So who the hell is still supporting BU?

[Blockchain Mechanic]

I still don't get why we won't just revert back to 32 MB blocks, and add segwit for good measure. It would end this pointless disruptive argument.

[1715009027]

1715009027

[1715009027]

1715009027

[1715009027]

1715009027

[1715009027]

1715009027

[1715009027]

1715009027

[1715009027]

1715009027

[Carlton Banks]

I still don't get why we won't just revert back to 32 MB blocks, and add segwit for good measure. It would end this pointless disruptive argument.

32 MB blocks were never possible anyway, that was the max message size, not the max blocksize.

If you don't get why that was changed, welcome to 2010

[hv_]

I still don't get why we won't just revert back to 32 MB blocks, and add segwit for good measure. It would end this pointless disruptive argument.

32 MB blocks were never possible anyway, that was the max message size, not the max blocksize.

If you don't get why that was changed, welcome to 2010

Rule:

640K is good for all.



 

[Carlton Banks]

Rule:

640K is good for all.



 

MAXBTC=21million


Do you have a problem with that rule too?

[jbreher]

...aaaand a partial rebuttal.

Unlimited is not a great solution

In implementing emergent consensus, BU is a near-ideal solution.

and it won't be adopted.

Umm, you sure you want to go with that? That's an awfully strange statement to make, while d(BUHashpower)/dt and d(BUNodes)/dt are both positive.

Nodes up over 30% in last two weeks alone: https://coin.dance/nodes/unlimited.

The real fight is to just increase the effing blocksize with a simple hard fork AS WAS DONE IN 2014 ON AN EMERGENCY BASIS AND WITHOUT ANY ISSUES. 

I can get behind that. But I don't want to face the same stupid value-destroying battle every year. BU solves this.

Unlimited only exists to block Segwit

All right, now you've pissed me off. Who are you to tell those behind BU what its purpose is? You are 100%, categorically, indisputably, wrong in this assertion.

Unlimited blocks now surpass Segwit blocks.

In full disclosure, SegWit has retaken a slight lead. We'll see where this goes.

I think this conveys some sense of urgency to Core, which is long overdue, given that they've had their thumbs up their butts for FOUR+ YEARS now on this blocksize problem.

Indeed. Absolute failure of leadership.

Ver seems convinced that more usage = higher price which ignores velocity and isn't necessarily true. Supply and demand still applies no matter what.

Laws of supply and demand generally apply to price discovery of labor and assets, not currencies.

Inasmusch as cryptocurrency is more of a new asset class than a 'classical' currency, should we not consider the verdict still out as to its adherence to traditional money behaviors?

The US Federal Reserve doubled the money supply in 2008-12 but the USD value remained constant, did you wonder how they did that?

That's easy - they did it by giving the money they created to already-rich entities that did not need it for anything. Accordingly, it did not get spent. It merely got set aside, propping up Wall Street, thereby displaying a velocity asymptotically approaching zero.

Also, BTC velocity is a touchy subject because much of the transaction base is spam and churn.

Inasmuch as there is no objective way of looking at any given transaction, and classifying it as spam or notspam, I 'forbid' you from using this characterization. OK, 'forbid' gets a winkie: But the term 'spam' is useless.

I think Ver is stating the obvious that if Bitcoin is not useful to people, its value will go to zero. Hard to argue that. The BTC supply increases every day, and demand is likely increasing due to greater global acceptance and tightening capital controls. But how will millions of new users adopt Bitcoin? I can tell you that someone who waits 24 hours for their transaction to confirm will not be back...

Yup.

Blocking Segwit seems to be just anti-Blockstream paranoia or a ploy by miners to keep the fees up for as long as they can.

Valid theories but no hard evidence. I think Blockstream has been a bit shady of late. I'm not sure there is such a thing as a $100 million corporation WITHOUT a profit motive and a plan to execute on.  I find it strange to be in the company of Gavin, Ver, Hearn, etc., as I regard them as generally less tech-savvy than Core devs. Often times the most important thing is to "know what you don't know". I feel like the Core devs aren't aware of their lack of economic knowledge and outside perspective, or alternately (and far less likely) that they are playing dumb and have been compromised by a hidden agenda from Blockstream.

Yeah, I'm unsure what to think about Blockstream. I certainly hope they have the best interests of the system -- in a Nakamoto sense -- as a driving principle. But it is hard to ignore dozens of millions from the barons of fiat.

Didja see Dr. Back's discussion on r/btc yesterday? Quite a hoot!

Unless an anti-segwit person comes up with and implements a real alternative scaling solution

Hard fork to 2MB, and then immediately start screaming about the next increase to 4MB in ten years immediately.

FTFY. Until we started regularly bumping against block size limit last year, block size had been doing roughly 2x per year. BU solves this issue once and for all. Elegantly.

[Lauda]

1) What does security/efficiency improvement for hardware wallets means?
Isnt segwit general purpose, what special advantage do hardware wallets get? Please explain.

The problem with the current way that hardware wallets is that they have a hard time finding your previous outputs (i.e. inputs). Segwit makes this process much easier. It also makes signing faster. Read this for the full explanation (rephrasing it would be redundant): https://segwit.org/segregated-witness-and-hardware-wallets-cc88ba532fb3

2) What does P2SH 256 bit mean? Is ECDSA or RIPEMD160 replaced in those kinds of transactions? How does the 256bit securiy manifest itself?

Multisig payments currently use P2SH which is secured by the 160-bit HASH160 algorithm (RIPEMD of SHA256). However, if one of the signers wishes to steal all the funds, they can find a collision between a valid address as part of a multisig script and a script that simply pays them all the funds with only 80-bits (280) worth of work, which is already within the realm of possibility for an extremely well-resourced attacker. (For comparison, at a sustained 1 exahash/second, the Bitcoin mining network does 80-bits worth of work every two weeks)

Segwit resolves this by using HASH160 only for payments direct to a single public key (where this sort of attack is useless), while using 256-bit SHA256 hashes for payments to a script hash.

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/#increased-security-for-multisig-via-pay-to-script-hash-p2sh

I also have other criticisms of Segwit, mainly the steering away from onchain scaling towards offchain scaling, which would really mean centralization.

When the transactions are not settled on the blockchain, then you essentially enabled fractional reserve banking. Because anyone can just make up coins out of thin air, if payments will be handled on a secondary chain.

Utter bullshit. Having several secondary layer solutions -> decentralization. You also can't create out of thin air on a sidechain due to two-way peg.

[franky1]

You can twist it however you want, some things are facts.

actually its segwit that twisted things to sound fluffy and glossy and as if they are promising perfection.

i have untwisted their pseudo bullet points  of pseudo changes and put them into real world concepts

its a shame you cant understand this part

in short ask yourself the blunt question.
will spammers and scammers use a keytype thats stops them being spammers/scammer.
no.
so they simple wont use the keytype. thus problems are not solved. its that simple.

please research beyond the glossy images handed to you.
it seems you are no further forward in your knowledge than this time last year
i remember to throwing images up last year which just had no actual detail in them either, but you were trying your hardest to say everything
was utopia because you were posting an image.

again take your defence cap off. and put on your logical critical thinking cap.
dont turn this into a victimcard game. actually research, think and learn.

in short ask yourself the blunt question.
will spammers and scammers use a keytype thats stops them being spammers/scammer.
no.
so they simple wont use the keytype. thus problems are not solved. its that simple.

[Lauda]

actually its sgwit that tsited things to sound fluffy and glossy and as if they are promising perfection.

Franky bullshit as always. They have clearly presented the 'cons', i.e. negative sides of Segwit on the Core website: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/28/segwit-costs/
Let me leave this gem in here:

[jbreher]

actually its sgwit that tsited things to sound fluffy and glossy and as if they are promising perfection.

Franky bullshit as always. They have clearly presented the 'cons', i.e. negative sides of Segwit on the Core website: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/28/segwit-costs/
Let me leave this gem in here:

Yeah. The fact that the cartoonist can't spell just adds to the value.

[franky1]

funny part is lauda cannot rebuttle the points
funny thing is i have never posted on reddit
funny thing is all i have requested lauda to do is learn about bitcoin

and his reply is to troll.

shame he cannot rebuttle the failures of segwit.
shame that lauda doesnt read more than 6 paragraphs otherwise he would learn that segwits real agenda is to centralise the network.

wake up and smell the coffee lauda. segwit does not solve the quadratics spam/doublespend scam issues because malicious people can just use old key types.

going soft does not solve the problem
again incase you cant read
going soft does not solve the problem


the only real thing segwit does. is FORCES pools to be under blockstreams thumb

its only agenda is to ban anything not blockstream compliant. so that blockstream can rule bitcoin.

does lauda even realise that once activated. segwit pools will automatically ban non segwit blocks. and nodes transmitting non segwit blocks
thus making bitcoin split. core/blockstream will only allow blocks and nodes that are segwit supported unless whitelisted.

again incase you cannot read
going soft was 'sold' as the way to avoid a split.. to solve a problem..
 yet blockstream cannot solve the problem of malicious users are actually going to cause a split.
but done so that native (old) nodes cannot defend against it.

its a bait and switch

Miners could simply use software that does not recognise segwit rules (such as earlier versions of Bitcoin Core) to mine blocks on top of a chain that has activated segwit. This would be a [bilateral split] as far as segwit-aware software is concerned, and those blocks would consequently be ignored by [blockstream] users using segwit-aware validating nodes. If there are sufficiently many users using segwit nodes, such a [bilateral split] would be no more effective than introducing a new alt coin.

this means if any pool not running segwit code makes a block. they get banned simple because they dont run segwit.

if segwit is so "compatible" then how come blockstream are so heavy with the ban hammer? shouldnt a standard block be just as good and "compatible" as a segwit block.

again blockstream will cause an altcoin by banning non blockstream compliant pools. not the other way round


blockstream want to cause a soft bilateral split(bilateral split bypassing node consensus). and native pools/nodes cannot defend against it once segwit is activated.

if you cannot see this or want to defend it as a good thing then you are not defending bitcoin you are only defending blockstream.
and i pitty you if you are only going to defend a for-profit corporation, rather than bitcoin.

please learn consensus.

[cellard]

1) What does security/efficiency improvement for hardware wallets means?
Isnt segwit general purpose, what special advantage do hardware wallets get? Please explain.

The problem with the current way that hardware wallets is that they have a hard time finding your previous outputs (i.e. inputs). Segwit makes this process much easier. It also makes signing faster. Read this for the full explanation (rephrasing it would be redundant): https://segwit.org/segregated-witness-and-hardware-wallets-cc88ba532fb3

2) What does P2SH 256 bit mean? Is ECDSA or RIPEMD160 replaced in those kinds of transactions? How does the 256bit securiy manifest itself?

Multisig payments currently use P2SH which is secured by the 160-bit HASH160 algorithm (RIPEMD of SHA256). However, if one of the signers wishes to steal all the funds, they can find a collision between a valid address as part of a multisig script and a script that simply pays them all the funds with only 80-bits (280) worth of work, which is already within the realm of possibility for an extremely well-resourced attacker. (For comparison, at a sustained 1 exahash/second, the Bitcoin mining network does 80-bits worth of work every two weeks)

Segwit resolves this by using HASH160 only for payments direct to a single public key (where this sort of attack is useless), while using 256-bit SHA256 hashes for payments to a script hash.

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/#increased-security-for-multisig-via-pay-to-script-hash-p2sh

I also have other criticisms of Segwit, mainly the steering away from onchain scaling towards offchain scaling, which would really mean centralization.

When the transactions are not settled on the blockchain, then you essentially enabled fractional reserve banking. Because anyone can just make up coins out of thin air, if payments will be handled on a secondary chain.

Utter bullshit. Having several secondary layer solutions -> decentralization. You also can't create out of thin air on a sidechain due to two-way peg.

Yep, it's funny how this dumbass is claiming sidechains will lead to fractional reserve because bitcoins will be generated out of thin air (fails to understand the 1way peg mechanism) and then he thinks splitting the blockchain in 2, which would actually for real create 21 million new fucking coins out of thin air (as we would have BTC and BUL for the BUcoin) is an excellent idea.

These guys not only fail to understand the technology, but they fail at game theory too.

[franky1]

Yep, it's funny how this dumbass is claiming sidechains will lead to fractional reserve because bitcoins will be generated out of thin air (fails to understand the 1way peg mechanism) and then he thinks splitting the blockchain in 2, which would actually for real create 21 million new fucking coins out of thin air (as we would have BTC and BUL for the BUcoin) is an excellent idea.

These guys not only fail to understand the technology, but they fail at game theory too.

though the guy "realbitcoin" has not yet grasped the finer details.

it seems cellard you have been drinking too much of the r/bitcoin blockstream koolaid. and you are not grasping bitcoin either.

it is BLOCKSTREAM AKA core paid devs and their unpaid interns that are going to cause an intentional split.
not any other dev teams or implementations
BLOCKSTREAM are getting heavy handed with the ban hammer, not the other dev teams

i can tell you are part of the r/bitcoin script reader because you are using the BUCOIN term .. yet its core that are the ones activating the ban hammer. making blockstream segwit nodes use what becomes BSCoin bcause blockstream trigger it.
leaving what on the BSCOIN network all controlled by one centralist for-profit corporation.

where old native (including old native core nodes) being banned/blocked by BScoin.

other dev teams want to use the network consensus. to keep the 12+ diverse implementations working side by side. but blockstream devs want everything using their code and willing to split the network to get it.


secondly although sidechains only has X "in circulation". there will be more than X in existance.
in a sidechain swap. BITCOINS are not destroyed when a side chain coin is created. bitcoins are LOCKED. in short. vaulted into a reserve and not used in circulation. and then the 'credit' is distributed into circulation on a sidechain

[Gimpeline]

Yep, it's funny how this dumbass is claiming sidechains will lead to fractional reserve because bitcoins will be generated out of thin air (fails to understand the 1way peg mechanism) and then he thinks splitting the blockchain in 2, which would actually for real create 21 million new fucking coins out of thin air (as we would have BTC and BUL for the BUcoin) is an excellent idea.

These guys not only fail to understand the technology, but they fail at game theory too.

though the guy "realbitcoin" has not yet grasped the finer details.

it seems cellard you have been drinking too much of the r/bitcoin blockstream koolaid. and you are not grasping bitcoin either.

it is BLOCKSTREAM AKA core paid devs and their unpaid interns that are going to cause an intentional split.
not any other dev teams or implementations
BLOCKSTREAM are getting heavy handed with the ban hammer, not the other dev teams

i can tell you are part of the r/bitcoin script reader because you are using the BUCOIN term .. yet its core that are the ones activating the ban hammer. making blockstream segwit nodes use what becomes BSCoin bcause blockstream trigger it.
leaving what on the BSCOIN network all controlled by one centralist for-profit corporation.

where old native (including old native core nodes) being banned/blocked by BScoin.

other dev teams want to use the network consensus. to keep the 12+ diverse implementations working side by side. but blockstream devs want everything using their code and willing to split the network to get it.


secondly although sidechains only has X "in circulation". there will be more than X in existance.
in a sidechain swap. BITCOINS are not destroyed when a side chain coin is created. bitcoins are LOCKED. in short. vaulted into a reserve and not used in circulation. and then the 'credit' is distributed into circulation on a sidechain

So the majority should get in line with the 5% that want BU.. Sounds fair.
You should really write a book about your conspiracy theory. I think it would be a best seller

[franky1]

So the majority should get in line with the 5% that want BU.. Sounds fair.
You should really write a book about your conspiracy theory. I think it would be a best seller

you can cry all you like that 23% for A and 5% for B.. but ultimately..
theres 60% of the community not involved in the bandcamp debate.


dont keep trolling that its a king vs king.

we need diverse decentralised NODE consensus.
wake up to who is really sabotaging node consensus and creating the splits. and wake up to who is behind their decision to go soft and bypass node consensus.

[classicsucks]

Unlimited is not a great solution

and it won't be adopted.

In implementing emergent consensus, BU is a near-ideal solution.
Nodes up over 30% in last two weeks alone: https://coin.dance/nodes/unlimited.

We can argue the merits, but I think it's just pragmatic to assume that neither Segwit nor Unlimited will move forward and be adopted. Stalemate.

Unlimited only exists to block Segwit

All right, now you've pissed me off. Who are you to tell those behind BU what its purpose is? You are 100%, categorically, indisputably, wrong in this assertion.

I should've removed the word "only".  I understand that Unlimited is a solid proposal, but it's rise clearly correlates with the release and failure of Segwit. Classic and XT never got over 10%, but I think they would've matched Unlimited's performance if they were the "hot alternative" when Segwit dropped.  

Also, BTC velocity is a touchy subject because much of the transaction base is spam and churn.

Inasmuch as there is no objective way of looking at any given transaction, and classifying it as spam or notspam, I 'forbid' you from using this characterization. OK, 'forbid' gets a winkie: But the term 'spam' is useless.

I disagree with this statement. If a transaction has greater than an arbitrary number of inputs, it's likely spam. If a transaction is larger than some arbitrary number of bytes, it's likely spam. I haven't researched the finer details of this topic, but I'm confident that miners could start filtering transactions that look really wasteful. I'm sure it's a touchy subject, but clear heads can resolve it.

[franky1]

I disagree with this statement. If a transaction has greater than an arbitrary number of inputs, it's likely spam. If a transaction is larger than some arbitrary number of bytes, it's likely spam. I haven't researched the finer details of this topic, but I'm confident that miners could start filtering transactions that look really wasteful. I'm sure it's a touchy subject, but clear heads can resolve it.

for me i only consider something spam if its moving funds every block or two.

even a shop-o-holic cant spend money that quickly

[Decoded]

I'm supporting Bitcoin unlimited. I'm not a BU extremist like some others on the forum, but it's obvious that Segwit has its flaws. Bitcoin Unlimited is the best fork available right now. If you think otherwise, convince me.

[iCEBREAKER]

I'm supporting Bitcoin unlimited. I'm not a BU extremist like some others on the forum, but it's obvious that Segwit has its flaws. Bitcoin Unlimited is the best fork available right now. If you think otherwise, convince me.

If you understand that segwit is needed for Lightning, this should convince you.

Money, blockchains, and social scalability

http://unenumerated.blogspot.hr/2017/02/money-blockchains-and-social-scalability.html

If you need some specific context to understand why BU sucks, this article is ideal.

Meet the Man Running the Only [Full] Bitcoin Node In West Africa | Running costs are 12% of GDP per capita in Nigeria

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5t44pd/meet_the_man_running_the_only_full_bitcoin_node/

[hv_]

Happy reading:


https://medium.com/@DCGco/scaling-bitcoin-reflections-from-the-dcg-portfolio-35b9a065b2a4#.j0oc5jisx


Get your feets on the ground and open your minds for having both!

[Lauda]

funny part is lauda cannot rebuttle the points

There is nothing to rebuttle, only nonsense to waste my time.

wake up and smell the coffee lauda. segwit does not solve the quadratics spam/doublespend scam issues because malicious people can just use old key types.

Nonsense.

the only real thing segwit does. is FORCES pools to be under blockstreams thumb
its only agenda is to ban anything not blockstream compliant. so that blockstream can rule bitcoin.

Bullshit and pure propaganda. The rest is not even worth quoting.

I'm supporting Bitcoin unlimited. I'm not a BU extremist like some others on the forum, but it's obvious that Segwit has its flaws. Bitcoin Unlimited is the best fork available right now. If you think otherwise, convince me.

That's not the wisest decision. "Segwit has its flaws" is less obvious than the untested "emergent consensus has its flaws". Forking to increase the block size is one thing, but what BU wants to do is a completely different one. Plenty of articles / read material, e.g. Link 1, Link 2.