What happens if BU fails VS What happens if SegWit fails

[kiklo]

https://news.bitcoin.com/new-unlimited-bitcoin-com-mining-pool-now-open/

Looks like someone is getting ready to help BTC Unlimited kicks Segwit virtual ass
Miners can earn 110% compared to other Mining Pools.

“We are paying more on Pay-Per-Share (PPS) than any other pool,” explains Oldenburg.
 “We pay a 110% block reward, and charge 0% fees for PPS and Pay Per Last N Shares (PPLNS).
Bitcoin.com’s mining pool pays PPS directly instead of giving miners some fees after the blocks are mined.
Our reward scheme is simpler and is guaranteed to make the miner more money regardless of luck.”
A Unique Reward System, and an Aim to End Transaction Congestion

Bitcoin.com’s Mining Pool is also the world’s first large pool fully dedicated to Bitcoin Unlimited.
Oldenburg details the operations are global with servers in the U.S., China, and Europe.
Additionally, Bitcoin.com’s mining pool has fast block transmission times using a global relay network built on Bitcoin Unlimited Xthin and Xpedited blocks.

Today begins the first invite to the general public, offering a mining pool with a significant incentive for miners.
Moreover, Bitcoin.com’s Mining Pool is leading the change for bigger blocks by voting with hashpower to end congestion within the network.
In addition to the pool, Oldenburg reveals that a transaction accelerator platform is also coming in the near future.

 

[Carlton Banks]

What's 110% of zero?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1804141.msg18095902#msg18095902

[kiklo]

What's 110% of zero?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1804141.msg18095902#msg18095902

The look on your Face.  
When you realized Bitcoin Unlimited was Paying out more to their Miners that Segwit Pools.



 

FYI: Also when I tricked you into Bumping this Topic for 30 Minutes.   
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1807251.msg18096423#msg18096423

[Carlton Banks]

You should break out the CarltonDance gif instead, as that's literally what I was actually doing


Can you explain, lo-kicker, how the Unlimited pool will pay out 110% of anything when their blocks keep getting rejected? These people are going to have one nasty electricy bill to pay

[hv_]

You should break out the CarltonDance gif instead, as that's literally what I was actually doing


Can you explain, lo-kicker, how the Unlimited pool will pay out 110% of anything when their blocks keep getting rejected? These people are going to have one nasty electricy bill to pay

They will just add some more electricity costs (minor) soon running enough nodes... easy done.

[Carlton Banks]

If they're not making any BTC mining, they will have nothing to pay their bills.


The End.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

There has to be something like a power grab here. 

Ya think?   

Ask yourself: What company raised $71M in venture capital, wants to be "a leading provider of blockchain technologies", and hired many
of the prominent developers of the core bitcoin repository?

hint: It rhymes with "cock dream".

There's a company called Sock Bean? 

[kiklo]

You should break out the CarltonDance gif instead, as that's literally what I was actually doing


Can you explain, lo-kicker, how the Unlimited pool will pay out 110% of anything when their blocks keep getting rejected? These people are going to have one nasty electricy bill to pay

Well You are Awful Stupid, But I will give it a shot.

They will only produce blocks that are accepted by the entire network, until they have enough % to Take over the Chain Permanently .

Read the above again, I know you are slow in the head.

BTU could take over the network with between 51% or more and their ain't jack you or the BTC core devs could do to stop it.  

 

FYI:
BTU only needs ~25% more for the majority of the network to leave you and BTC Core Shenanigans behind forever.  
Odds are the Chinese Miners will join them giving them ~70% of the network.
BTU will have the Longer & Stronger Chain , Segwit supporters will buckle like the Chicken Little they are or fork into oblivion!  

LOL,  

[Carlton Banks]

They can have their blocks rejected despite any of that.


Time to change your underwear, off you scuttle

[kiklo]

They can have their blocks rejected despite any of that.

Yeah , keep thinking that!

Just go home to your mommy, so she can soothe your fragile broken psyche.   

 

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

I wouldn't be surprised if some of franky1's concerns are true, but cannot confirm this as it is way beyond my technical knowledge and expertise in this area.

FYI, franky has been having his "concerns" for 3 years and counting.


Do you know what happened to the issues that Franky used to complain about? He no longer complains. Because they were demonstrated to be unproductive trolling. When he finds they don't work, he simply switches to newer trolling strategies instead.

If you'd believed anything Franky had stated or predicted, Bitcoin would be hugely unsuccessful cryptocurrency with all the users abandoning it in fear and frustration. But it keeps becoming more popular, and more successful.

I was hear 3 years ago (may have been posting as FunkyRes) and I recall Franky's posts, hard to forget his awesome avatar. They don't seem that different now to me. Well there is a difference, I no longer am gunho about SegWit.

I wanted SegWit because I like the idea of micro-payments but I have since come to realize that micro-payments isn't what segwit is about and can be achieved by simply increasing the block size, which is the KISS solution to the problem. SegWit has a different agenda altogether and I do not believe it is in our best interests. It adds incredible complexity to bitcoin while taking control for the transactions outside the blockchain (via lightening) and I can not condone that.

[BillyBobZorton]

I wouldn't be surprised if some of franky1's concerns are true, but cannot confirm this as it is way beyond my technical knowledge and expertise in this area.

FYI, franky has been having his "concerns" for 3 years and counting.


Do you know what happened to the issues that Franky used to complain about? He no longer complains. Because they were demonstrated to be unproductive trolling. When he finds they don't work, he simply switches to newer trolling strategies instead.

If you'd believed anything Franky had stated or predicted, Bitcoin would be hugely unsuccessful cryptocurrency with all the users abandoning it in fear and frustration. But it keeps becoming more popular, and more successful.

I was hear 3 years ago (may have been posting as FunkyRes) and I recall Franky's posts, hard to forget his awesome avatar. They don't seem that different now to me. Well there is a difference, I no longer am gunho about SegWit.

I wanted SegWit because I like the idea of micro-payments but I have since come to realize that micro-payments isn't what segwit is about and can be achieved by simply increasing the block size, which is the KISS solution to the problem. SegWit has a different agenda altogether and I do not believe it is in our best interests. It adds incredible complexity to bitcoin while taking control for the transactions outside the blockchain (via lightening) and I can not condone that.

I hope you are not supporting BU while claiming segwit adds "incredible complexity".

The only thing complex here is the ridiculous "emerging consensus" BU approach. Actually it's not that complex, it's pretty simple: BU doesn't work.

Segwit does, it has been tested to hell and back. Let's get segwit already you pricks.

[franky1]

Segwit does, it has been tested to hell and back. Let's get segwit already you pricks.

on testnet.
thats like saying litecoin works because it has been tested since 2011.. but throw it into bitcoins mainnet overnight and see what happens when you try telling the world you can get to do litecoin stuff..

show me a segwit transaction on bitcoins mainnet.. oh you cant
show me a segwit block on bitcoins mainnet. oh you cant.

show me if segwit is so "backward compatible" how come no tests are done on bitcoins mainnet to show how "compatible" and "safe" it is.oh you cant.
show me segwit is letting nodes vote... oh you cant.
show me how segwit if activated stops native transactions.. oh you cant
although segwit removes automated relay of unconfirmed segwit tx's to native nodes, show me how segwit prevents MANUAL copy/paste of unconfirmed segwit tx to old nodes.. oh you cant

stop reading the 30 second elevator sales pitch of segwit and learn the real features learn the capability and their limitations and their effectiveness, learn the weaknesses, learn the loopholes and learn what it doesnt solve.

then your utopian bubble pops loud enough to wake you up

save repeating myself

LOL read the code. learn it
native keys will still quadratic spam..
all segwit does is disarm the segwit priv/pubkey users that voluntarily move their funds to segwit keys from being able to quadratic/malleate.. but doesnt disarm the native key users.
segwit doesnt disarm the network. meaning soft or hard consensus or bilateral. segwit will never be able to achieve the quadratic/malleation fix promise

they cant even just switch off native key utility after activation either because there are millions of unspent outputs based on native keys and for segwit to even work would need to allow those native unspents to be spent.

segwits 'malicious bloat/doublespend fix' - empty gesture that wont work (requires 100% funds on segwit keys and only transacting to other segwit keys)
segwits '2.1mb boost' - empty gesture that get to that expectation (requires 100% funds on segwit keys and only transacting to other segwit keys)

all segwits ability does is move blockstream to being the centralised "upstream filters"

[AngryDwarf]

I'd like to see more reasoned arguments for segwit, rather than just fanboyism or insult hurling.
I see more reasoned arguments against segwit, and about the need for a blocksize increase IMO.

So how will users be able to move small UTXO's from native keys to segwit keys without a blocksize increase?

And is an offchain solution really bitcoin, or a bitcoin facilitator?

[franky1]

I'd like to see more reasoned arguments for segwit, rather than just fanboyism or insult hurling.
I see more reasoned arguments against segwit, and about the need for a blocksize increase IMO.

So how will users be able to move small UTXO's from native keys to segwit keys without a blocksize increase?

And is an offchain solution really bitcoin, or a bitcoin facilitator?

no one is against offchain solution as a VOLUNTARY side service
LN does not need segwit.
LN can be just a side commercial service much like bitgo or coinbase.com.

but centralising the network where it forces everyone into using LN. BIG no no

LN has a niche that some can happily use. but LN has limitations too. not everyone will benefit from it even if forced to use it.
LN is not the end solution. so treat is only as a future side service

[jonald_fyookball]

I wouldn't be surprised if some of franky1's concerns are true, but cannot confirm this as it is way beyond my technical knowledge and expertise in this area.

FYI, franky has been having his "concerns" for 3 years and counting.


Do you know what happened to the issues that Franky used to complain about? He no longer complains. Because they were demonstrated to be unproductive trolling. When he finds they don't work, he simply switches to newer trolling strategies instead.

If you'd believed anything Franky had stated or predicted, Bitcoin would be hugely unsuccessful cryptocurrency with all the users abandoning it in fear and frustration. But it keeps becoming more popular, and more successful.

I was hear 3 years ago (may have been posting as FunkyRes) and I recall Franky's posts, hard to forget his awesome avatar. They don't seem that different now to me. Well there is a difference, I no longer am gunho about SegWit.

I wanted SegWit because I like the idea of micro-payments but I have since come to realize that micro-payments isn't what segwit is about and can be achieved by simply increasing the block size, which is the KISS solution to the problem. SegWit has a different agenda altogether and I do not believe it is in our best interests. It adds incredible complexity to bitcoin while taking control for the transactions outside the blockchain (via lightening) and I can not condone that.

I hope you are not supporting BU while claiming segwit adds "incredible complexity".

The only thing complex here is the ridiculous "emerging consensus" BU approach. Actually it's not that complex, it's pretty simple: BU doesn't work.

Segwit does, it has been tested to hell and back. Let's get segwit already you pricks.

Neither has been tested on the main net.

Segwit is much more complicated which is why it required so much testing even on test net.
BU is by comparison a much simpler change.

[AngryDwarf]

@franky1 - can this quadratic spam you talk about be resolved on native keys anyway?

[franky1]

@franky1 - can this quadratic spam you talk about be resolved on native keys anyway?

yep
reduce TX sigops limit. in effect much like not allowing 0 fee tx's into blocks. not allowing tx with XXXXX sigops into blocks

but thats a separate thing to what segwit does.. moving the signature= only segwit tx's are affected and doesnt do anything for native tx's

best analogy for sgwits proposal
"we fear people will want to shoot other people in the leg.. who volunteers to be amputated so they cannot be shot in the leg or run around to shoot others"

reducing sigops.. "is like a metal detector scanner at the door. if you have a big lump of metal on you.. you cant come in no matter if you amputated or full bodied"

[kiklo]

And is an offchain solution really bitcoin, or a bitcoin facilitator?

Offchain can only ever be a representation of the value of bitcoin.
Just like US Dollars used to be exchangeable for their face value amount in Gold.

Both are only representations and not the actual item of value.

 

FYI:
Added details to Franky1 statement : LN does not need segwit.  

LN Does Needs Segwit so that LN can be trust less.
Otherwise LN requires a separate Trust system in place or very long extensive Time Locks , Both of which LN Devs don't want.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5eqm2b/can_ln_work_without_segwit/?st=izzovrzk&sh=b2fe8b0a

Yeah you can do LN without segwit. It's less efficient, and there are some features you won't be able to do.

With segwit, you can have a 3rd party "watch" your channel for you in case your counterparty tries to broadcast an old, fraudulent transaction.
The 3rd party can automatically grab your money back for you. And the watcher doesn't even know about your transactions or your balances while watching.

That whole feature is pretty much gone without segwit.
You'd have to tell the watcher everything about your channel, and the only thing they'd be able to do is e-mail you to let you know if fraud occurred.

The other main disadvantage to segwit-less LN is that channels would have a preset duration. That's a pretty big downside.

If segwit doesn't activate after a long time, we could re-program some of the current code to work without segwit.
I think everyone's hoping we don't have to as that'd be a bit disappointing, but doable.
As I meme'd at scaling HK, there are levels of LN we are prepared to accept

In Short , without Segwit any version of LN is going to be crap.

[hv_]

I wouldn't be surprised if some of franky1's concerns are true, but cannot confirm this as it is way beyond my technical knowledge and expertise in this area.

FYI, franky has been having his "concerns" for 3 years and counting.


Do you know what happened to the issues that Franky used to complain about? He no longer complains. Because they were demonstrated to be unproductive trolling. When he finds they don't work, he simply switches to newer trolling strategies instead.

If you'd believed anything Franky had stated or predicted, Bitcoin would be hugely unsuccessful cryptocurrency with all the users abandoning it in fear and frustration. But it keeps becoming more popular, and more successful.

I was hear 3 years ago (may have been posting as FunkyRes) and I recall Franky's posts, hard to forget his awesome avatar. They don't seem that different now to me. Well there is a difference, I no longer am gunho about SegWit.

I wanted SegWit because I like the idea of micro-payments but I have since come to realize that micro-payments isn't what segwit is about and can be achieved by simply increasing the block size, which is the KISS solution to the problem. SegWit has a different agenda altogether and I do not believe it is in our best interests. It adds incredible complexity to bitcoin while taking control for the transactions outside the blockchain (via lightening) and I can not condone that.

I hope you are not supporting BU while claiming segwit adds "incredible complexity".

The only thing complex here is the ridiculous "emerging consensus" BU approach. Actually it's not that complex, it's pretty simple: BU doesn't work.

Segwit does, it has been tested to hell and back. Let's get segwit already you pricks.

Neither has been tested on the main net.

Segwit is much more complicated which is why it required so much testing even on test net.
BU is by comparison a much simpler change.

Hehe - yes and:  Just in case SW would be the better long term solution , nobody is really able to grasp it fully AND is able to convince crowds of the potential or things are fractioned / censored endless by different forum policies. We only see stupid fan boy chilling here - that's it. Sorry - just in case...