So who the hell is still supporting BU?

[jonald_fyookball]

at this point the question should be: who the hell still isn't supporting BU?

[1714004734]

1714004734

[iCEBREAKER]

at this point the question should be: who the hell still isn't supporting BU?

The only people who matter, the Core devs, aren't supporting BU.

If the Core devs don't support BU, who is going to fix it when they break something (again)?

And who will import all the nifty new features from Core to BU?

It's like buying a new car and installing a bunch of homespun, amateur "custom" electrical work to support your shitty try-hard stereo/subs/lights.

When you eventually break the basic functionality for the sake of your gimmicks, the dealer is going to laugh in your face when you try to get it fixed under warranty.

[kiklo]

at this point the question should be: who the hell still isn't supporting BU?

The only people who matter, the Core devs, aren't supporting BU.

If the Core devs don't support BU, who is going to fix it when they break something (again)?

And who will import all the nifty new features from Core to BU?

It's like buying a new car and installing a bunch of homespun, amateur "custom" electrical work to support your shitty try-hard stereo/subs/lights.

When you eventually break the basic functionality for the sake of your gimmicks, the dealer is going to laugh in your face when you try to get it fixed under warranty.

If you love BTC core that much , maybe you should get a room and ask G.Maxwell to whisper software code into your ear.  

Fact is BTC Core are attempting an overthrown of BTC by devious maneuvers ,
People like that: You Fire!

You don't agree to their ransom demands.
Well you might, you're kind of a punk.  

 

FYI:
China owns the majority of the mining pools, they might as well setup a new dev team to replace core.
I doubt many would miss BTC core's shenanigans at all.

[aarturka]

at this point the question should be: who the hell still isn't supporting BU?

why? all sensible people on this forum is not supporting BU as far as I know. Don't you know that unlimited was created to make bitcoin centralized. we dont want it to happen. Do you want to be in that bunch of alt trolls and Ver's puppets?

[kiklo]

at this point the question should be: who the hell still isn't supporting BU?

why? all sensible people on this forum is not supporting BU as far as I know. Don't you know that unlimited was created to make bitcoin centralized. we dont want it to happen. Do you want to be in that bunch of alt trolls and Ver's puppets?

Excuse me ,

WTF Do you think Segwit & LN is going to do?

LN will Completely Centralized Control of BTC to the LN NETWORK.


 

FYI:
If you have been asleep for the last year & ½ , BTC mining has already centralized to the Chinese mining pools currently at ~67%.

[iCEBREAKER]

jbreher, are you suggesting that it's possible to break the laws of physics in order to continue with Moore's law? We're going to build transistors out of something that's smaller than 1 silicon atom, yeah? you're pretty cute yourself, lol

Why, no, Carlton. I am suggesting that your assertion is that we are at the end of Moore's 'law' scaling due to fundamental technological limits in microchip manufacturing is absolute twaddle.

You know there is such a thing as "diminishing marginal returns" right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns

It's a fundamental principle of economics.  Not sure how you get through life without understanding it.  Free Shit Army member perhaps?

There is also such a thing as Plank length, which puts an absolute limit on how finely the traces of microprocessors may be etched.

Until we can create holographic sub-space zero-point Area51 Bose-Einstein condensate CPUs that run at absolute zero, Moore's law observation will continue to decline in descriptive and predictive power.

I'd give you a link, but don't want to overwhelm your limited capacities with too much new information all at once.   

[jonald_fyookball]

Don't you know that unlimited was created to make bitcoin centralized.  

No; unlimited was created because there shouldnt be a maximum blocksize that is part of the consensus rules.

The idea/argument that larger blocks will centralize hashing power in areas that have faster propagation
times is silly and does not hold water since A) such areas already have that 'advantage'  , B) miners can
always choose to solve smaller blocks, at least for several decades, and C) the bitcoin relay network already
purports to mitigate propagation issues, claiming global latencies as low as 100ms, which compared to an
average block interval of 10 minutes (which is 0.016%, or about a hundredth of a percent) is insignificant.

[aarturka]

LN will Completely Centralized Control of BTC to the LN NETWORK.

Absolute nonsense. You are just afraid that segwit, Lightning and then sidechains is going to kill all altcoins and your POS coin among them, there will be no need of them. Well your fears are substantiated but nobody made you to buy that shit and it's not too late to forsake it and buy some bitcoins. and by the way remind me I forgot what pos coin do you stand for?

[aarturka]

The idea/argument that larger blocks will centralize hashing power in areas that have faster propagation
times is silly and does not hold water since A) such areas already have that 'advantage'

Segwit lightning and sidechains are going to fix this issue and bu is just going to exacerbate it. And anyway bu will never be accepted like classic, it's just silly to talk about it, we are just wasting time.

[Decoded]

Moore's Law is no longer tenable, as microchip manufacturing has (ironically) hit it's the technological limits.

aww..... that's just precious.

jbreher, are you suggesting that it's possible to break the laws of physics in order to continue with Moore's law? We're going to build transistors out of something that's smaller than 1 silicon atom, yeah? you're pretty cute yourself, lol

Why, no, Carlton. I am suggesting that your assertion is that we are at the end of Moore's 'law' scaling due to fundamental technological limits in microchip manufacturing is absolute twaddle.

dont worry about CB, he know literally nothing..

much easier to just inform him
if you cant make something half the size then you:
make it do the same thing faster.
make it do more than one task
or even
make twice as many of the items.

end result is more porformance growth

The "law" states not that the amount of transistors per area would double every year (or more accurately, 16-18 months), but simply that the amount of transistors on a board would double. New chip standards could mean slightly larger chips, slightly thicker chips, ability for efficient usage of multiple chips (SLI is a joke)

BU may not be the perfect change, but it's damn well better than the indecision, conflict and idleness when it comes to the blocks use debate which we have now.

Ladies and Gentlemen, you better make your move. I've made mine.

[piramida]

No; unlimited was created because there shouldnt be a maximum blocksize that is part of the consensus rules.

The idea/argument that larger blocks will centralize hashing power in areas that have faster propagation
times is silly and does not hold water since A) such areas already have that 'advantage'  , B) miners can
always choose to solve smaller blocks, at least for several decades, and C) the bitcoin relay network already
purports to mitigate propagation issues, claiming global latencies as low as 100ms, which compared to an
average block interval of 10 minutes (which is 0.016%, or about a hundredth of a percent) is insignificant.

Unlimited was created with only one purpose - to boost an ego of a single person who's silly idea was not accepted by core. That person is neither a dev nor understands anything about economics, that is why he keeps pushing this most outrageous idea of on-chain scaling to infinity - and now that he has spent significant amount of money on pushing this silly idea, it has become a matter of principle for him.

The fact that you monkeys jump around him does not change the fact that exactly zero people (of the ones that matter in bitcoin world) do support that fork. It will never ever be accepted, just deal with it and move on do something useful. What he might succeed in is blocking real thought-through proposals indefinitely; in that case bitcoin remains immutable and all innovation goes into additional layers. Works this way, too.

[Gimpeline]

at this point the question should be: who the hell still isn't supporting BU?

Around 80% of the miners and ca 90% of the nodes

https://coin.dance/nodes/share

https://coin.dance/blocks/summary

[kiklo]

LN will Completely Centralized Control of BTC to the LN NETWORK.

Absolute nonsense. You are just afraid that segwit, Lightning and then sidechains is going to kill all altcoins and your POS coin among them, there will be no need of them. Well your fears are substantiated but nobody made you to buy that shit and it's not too late to forsake it and buy some bitcoins. and by the way remind me I forgot what pos coin do you stand for?

Hmm,

Since you asked.  

ZEIT is PoST . (Look below all of my Posts, hard to believe you missed it.)
Our interest rate will be so low, Users will make more from processing transactions when they stake than from the staking ,
fixing the only flaw in all other PoS coins (out of control inflation)

LN Offchain Fraction Reserve Counterfeit Coins verses ZEIT ONCHAIN non-counterfeit-able Coins.
       BTC still low transaction capacity             verses 20X BTC Transaction Capacity
       BTC still an Energy Hog                          verses  Energy Efficient (less than a video game)
       Increasing Transaction fees                     verses  a Low Fixed Transaction Fee
       Rich can jump ahead by higher fees          verses all transactions included in the order they were created
       Profit Potential at best 10X                    verses Profit Potential in the Millions
       BTC Full Nodes receive no payment          verses  ZEIT's Full Nodes can receive Transactions fees for every block , they stake  

Sorry , once we move to ultra low inflation (only .0005% per year) ,
all of the other coins including LN's Ass is Grass and ZEIT will be the LawnMower.  



 

FYI:
BTC is up today at  (  1.52%)
ZEIT is up today at (54.50%) , investors will smarten up soon enough.  

[Bonnyi]

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.

You gotta be kidding me, right?
Core is lost the war already. Even BU is lost, we can't let core to win.

[hv_]

The growing bounty in the mempool and the greed of the miners will solve the stalling at some critical point like its done in a typical phase separation manner when ice (1MB freeze) melts into liquid.

We see it boiling up and reaching the point. Once it starts no ice will be left over.

Keep watching

[Lauda]

You gotta be kidding me, right?
Core is lost the war already. Even BU is lost, we can't let core to win.

Obvious and delusional shill account.

The growing bounty in the mempool and the greed of the miners will solve the stalling at some critical point like its done in a typical phase separation manner when ice (1MB freeze) melts into liquid.

Keep watching

It almost seems like *they don't* want to scale it. As I've mentioned several times before, the path forward should be pretty *simple*: Segwit now -> HF to increase the base size after -> LN and other second layer solutions.

[hv_]

You gotta be kidding me, right?
Core is lost the war already. Even BU is lost, we can't let core to win.

Obvious and delusional shill account.

The growing bounty in the mempool and the greed of the miners will solve the stalling at some critical point like its done in a typical phase separation manner when ice (1MB freeze) melts into liquid.

Keep watching

It almost seems like *they don't* want to scale it. As I've mentioned several times before, the path forward should be pretty *simple*: Segwit now -> HF to increase the base size after -> LN and other second layer solutions.

I am sure they want (bounty + greed) but since chinese hate control, they want to apply their rules.

Given that, I do not bet on SW and Blockstream solutions or over regulated forums and code that much.

[Decoded]

You gotta be kidding me, right?
Core is lost the war already. Even BU is lost, we can't let core to win.

Obvious and delusional shill account.

The growing bounty in the mempool and the greed of the miners will solve the stalling at some critical point like its done in a typical phase separation manner when ice (1MB freeze) melts into liquid.

Keep watching

It almost seems like *they don't* want to scale it. As I've mentioned several times before, the path forward should be pretty *simple*: Segwit now -> HF to increase the base size after -> LN and other second layer solutions.

After segwit activation, will the hard fork revert the changes?

I honestly see no problem with segwit, nor BU. The real problem is that we need a change soon. We need one now.

No; unlimited was created because there shouldnt be a maximum blocksize that is part of the consensus rules.

The idea/argument that larger blocks will centralize hashing power in areas that have faster propagation
times is silly and does not hold water since A) such areas already have that 'advantage'  , B) miners can
always choose to solve smaller blocks, at least for several decades, and C) the bitcoin relay network already
purports to mitigate propagation issues, claiming global latencies as low as 100ms, which compared to an
average block interval of 10 minutes (which is 0.016%, or about a hundredth of a percent) is insignificant.

Unlimited was created with only one purpose - to boost an ego of a single person who's silly idea was not accepted by core. That person is neither a dev nor understands anything about economics, that is why he keeps pushing this most outrageous idea of on-chain scaling to infinity - and now that he has spent significant amount of money on pushing this silly idea, it has become a matter of principle for him.

The fact that you monkeys jump around him does not change the fact that exactly zero people (of the ones that matter in bitcoin world) do support that fork. It will never ever be accepted, just deal with it and move on do something useful. What he might succeed in is blocking real thought-through proposals indefinitely; in that case bitcoin remains immutable and all innovation goes into additional layers. Works this way, too.

*sigh*

I really don't get what's wrong with you core diehards.

[Lauda]

After segwit activation, will the hard fork revert the changes?

No. With Segwit the block size parameter changes into 'base' and 'weight'. With Segwit you get 1 MB base and 4 MB weight. If one wanted to increase on-chain capacity via this method post Segwit, these paramters would have to be changed. Traditionally it would only be one parameter (as is now).

I honestly see no problem with segwit, nor BU. The real problem is that we need a change soon. We need one now.

IMHO emergent consensus has a far greater risk than Segwit. I'd prefer Segwit or the old Classic approach (2 MB) instead of BU.

[hv_]

You gotta be kidding me, right?
Core is lost the war already. Even BU is lost, we can't let core to win.

Obvious and delusional shill account.

The growing bounty in the mempool and the greed of the miners will solve the stalling at some critical point like its done in a typical phase separation manner when ice (1MB freeze) melts into liquid.

Keep watching

It almost seems like *they don't* want to scale it. As I've mentioned several times before, the path forward should be pretty *simple*: Segwit now -> HF to increase the base size after -> LN and other second layer solutions.

After segwit activation, will the hard fork revert the changes?

I honestly see no problem with segwit, nor BU. The real problem is that we need a change soon. We need one now.

No; unlimited was created because there shouldnt be a maximum blocksize that is part of the consensus rules.

The idea/argument that larger blocks will centralize hashing power in areas that have faster propagation
times is silly and does not hold water since A) such areas already have that 'advantage'  , B) miners can
always choose to solve smaller blocks, at least for several decades, and C) the bitcoin relay network already
purports to mitigate propagation issues, claiming global latencies as low as 100ms, which compared to an
average block interval of 10 minutes (which is 0.016%, or about a hundredth of a percent) is insignificant.

Unlimited was created with only one purpose - to boost an ego of a single person who's silly idea was not accepted by core. That person is neither a dev nor understands anything about economics, that is why he keeps pushing this most outrageous idea of on-chain scaling to infinity - and now that he has spent significant amount of money on pushing this silly idea, it has become a matter of principle for him.

The fact that you monkeys jump around him does not change the fact that exactly zero people (of the ones that matter in bitcoin world) do support that fork. It will never ever be accepted, just deal with it and move on do something useful. What he might succeed in is blocking real thought-through proposals indefinitely; in that case bitcoin remains immutable and all innovation goes into additional layers. Works this way, too.

*sigh*

I really don't get what's wrong with you core diehards.

Thats the chisma.

If you think bitcoin is only store of value, nothing needs to be changed at all. Price is up.
Fees are up, adoption for rich is up.

If you think bitcoin is more than that (I am) you need to scale.

Not sure if anybody can 'dictate' the direction, I think greed does it finally. Individuals are dammed to discuss (helps?) or analyse and watch.