What happens if BU fails VS What happens if SegWit fails

[Senor.Bla]

Somehow i'm under the impression that if core would have suggested the changes that come with BU, nobody would discuss them and we would have it up and running already.

Has anyone heard anything about a plan b on how core is going to address the blocksize problem in case SegWit is going to fail / not activated?

[1714994547]

1714994547

[1714994547]

1714994547

[1714994547]

1714994547

[1714994547]

1714994547

[franky1]

Somehow i'm under the impression that if core would have suggested the changes that come with BU, nobody would discuss them and we would have it up and running already.

Has anyone heard anything about a plan b on how core is going to address the blocksize problem in case SegWit is going to fail / not activated?

yep seems blockstreams next plans are wait for it..
soft(pool) BILATERAL SPLIT (bip9 allows this if u didnt know already)
hard(node and pool) BILATERAL SPLIT (new UASF does this. although the buzzword is meant to make it sound easier to stroke the sheep to sleep by pretending its a "soft" fix)

silly thing is they are really desperate to avoid hard(node and pool) consensus. which the community want so that other features can be added to and then just have one big activation event of everything the entire community want in one go)

but they are willing to do anything to get segwit activated without playing at the same level. even though segwit wont do as promised in any shape or form.(hard,soft / consensus,bilateral)  it just wont do what is promised.

its not segwit 'activation' that fixes anything.
its having everyones transactions only using segwit keys that fix the issues they promised, which will never happen.
malicious people will just stick to native keys. its that simple.
but blockstream have yet to come to that realisation as they have not done enough scenario tests. they have only done 'does it break' tests.. not any real 'does it fix' tests.

funny part is they went soft because of the fake rhetoric of hard consensus leads to a split.
but now willing to do a hard bilateral split to avoid hard consensus... (facepalm)

they are getting desperate.

they are doing all they can to avoid doing something the whole network can agree on. but then try pointing the finger in the other direction while they do the exact things they falsely accuse others of doing.

it has become totally ridiculous

[bitart]

Guys, I'm not legendary unlike most of you in this thread, and I haven't got as much experience with bitcoin as you but I've just got shocked with this BU and SW things earlyer this week, and I'd like to ask for your help to clarify some things.
Before last weekend  I was usually reading the forum and posting things about my ideas in connection with the future of bitcoin and banking industry, etc, At the end of last week I was waiting for a smaller amount of BTC. While I was waiting, I have realized that my little amount was not confirmed for 24 hours or so (0 confirmation). I was lucky and have used an accelerator at 0:01 AM, and this helped my transaction to get confirmed in the morning, at last.
I started to search for the forum about the possible reasons of this delay, and as I was digging deeper and deeper inside the threads, I just found the problem of the full mempool and the pricy confirmations of the urgent transactions.
As I'm not an expert, please forgive me if I ask you questions like newbies, but I'm really curious now:
Does it really the case that some groups from China spams the network with transactions in order to raise the fees of urgent transactions?
As I understood, that blocks has limited capacity (1MB) to include transactions. The transaction that pays more fee gets priorized (and there's no problem with this).
I saw that there are different solutions to raise the capacity of the blocks, but there's no consensus about the preferred way forward.
My question is:
If we find a solution somehow that fits for everyone in the system, and can raise the block limit, would this solve the problem of spamming the network?
E.g.: if we raise the limit to X MB, what is the guarantee that chinese groups won't fill that X MB capacity too, in order to prevent the fees from falling back to normal?
Before last weekend, I was really positive about the future of bitcoin, and now I'm really worried. Thanks for your help in advance!

[jonald_fyookball]

Guys, I'm not legendary unlike most of you in this thread, and I haven't got as much experience with bitcoin as you but I've just got shocked with this BU and SW things earlyer this week, and I'd like to ask for your help to clarify some things.
Before last weekend  I was usually reading the forum and posting things about my ideas in connection with the future of bitcoin and banking industry, etc, At the end of last week I was waiting for a smaller amount of BTC. While I was waiting, I have realized that my little amount was not confirmed for 24 hours or so (0 confirmation). I was lucky and have used an accelerator at 0:01 AM, and this helped my transaction to get confirmed in the morning, at last.
I started to search for the forum about the possible reasons of this delay, and as I was digging deeper and deeper inside the threads, I just found the problem of the full mempool and the pricy confirmations of the urgent transactions.
As I'm not an expert, please forgive me if I ask you questions like newbies, but I'm really curious now:
Does it really the case that some groups from China spams the network with transactions in order to raise the fees of urgent transactions?
As I understood, that blocks has limited capacity (1MB) to include transactions. The transaction that pays more fee gets priorized (and there's no problem with this).
I saw that there are different solutions to raise the capacity of the blocks, but there's no consensus about the preferred way forward.
My question is:
If we find a solution somehow that fits for everyone in the system, and can raise the block limit, would this solve the problem of spamming the network?
E.g.: if we raise the limit to X MB, what is the guarantee that chinese groups won't fill that X MB capacity too, in order to prevent the fees from falling back to normal?
Before last weekend, I was really positive about the future of bitcoin, and now I'm really worried. Thanks for your help in advance!

You are honestly going to get different answers to this depending on who you ask.

Short answer: the network has reached capacity and must be increased in one form or another.
There's no guarantee against DOS/spam attacks in the future but generally, if the capacity
is several times bigger than the average load, it shouldn't represent too much of an issue
like it currently is.

[Senor.Bla]

Guys, I'm not legendary unlike most of you in this thread, and I haven't got as much experience with bitcoin as you but I've just got shocked with this BU and SW things earlyer this week, and I'd like to ask for your help to clarify some things.
Before last weekend  I was usually reading the forum and posting things about my ideas in connection with the future of bitcoin and banking industry, etc, At the end of last week I was waiting for a smaller amount of BTC. While I was waiting, I have realized that my little amount was not confirmed for 24 hours or so (0 confirmation). I was lucky and have used an accelerator at 0:01 AM, and this helped my transaction to get confirmed in the morning, at last.
I started to search for the forum about the possible reasons of this delay, and as I was digging deeper and deeper inside the threads, I just found the problem of the full mempool and the pricy confirmations of the urgent transactions.
As I'm not an expert, please forgive me if I ask you questions like newbies, but I'm really curious now:
Does it really the case that some groups from China spams the network with transactions in order to raise the fees of urgent transactions?
As I understood, that blocks has limited capacity (1MB) to include transactions. The transaction that pays more fee gets priorized (and there's no problem with this).
I saw that there are different solutions to raise the capacity of the blocks, but there's no consensus about the preferred way forward.
My question is:
If we find a solution somehow that fits for everyone in the system, and can raise the block limit, would this solve the problem of spamming the network?
E.g.: if we raise the limit to X MB, what is the guarantee that chinese groups won't fill that X MB capacity too, in order to prevent the fees from falling back to normal?
Before last weekend, I was really positive about the future of bitcoin, and now I'm really worried. Thanks for your help in advance!

I can't tell you if the spam is coming from China and how much spam there really is as it's easy to say that there are spam attacks, but i feel they are smaller then people think. Even with the current block size spammers could double their attacks to get even higher fees. But for some reason they don't do it. Maybe it is because it cost quite a bit. With a bigger block size it would cost them even more to keep spam as a problem to the rest of us.
Let us assume one block (1MB) consists of 10% spam (0,1MB) and . If they would double their effort to 0,2MB then we would see higher fees for sure. But if we have a block size of 2MB (however we achieved that) then the same amount of spam (0,1MB) would only be 5% and doubling would mean 10% (0,2MB). This is the same as at our starting position, but it would be a smaller problem, because this would leave us with 1,8MB non spam. So still more than enough for normal transactions. It would be very expensive to spam in a significant way. So this would give us some time until we would need the next increase in block size.

[dinofelis]

Short answer: the network has reached capacity and must be increased in one form or another.

I think it won't happen.  Immutability and consensus can only be reached over status quo.

As I said elsewhere, the valuable commodity will not be the coins any more, but the room on the chain.

[Lauda]

Short answer: the network has reached capacity and must be increased in one form or another.

I think it won't happen.  Immutability and consensus can only be reached over status quo.

As I said elsewhere, the valuable commodity will not be the coins any more, but the room on the chain.

All that the BTU coin folks require is 51%. After all, they are entirely convinced that having 51% hash rate equals to being Bitcoin, which is on a level of absurdity not seen in a long time. Do you think that it is not possible for them to reach this number?

[dinofelis]

All that the BTU coin folks require is 51%. After all, they are entirely convinced that having 51% hash rate equals to being Bitcoin, which is on a level of absurdity not seen in a long time. Do you think that it is not possible for them to reach this number?

Then they will do a genuine hard fork and two coins.  But in order to REALLY do so, that means, when they will start producing *incompatible blocks* and mine on one another, they have to realize that they will make an altcoin, losing bitcoin's first mover value proposition, which is essentially the only thing that keeps it number one for the moment.   So I wonder whether they will really do that.  In any case, if they do, there will be two bitcoin chains, two coins.

ETH/ETC all over.

I think it would be a "good thing", because then the market can choose.  But I wonder whether they will dare to do so.
Bitcoin's first mover advantage is still too valuable in my opinion.    It would be great if bitcoin could hard fork into two coins.  But I don't think it will.
They might, by total ignorance of the system, thinking that 51% is imposing its will.  But with a hard fork, that is NOT the case, as the two chains are incompatible.  Non-BU miners will reject their "longest chain" as simply invalid, and build on the valid chain with smaller blocks.  That's how the two prongs of the fork will separate.  I have a hard time thinking that this would happen by ignorance.

[Lauda]

Then they will do a genuine hard fork and two coins.  But in order to REALLY do so, that means, when they will start producing *incompatible blocks* and mine on one another, they have to realize that they will make an altcoin, losing bitcoin's first mover value proposition, which is essentially the only thing that keeps it number one for the moment.   So I wonder whether they will really do that.  In any case, if they do, there will be two bitcoin chains, two coins.

ETH/ETC all over.

Indeed. It will be a genuine hard fork / split, which would split off BU into their own altcoin. Something nice I found on reddit:

Consider this thought experiment: you create your own altcoin, remove the 21M coin limit and make yourself the central issuer. You are the only user of your coin, but you manage to build/buy enough miners to put in more proof of work into your chain than the total work put into the Bitcoin chain. No one else uses your coin. Is your coin now Bitcoin? You can even use the same genesis block made by Satoshi. I hope this example makes it clear that your coin is not Bitcoin, because everybody else is using the Bitcoin they have always been running, even if is backed my less mining power than your own coin.

Similarly, you somehow attain 51% hashrate and split at one point (changing some rules along the way). Is your coin now Bitcoin? Whoever answers this question with 'yes' should visit a psychiatrist.

I think it would be a "good thing", because then the market can choose.  But I wonder whether they will dare to do so.
Bitcoin's first mover advantage is still too valuable in my opinion.    It would be great if bitcoin could hard fork into two coins.  But I don't think it will.

Agreed. Well, now we know who is actively trying to harm that.

[dinofelis]

Indeed. It will be a genuine hard fork / split, which would split off BU into their own altcoin. Something nice I found on reddit:

Consider this thought experiment: you create your own altcoin, remove the 21M coin limit and make yourself the central issuer. You are the only user of your coin, but you manage to build/buy enough miners to put in more proof of work into your chain than the total work put into the Bitcoin chain. No one else uses your coin. Is your coin now Bitcoin? You can even use the same genesis block made by Satoshi. I hope this example makes it clear that your coin is not Bitcoin, because everybody else is using the Bitcoin they have always been running, even if is backed my less mining power than your own coin.

Similarly, you somehow attain 51% hashrate and split at one point (changing some rules along the way). Is your coin now Bitcoin? Whoever answers this question with 'yes' should visit a psychiatrist.
[/quote]

People don't seem to understand the fundamentals of crypto !

If you *remove the 21M coin limit* your chain is NOT COMPATIBLE with bitcoin, so of course it will not be bitcoin.  You have invalid blocks according to bitcoin's protocol !  You have simply produced an altcoin that is not recognized by the bitcoin protocol.

However, if you DON'T remove the 21M coin limit, and you start with Satoshi's genesis block, and you achieve a higher total PoW in the chain than the "real" bitcoin, then YES, you have taken over bitcoin.  That is a (very heavy) version of a successful 51% attack.

Agreed. Well, now we know who is actively trying to harm that.

Nobody is "trying to harm" anything.  Consensus mechanism, nothing else.

[hv_]

Short answer: the network has reached capacity and must be increased in one form or another.

I think it won't happen.  Immutability and consensus can only be reached over status quo.

As I said elsewhere, the valuable commodity will not be the coins any more, but the room on the chain.

All that the BTU coin folks require is 51%. After all, they are entirely convinced that having 51% hash rate equals to being Bitcoin, which is on a level of absurdity not seen in a long time. Do you think that it is not possible for them to reach this number?

Miners pay millions only for energy already (how much is your investment?) and miners (sadly...) might be more centralized as the rest of our community - they will come up with enough % of hash power and nodes if needed ( costs less than 100$) if time is ready.

We can dispute forever and try to split our community - it does not help, no it rather harms. Sit back and watch or spend some millions.

[Lauda]

People don't seem to understand the fundamentals of crypto !

If you *remove the 21M coin limit* your chain is NOT COMPATIBLE with bitcoin, so of course it will not be bitcoin.  You have invalid blocks according to bitcoin's protocol !  You have simply produced an altcoin that is not recognized by the bitcoin protocol.

What about removing the *1 MB block size limit*?

Nobody is "trying to harm" anything.  Consensus mechanism, nothing else.

I don't think you are informed on the background of these actors nor their motivations.

Miners pay millions only for energy already (how much is your investment?) and miners (sadly...) might be more centralized as the rest of our community - they will come up with enough % of hash power and nodes if needed ( costs less than 100$) if time is ready.

Irrelevant. This just adds a sybil variant to the existing hashrate attack.

We can dispute forever and try to split our community - it does not help, no it rather harms. Sit back and watch or spend some millions.

Then tell the BU folk to stop trying to harm Bitcoin.

[franky1]

look at lauda.. lol

1. BU does not cause bilateral fork. LEARN CONSENSUS
2. core want a bilateral split. they are begging for BU to split, but then pretend its "harming the network" if BU did split (hypocrits)
3. core want the split but want to play the victim card
4. BU, XT, classic, bitcoinj and the others DO NOT want a bilateral split. and if you READ THE CODE you will see its USING CONSENSUS to keep things together as one network
5. to create a bilateral fork nodes have to INTENTIONALLY BAN communications from each other to prevent orphans (bitcoins natural and USEFUL safety mechanism)

What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.

I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral ... Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--

lauda please please please.
wake up. have some coffee then use the energy you have to suck up to gmaxwell, and use it to LEARN CONSENSUS

[Lauda]

1. BU does not cause bilateral fork. LEARN CONSENSUS

Yes it does cause a split. You are mistaken.

2. core want a bilateral split. they are begging for BU to aplit, but then pretend its "harming the network"

Of course, to get the altcoin away from Bitcoin.

3. core want the split but want to play the victim card

Nonsense.

4. BU, XT, classic, bitcoinj and the others DO NOT want a bilateral split. and if you READ THE CODE you will see its USING CONSENSUS to keep things together as one network

No.

5. to create a bilateral fork nodes have to INTENTIONALLY BAN communications from each other to prevent orphans (bitcoins natural and USEFUL safety mechanism)

Depends whether they've altered parameters or not.

wak up. have some coffee then use the energy you have to suck up to gmaxwell, and use it to LEARN CONSENSUS

Sure. Only if you stop taking money from your employer.

[franky1]

1. BU does not cause bilateral fork. LEARN CONSENSUS

Yes it does cause a split. You are mistaken.

READ THE DAMN CODE. PROVE IT

2. core want a bilateral split. they are begging for BU to aplit, but then pretend its "harming the network"

Of course, to get the altcoin away from Bitcoin.

its not an altcoin until blockstream split away.. because the rest of the community wont do it so blockstream will have to if thats blockstreams intention to get 100% control with no one else on the network but blockstream making the decisions.

BU, bitcoinj, xt, classic and a dozen others dont want to be kings. they want consensus of no kings and using CONSENSUS.. learn consensus

3. core want the split but want to play the victim card

Nonsense.

your own words are the "victim card' - pretending its BU harming the network.

Then tell the BU folk to stop trying to harm Bitcoin.

when infact its blockstream wanting the split!!! wake up!!

What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.

I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral ... Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--

BU, bitcoinj, xt, classic and a dozen others dont want to be kings. they want consensus of no kings and using CONSENSUS.. learn consensus

wak up. have some coffee then use the energy you have to suck up to gmaxwell, and use it to LEARN CONSENSUS

Sure. Only if you stop taking money from your employer.

im my own boss. i dont need to be paid to be awake

[Lauda]

READ THE DAMN CODE. PROVE IT

Do tell me what happens when a BU blocked (not just signaling) is mined with e.g. 1.5 MB block size.

its not an altcoin until blockstream split away.. b

BTU is an altcoin.

your own words are the "victim card' - pretending its BU harming the network.

Because it is. You should read the posts from 'dinofelis'; maybe you will learn something.

when infact its blockstream by wanting the split!!! wake up!!

No.

im my own boss. i dont need to be paid to be awake

Highly doubtful at best.

[hv_]

People don't seem to understand the fundamentals of crypto !

If you *remove the 21M coin limit* your chain is NOT COMPATIBLE with bitcoin, so of course it will not be bitcoin.  You have invalid blocks according to bitcoin's protocol !  You have simply produced an altcoin that is not recognized by the bitcoin protocol.

What about removing the *1 MB block size limit*?

Nobody is "trying to harm" anything.  Consensus mechanism, nothing else.

I don't think you are informed on the background of these actors nor their motivations.

Miners pay millions only for energy already (how much is your investment?) and miners (sadly...) might be more centralized as the rest of our community - they will come up with enough % of hash power and nodes if needed ( costs less than 100$) if time is ready.

Irrelevant. This just adds a sybil variant to the existing hashrate attack.

We can dispute forever and try to split our community - it does not help, no it rather harms. Sit back and watch or spend some millions.

Then tell the BU folk to stop trying to harm Bitcoin.

I do - I speak to Bitcoin United.

This monster cluster fuck we are in right now has something good.

We now have more than one solution - it's a luxury !

The reason is clear, one group has failed to deliver the no-brainer solution that fits all.

I feel very sorry for some 'core' Core devs since I ve spoken with one just some days ago for about 1 hour face to face trying to understand some of the issues - as unbiased as I could - politics and own agendas are bad....

Most ve done and still do a great job keeping things just up and running (most forget about this !) - but sorting out the right features for the next releases is hardest in terms of scaling and long term future and 'we' all try to deliver best, but just are dammed to 'fail' sometime - that's our complex life.


Admitting such failures is one of the strongest personal features human can have. Only with this we can do the next step forward  and still we don't know for sure it the next one is correct.



 

[franky1]

READ THE DAMN CODE. PROVE IT

Do tell me what happens when a BU blocked (not just signaling) is mined with e.g. 1.5 MB block size.

if consensus is not reached.. its orphaned. end of.. in the trash in 3 seconds. no drama no fuss

want proof of a block over 1mb

2017-01-29 06:59:12 Requesting block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5
2017-01-29 06:59:15 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-blk-length, size limits failed (code 16)

[Foxpup]

1. BU does not cause bilateral fork. LEARN CONSENSUS

Yes it does cause a split. You are mistaken.

He is mistaken, but for different reasons. BU is a unilateral split. If, after BU pulls the trigger on their hard fork, the Core chain ever overtakes the BU chain, all BU coins will be permanently destroyed and all transactions involving them will be forever invalid. Mass panic will ensue and their altcoin will be worthless. That's why Core devs are begging BU to make their fork bilateral, but they won't listen (or they pretend not to listen because they don't have the competence to implement a bilateral fork).

[hv_]

READ THE DAMN CODE. PROVE IT

Do tell me what happens when a BU blocked (not just signaling) is mined with e.g. 1.5 MB block size.

if consensus is not reached.. its orphaned. end of.. in the trash in 2 seconds. no drama no fuss

Could you pls elaborate on sth I ve just seen sw else that BU (and > 1MB blocks) could be run side to side / compatible  together with a very ancient Satoshi version 0.3 or so, just with no block size issues at all ?

This would show to all how close BU is to initial Bitcoin?