect to D
Dd also connect to E
 
A->B
B->C
C->D
D->E

for someone to get from A-E they need to pass through B, C, D because A doesnt directly connect to E
^this above is the promotion people hop their funds around, .. and take a fee per hop if they are the middleman^

here is the problem and blockstreams known chain of events to gain them hub dominance to repay their investors

for someone to get from A-E they need to pass through B, C, D because A doesnt directly connect to E
so A needs to pay B. and
A needs to pay C and
A needs to pay D to ensure A reaches E

costing A 4 hops

so what A does instead is when the contract times out. they avoid the hop method and find hub X which has multiple data streams to everyone.
A - X - E
   / | \
 B  C  D

instead of
A-B-C-D-E

now A can travel to E just by paying X twice
a-> X
X-> e

much cheaper than 4 fee's of the hop concept
a->b
b->c
c->d
d->e

blockstream want to 'default' fee hop at, lets say y*100 and then offer hub at y*10 thus instead of costing a 500y using hops.. it would only cost 20y using hub

you will probably see that they twist the hop= y*100 because hops are less common so cost are higher.. many node users wanting income would applaud them for rewarding them more.. but that reward is a actually a twisted sales pitch of a punishment to make hops expensive and undesirable...
 
now blocktream becomes the hub and gets all the fee's to repay back the $90m investment. which they are getting desperate need to release ln before investors make demand..

Here we go again....
Can't you come up with something new?

[jbreher]

How will BU run the network without forking it?

Same way it is today. My node is a BU node. No fork so far. Observedly.

You seem to be seeking demons where none exist.

BU nodes today don't enforce BU rules, they enforce Core's rules.

Core does not own any rules. Sorry to break it to you.

[Carlton Banks]

Core does not own any rules. Sorry to break it to you.

Cores rules are enforced on the network today. Not BU's rules. That's how this latest potential fork was avoided: Core nodes enforced the rules that BU nodes were breaking. 


No amount of semantic sleight of hand or changing the subject to your latest strawman is going to prove anything different.

[franky1]

im not even sure why CB is even trying to troll full nodes users.

from what i have seen he is a multibit fanboy. and refuses to learn about networks and consensus.
im sure he is only here to defend blockstream rather than decentralised and diverse bitcoin network

nothing he has said has shown he is defending the diverse consensus network known as bitcoin.
but is quick to troll anyone who speaks negatively of core/blockstream

[RawDog]

im not even sure why CB is even trying to troll full nodes users.

from what i have seen he is a multibit fanboy. and refuses to learn about networks and consensus.
im sure he is only here to defend blockstream rather than decentralised and diverse bitcoin network

nothing he has said has shown he is defending the diverse consensus network known as bitcoin.
but is quick to troll anyone who speaks negatively of core/blockstream

Why are you arguing with a non-technical idiot?  Core fanboys are mesmerized by PhD's and Greg Maxwell's nasty red beard.  There is no hope of using logic and technical explanation to convince them. 

[RealBitcoin]

LN uses mutisigs..
its not the legacy way of you make a transaction, you sign and you send..

its a joint party thing. like a joint bank account. requiring 2 signatures.
you cant move it without someone else.. = their permission required

That sounds pretty shitty to me. Any sources for this?

(Because maybe you are just exxagerating it)

now blocktream becomes the hub and gets all the fee's to repay back the $90m investment. which they are getting desperate need to release ln before investors make demand..

That would be a shitty move ,but there is no concrete evidence yet that this would be the case.


I would support a Bitcoin Software that does fix the code for real, not just with fake hacks and patches.

Bitcoin Unlimited is a joke, with amateur devs, nobody takes them seriously. If they want to be taken seriously, get some expert developers there, with deep cryptographic, programming and network engineering knowledge and talent.

I am not satisfied with Core's "hacks & patches" roadmap, of just putting a bandage over a problem.

I would like if the BTC code gest fixed for real, with no bloats, and no bugs. But BU won't do this, because they are just amateurs.

So we don't have any good chocie.

[Carlton Banks]

I am not satisfied with Core's "hacks & patches" roadmap, of just putting a bandage over a problem.

Evidence? Are you doing that thing where you repeat-repeat-repeat a lie, hoping that it will magically come true?