Bitcoin Forum
November 23, 2017, 12:15:25 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Good article on why BU sucks  (Read 460 times)
cellard
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
February 28, 2017, 04:38:17 PM
 #1

https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/my-final-block-size-compilation-post-1a2dda6350c0#.lnzto0kqr

A nice writeup for noobs to know the political agendas behind the Core FUDsters and the BUcoin shilling.

To sum it up, even if segwit fails to ever get activated, BUcoin will never be answer because it simply doesn't work.

So bitcoin will remain a digital gold, unless miners decide to activate segwit which would allow us for a better LN to be able to compete with centralized payment networks like VISA without centralizing the core of the network.

Another good writeup by Nick Szabo:

http://bitcoinist.com/nick-szabo-bitcoin-censorship-resistance/

full blog post:

https://unenumerated.blogspot.com.es/2017/02/money-blockchains-and-social-scalability.html

Don't get tricked, there is no way to have massive-volume onchain transactions in a decentralized and cheap way, so next time you hear those delusional/paid BU shills promising the dreamland think again.

       ▀
   ▄▄▄   ▄▀
   ███ ▄▄▄▄  ██
       ████
    ▄  ▀▀▀▀
▄▄
      ██    ▀▀
██▄█▄▄▄████████
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀███▀▀▀
██████████████████
████▄▀▄▀▄▀███▀▀▀▀▀
████▄▀▄▀▄▀███ ▀
████▄▀▄▀▄▀████████
▀█████████████████
]
,CoinPayments,
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
1511396125
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511396125

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511396125
Reply with quote  #2

1511396125
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now Coinlancer is Disrupting the Freelance marketplace!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511396125
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511396125

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511396125
Reply with quote  #2

1511396125
Report to moderator
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834



View Profile
February 28, 2017, 05:29:09 PM
 #2

Don't get tricked, there is no way to have massive-volume onchain transactions in a decentralized and cheap way


I'd add a caveat to that: that's not possible today. With tomorrow's internet infrastructure and and a further improved Bitcoin client, maybe it could be done. But now, reality says only 2nd layers can scale up to worldwide demand for cheap and decentralised transactions.

Vires in numeris
cellard
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
February 28, 2017, 06:05:07 PM
 #3

Don't get tricked, there is no way to have massive-volume onchain transactions in a decentralized and cheap way


I'd add a caveat to that: that's not possible today. With tomorrow's internet infrastructure and and a further improved Bitcoin client, maybe it could be done. But now, reality says only 2nd layers can scale up to worldwide demand for cheap and decentralised transactions.

I don't see how. We will ALWAYS be lagging behind the amount of transaction volume centralized solutions can offer, it's simple physics.
Can we improve it? sure and we will, but can we outcompete VISA and other centralized solutions in terms of transaction volume with a decentralized network? I don't see how, there will always be an extra friction due the nature of a decentralized network. I mean im sure in 100 years we will find somehow a way but today I don't see how unless some massive breakthrough is discovered.

If we want to compete with VISA we need 2nd layers.

       ▀
   ▄▄▄   ▄▀
   ███ ▄▄▄▄  ██
       ████
    ▄  ▀▀▀▀
▄▄
      ██    ▀▀
██▄█▄▄▄████████
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀███▀▀▀
██████████████████
████▄▀▄▀▄▀███▀▀▀▀▀
████▄▀▄▀▄▀███ ▀
████▄▀▄▀▄▀████████
▀█████████████████
]
,CoinPayments,
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862



View Profile
February 28, 2017, 06:12:35 PM
 #4

Don't get tricked, there is no way to have massive-volume onchain transactions in a decentralized and cheap way


I'd add a caveat to that: that's not possible today. With tomorrow's internet infrastructure and and a further improved Bitcoin client, maybe it could be done. But now, reality says only 2nd layers can scale up to worldwide demand for cheap and decentralised transactions.

I don't see how.  but can we outcompete VISA

to blockersteam lovers

stop thinking "bitcoin 7billion users by midnight." "gigabytes by midnight"
both blockstream scripts have failed to spark about 2 years ago, so give up trying to use them...

natural growth takes time.
halting that natural progressive growth using fears of "X by midnight" is your own failing.



if you ever have kids i bet you would break the poor todlers legs before it can walk and then tell child protection agency your doing it because you fear it will run infront of a car when it gets older.

you would then try to seek society granting you permission that your child should be classed as disabled so you can then get a whelchair(ln) because its faster than walking and then claim SS benefits for being the carer..

you blockstreamers want to cripple bitcoin just to take advantage of the community for your own personal gain

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Don't take any information given on this forum on face value. Please do your own due diligence & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. If you wish to seek legal FACTUAL advice, then seek the guidance of a LEGAL specialist.
Kprawn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302


JOLYY - The future of beauty!


View Profile
February 28, 2017, 06:23:07 PM
 #5

Don't get tricked, there is no way to have massive-volume onchain transactions in a decentralized and cheap way


I'd add a caveat to that: that's not possible today. With tomorrow's internet infrastructure and and a further improved Bitcoin client, maybe it could be done. But now, reality says only 2nd layers can scale up to worldwide demand for cheap and decentralised transactions.

I don't see how.  but can we outcompete VISA

to blockersteam lovers

stop thinking "bitcoin 7billion users by midnight." "gigabytes by midnight"
both blockstream scripts have failed to spark about 2 years ago, so give up trying to use them...

natural growth takes time.
halting that natural progressive growth using fears of "X by midnight" is your own failing.



if you ever have kids i bet you would break the poor todlers legs before it can walk and then tell child protection agency your doing it because you fear it will run infront of a car when it gets older.

you would then try to seek society granting you permission that your child should be classed as disabled so you can then get a whelchair(ln) because its faster than walking and then claim SS benefits for being the carer..

you blockstreamers want to cripple bitcoin just to take advantage of the community for your own personal gain


Agreed Franky, but why not be ready, if it does happen? None of the big social media sites have accepted Bitcoin yet, but imagine if they do? Let's

say Facebook incorporate Bitcoin into their platform, will Bitcoin be in a better position if they are ready for that traffic or will they sit back and

say, nah.... this will not happen over night... so let's adapt to that, when it happens or 3 months after that.  Roll Eyes

            ███           ▄▄▄████████▄▄▄           ███       ▀███          ▀██▄ ▄██▀          ███▀
            ███         ▄████▀▀    ▀▀████▄         ███         ███          ▀█████           ███
            ███       ▄███▀            ▀███▄       ███          ▀██▄         ▄███▄         ▄██▀
            ███      ███▀                ▀███      ███            ███       ███▀███       ███
            ███     ███▀                  ▀███     ███             ▀██▄   ▄██▀   ▀██▄   ▄██▀
            ███     ███                    ███     ███               ███▄██▀       ▀██▄██▀
            ███     ███                    ███     ███                ▀███▀         ▀███▀
            ███     ███                    ███     ███                 ███           ███
            ███     ███▄                  ▄███     ███                 ███           ███
            ███      ███▄                ▄███      ███                 ███           ███
           ███▀       ▀███▄            ▄███▀       ▀███                ███           ███
██▄▄▄  ▄▄▄███▀          ▀████▄▄    ▄▄████▀          ▀███▄▄▄  ▄▄▄██     ███           ███
▀▀████████▀▀              ▀▀▀████████▀▀▀              ▀▀████████▀▀     ███           ███
........T H E   F U T U R E.................
......................o f   B E A U T Y
........


 ▀█▄             ▄▄▄▄▄▄
   ▀█▄      ▄▄███▀▀▀▀
    ▄██     ▀▀▀     ▄▄▄▄
 ▄▄▄ ██         ▄     ▀▀██▄
▀█▀█▀█▀▄       █▄     ▄██▀
               ▀████████
               ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀


      ▄▄
     ▀█▀▀▀

    █▄
     ███████▀▀▀
    █▄
      ▀▀▀▀▀
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862



View Profile
February 28, 2017, 06:35:03 PM
 #6

Agreed Franky, but why not be ready, if it does happen? None of the big social media sites have accepted Bitcoin yet, but imagine if they do? Let's

say Facebook incorporate Bitcoin into their platform, will Bitcoin be in a better position if they are ready for that traffic or will they sit back and

say, nah.... this will not happen over night... so let's adapt to that, when it happens or 3 months after that.  Roll Eyes

private contracts can be done right now.
all LN is, is a snazzy GUI for private contracts.

but even LN's GUI has bugs and issues. both at concept and at its current 'feature' offering promotion

facebook themselves can within a couple days set up their own private contracts and be their own smart contract network(hub).

segwit is not needed. blockstream coded LN is not needed

but with that said ONCHAIN REAL growth of REAL block scaling should happen too.

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Don't take any information given on this forum on face value. Please do your own due diligence & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. If you wish to seek legal FACTUAL advice, then seek the guidance of a LEGAL specialist.
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
February 28, 2017, 07:01:55 PM
 #7

https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/my-final-block-size-compilation-post-1a2dda6350c0#.lnzto0kqr

A nice writeup for noobs to know the political agendas behind the Core FUDsters and the BUcoin shilling.

To sum it up, even if segwit fails to ever get activated, BUcoin will never be answer because it simply doesn't work.

So bitcoin will remain a digital gold, unless miners decide to activate segwit which would allow us for a better LN to be able to compete with centralized payment networks like VISA without centralizing the core of the network.
 

The only thing this article actually says about BU is this:
Quote
I don’t think I even need to discuss the idea of BU, but in short: it will definitely cause multiple unwanted forks
.

And this is a hogwash claim afaic... you can read more about that in the Bitcoin Unlimited FAQ:

https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/faq

franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862



View Profile
February 28, 2017, 07:18:08 PM
 #8

whale panda has not read a line of code of BU nor read segwit.

here is a funny part of his earlier attempt at promoting segwit
https://keepingstock.net/segwit-eli5-misinformation-faq-19908ceacf23#.qvojlmtn8
Quote
Some people have called segwit a “hack” because it is implemented as a soft fork. The practical differences between soft and hard fork implementation are very minor; however, under a hard fork, every node must upgrade and every software project must be adapted in order to function at all. As a soft fork, nodes can optionally upgrade.

those that dont upgrade to segwit. and thus dont use segwit keys are not disarmed from malleating, quadratic bloating and other things..

also it adds another attack vector where one could grab a segwit unconfirmed tx and throw it into a non segwit node and mess with the tx.
meaning by saying sw is backward compatible they are admitting that malleability, quadratics and new attacks are not fixed. because malicious people will just use native bitcoin nodes.

its like 2 kids fighting where one of the kids has a sharp object.. sw is simply telling the innocent kid to stand on the naughty step and never play with sharp objects. but doesnt stop the kid with the sharp object.


I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Don't take any information given on this forum on face value. Please do your own due diligence & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. If you wish to seek legal FACTUAL advice, then seek the guidance of a LEGAL specialist.
lightswarm
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1


View Profile
February 28, 2017, 07:41:22 PM
 #9

According to my understanding of the Bitcoin white paper, miners, broadcasting blocks too costly for mining peers to process, run the risk of other miners rejecting those blocks in favor of less costly blocks. While I disagree with BU's dynamic block size approach, I'm of the thought miners should make their own assessments on the risks/rewards of publishing a certain block:
1) Large block propagation outpaced by smaller blocks
2) Transaction fee per block
3) Block acceptance by mining peers

I'm curious what people's views on a market-approach for block size, whereby transaction senders (buying space to fit said transaction into a block) and miners (selling space to fit said transactions into a block) find stable equilibrium sizes for the average block
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862



View Profile
February 28, 2017, 07:52:09 PM
 #10

According to my understanding of the Bitcoin white paper, miners, broadcasting blocks too costly for mining peers to process, run the risk of other miners rejecting those blocks in favor of less costly blocks. While I disagree with BU's dynamic block size approach, I'm of the thought miners should make their own assessments on the risks/rewards of publishing a certain block:
1) Large block propagation outpaced by smaller blocks
2) Transaction fee per block
3) Block acceptance by mining peers

4)I'm curious what people's views on a market-approach for block size, whereby transaction senders (buying space to fit said transaction into a block) and miners (selling space to fit said transactions into a block) find stable equilibrium sizes for the average block

1. lets say all the nodes have some speed test mechanism that reveals they can cope with upto 8mb blocks..
lets say they flag that for the next 3 months they will be ok with 2mb as an extra cautious preference.
POOLS will then make blocks BELOW 2mb. which will start off with 1.001mb just to test the water and see the orphan risk of going beyond old limits.
which means with baby steps of safety it will take many blocks to get to 2mb..
emphasis it took from 2009-2013 to get to 500k even though there was a 1mb limit. then took from 2013-15 to get to 0.999mb even though there was still the 1mb limit..
so.. for emphasis. DO NOT PRESUME instant 2mb or 8mb will be filled blocks 1 block after activation. as that WONT happen



2. pools DO NOT CARE about fee's. they are happy with the block reward income. the fee is just a bonus. not a need income.. do not presume pushing the fee war today has anything to do with the pools or to do with the community "helping" the pools. its not. we do not need to push the fee war today. it can naturally grow over the next couple DECADES!!



3) refer to 1. pools wont do anything that the majority of nodes cannot accept because it ends up as orphaned otherwise. if a pools block is orphaned. the pool will stop doing it because its just wasting money for an activity that literally gets thrown into the metaphorical trashcan



4) this can be done by developing a new 'priority formulae' that is nothing like the old useless formulla that just had a rich guy vs poor guy preference. and instead charges bloaters/spammers more.
i posted a quick idea of one where the formulae only cared about lean tx's and tx's that didnt want to respend every block. rewarding the lean infrequent spenders and punished the bloated frequent spenders

imagine that we decided its acceptable that people should have a way to get priority if they have a lean tx and signal that they only want to spend funds once a day. where if they want to spend more often costs rise, if they want bloated tx, costs rise.. which then allows those that just pay their rent once a month or buys groceries every couple days to be ok using onchain bitcoin.. and where the costs of trying to spam the network (every block) becomes expensive where by they would be better off using LN. (for things like faucet raiding every 5-10 minutes)

so lets think about a priority fee thats not about rich vs poor but about respend spam and bloat.

lets imagine we actually use the tx age combined with CLTV to signal the network that a user is willing to add some maturity time if their tx age is under a day, to signal they want it confirmed but allowing themselves to be locked out of spending for an average of 24 hours.

and where the bloat of the tx vs the blocksize has some impact too... rather than the old formulae with was more about the value of the tx

here is one example


as you can see its not about tx value. its about bloat and age.
this way
those not wanting to spend more than once a day and dont bloat the blocks get preferential treatment onchain.
if you are willing to wait a day but your taking up 1% of the blockspace. you pay more
if you want to be a spammer spending every block. you pay the price
and if you want to be a total ass-hat and be both bloated and respending often you pay the ultimate price

yes its not perfect. but atleast lets think about using CODE to choose whats acceptable. rather than playing bankers economic value games of rich guys always win, that way we are no longer pushing the third world countries out of using bitcoins mainnet.

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Don't take any information given on this forum on face value. Please do your own due diligence & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. If you wish to seek legal FACTUAL advice, then seek the guidance of a LEGAL specialist.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834



View Profile
February 28, 2017, 08:45:53 PM
 #11

I'm curious what people's views on a market-approach for block size, whereby transaction senders (buying space to fit said transaction into a block) and miners (selling space to fit said transactions into a block) find stable equilibrium sizes for the average block


The issue is incentives: it's not so difficult to design dynamic resizing algorithms that respond to nodes acting in a way that assumes they want Bitcoin to work successfully.

The problem is when Bitcoin working is not the incentive, instead, breaking Bitcoin is the motivation. No-one has yet come up with a dynamic resizing design that deals with malicious behaviour.

Vires in numeris
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
February 28, 2017, 11:21:09 PM
 #12

I'm curious what people's views on a market-approach for block size, whereby transaction senders (buying space to fit said transaction into a block) and miners (selling space to fit said transactions into a block) find stable equilibrium sizes for the average block

It is an important question. While I am of the opinion that BU implements a near-ideal solution for market-driven blocksize choice, I understand that others have differing opinions.

What I have not heard from these others -- as of yet -- is what _their_ proposal for a market-driven blocksize might be.

The issue is incentives: it's not so difficult to design dynamic resizing algorithms that respond to nodes acting in a way that assumes they want Bitcoin to work successfully.

The problem is when Bitcoin working is not the incentive, instead, breaking Bitcoin is the motivation. No-one has yet come up with a dynamic resizing design that deals with malicious behaviour.

And that is true for Core as well as it is for BU. If you don't believe that market incentives can work to goad enough participants into beneficial behavior, then you don't believe that Bitcoin can work period.

Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.

I've been convicted of heresy. Convicted by a known extortionist. Read my Trust for details. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sglyFwTjfDU
BitcoinNewsMagazine
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980



View Profile WWW
February 28, 2017, 11:25:42 PM
 #13

 Thanks for this.

Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834



View Profile
February 28, 2017, 11:52:32 PM
 #14

The issue is incentives: it's not so difficult to design dynamic resizing algorithms that respond to nodes acting in a way that assumes they want Bitcoin to work successfully.

The problem is when Bitcoin working is not the incentive, instead, breaking Bitcoin is the motivation. No-one has yet come up with a dynamic resizing design that deals with malicious behaviour.

And that is true for Core as well as it is for BU. If you don't believe that market incentives can work to goad enough participants into beneficial behavior, then you don't believe that Bitcoin can work period.


Explain to us how a constant in a C++ program can be changed by market behaviour. This is going to be fun, lol

Vires in numeris
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862



View Profile
February 28, 2017, 11:53:31 PM
 #15

What I have not heard from these others -- as of yet -- is what _their_ proposal for a market-driven blocksize might be.

most of those opposing it havnt even read the code. infact they havnt even read segwits code either.
its just a political king vs king debate about humans and who should be their Sheppard.

they cant even fathom the difference between an intentional split and a consensus upgrade

anyone that has made a dynamic block concept has literally got the same conditions.. but then added in stupid things like messing with the block reward as a penalty. (knowing that it doesnt change security) but does cause political debate

a few things that make a good consensus that has better features of fixing things

1. nodes first agree then pools follow (obvious standard hard consensus)
2. limit tx sigops (meaning native or new tx types are both limited. = proper quadratic limitation that cant be bypassed
3. a new priority fee formulae that doesnt care about rich or poor as priority measure but about how bloated a tx is and how old a tx is as the main measures
4. where the nodes include a speed check mechanism where it count the time it requested a new known block and when its fully validated to set a score of capability which could be added as a useragent flag.
5. having the ability to download patches/update files within nodes that update settings/values without specific dev decision or waiting for major releases . that way nodes can be more independant and form consensus based on rules of the network. not politics of humans

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Don't take any information given on this forum on face value. Please do your own due diligence & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. If you wish to seek legal FACTUAL advice, then seek the guidance of a LEGAL specialist.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!