BU (Bitcoin Unlimited) and ETF Newbie questions

[very_452001]

Is BU a new altcoin that just come out recently or is it a upgrade to the existing BTC coin network?
If upgrade then what is the differences between the 2 and the disadvantages of upgrading to BU? When will the upgrade happen?
Regarding the recent price bubble bursting is this caused by the EFT info leak or threat from BU or the chinese making a statement or anything else?
Will BU will cause confusion do adopters and Investors who want to buy BTC?
Lets say down the line in the future for example in 6 months someone might create SBU (Super Bitcoin Unlimited) and after that someone creates SBUT (Super Bitcoin Unlimited Turbo) and after that someone creates UBHD (Ultimate Bitcoin HD). Then what happens?

[Carlton Banks]

Is BU a new altcoin that just come out recently or is it a upgrade to the existing BTC coin network?

It's a rogue altcoin, pretending to be "what Bitcoin is supposed to be"

If upgrade then what is the differences between the 2 and the disadvantages of upgrading to BU? When will the upgrade happen?

Completely unknown, BU allows nodes to configure all sorts of variables that are supposed to be constants. Depending on how the aggregation of users sets them, a fork could happen at 51%, 25% 75% or anywhere in between

Regarding the recent price bubble bursting is this caused by the EFT info leak or threat from BU or the chinese making a statement or anything else?

You'd have to ask each and every person that sold their BTC in the dip.

Will BU will cause confusion do adopters and Investors who want to buy BTC?

Short answer, yes lol.

Lets say down the line in the future for example in 6 months someone might create SBU (Super Bitcoin Unlimited) and after that someone creates SBUT (Super Bitcoin Unlimited Turbo) and after that someone creates UBHD (Ultimate Bitcoin HD). Then what happens?

Forks left right and center, in essence. Or at least a strong potential for that.

[BillyBobZorton]

Nobody can know what makes market participants panic sell in such a way. I guess it is a mix of:

1) Fear that the ETF does not pass (be aware that odds are against it passing)
2) Jihan Wu being cocky and mining BU blocks (BUcoin scam will cause havok just like ETH/ETC)

At the end of the day everything will be allright, or that is what I hope.

The ETF will not pass, but the SEC will be positive towards a future attempt.

BUcoin may fork, but ultimately people will dump their BTU for BTC. BUcoin will be another marginal altcoin with stagnating price and marketcap as the developers can't keep up with the Core devs.

[franky1]

carlton wants it to be an altcoin. simply so that blockstream have 100% control of their 30% altcoin which will simply become known as clams2.0

its only blockstream that want to split anything not blockstream..

other implementations want to keep the network together and use real consensus and all work on the same playing field.
no matter how much blockstreamers want to call anything not blockstream accepted as an altcoin. the only way it becomes an altcoin is if blockstream themselves do the splitting off..

which is becoming more and more apparent as to what blockstream is looking to do with

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 by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

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

UASF (reality its a hard bilateral fork)

I still don't understand UASF, since the node count can be easily gamed. What else can be done?

Run a custom Bitcoin client that refuses to relay blocks that don't support Segwit.
Not playing with these people, I would be perfectly happy to kill Antminer, Antpool and any others who want to treat the activation mechanism as a political tool.

I suggest we do it, Jihan Who can go into the paperweight business instead

[franky1]

BUcoin may fork, but ultimately people will dump their BTU for BTC. BUcoin will be another marginal altcoin with stagnating price and marketcap as the developers can't keep up with the Core devs.

calling it a BUcoin is more reddit script drama. because blockstream dont want to admit that BU, btcd, bitcoinj, xt, classic and a dozen others as part of bitcoin

BU wont cause a bilateral split.. nither would the other nodes that want to happily have one network and use real consensus to grow as one progressive network
blockstream will have to cause the split.(but are delaying it to try poking the bear to get others to do the dirty work so they can fakingly play the victim card of the crime they want committed)

its obvious blockstream will and it seems blockstreamers want to split.
so it will be blockstream that will cause "cause havok just like ETH/ETC"

and blockstream seem to love the idea of it

[jonald_fyookball]

Labeling alternative implementations that run on the Bitcoin network as "altcoins"  is an intellectually dishonest tactic used by those who want a select few developers to be central planners and decide for the rest of us what Bitcoin is and what it isn't (instead of letting the users and miners decide.)





 

[Carlton Banks]

Labeling alternative implementations that run on the Bitcoin network as "altcoins"  is an intellectually dishonest tactic used by those who want a select few developers to be central planners and decide for the rest of us what Bitcoin is and what it isn't (instead of letting the users and miners decide.)

BU isn't a re-implementation of Bitcoin, it's an attempt to change the rules of Bitcoin, coupled with a social engineering campaign to popularise it, of which jonald fyookball is a protagonist.


Bitcoin's strength is in it's resistance to manipulation. Jonald and the rest of the BU gang are trying to use the only possible method to turn that strength into a weakness, by using carefully worded statements that imply Bitcoin's resistance to manipulation is a weakness.




In other words, the only way they can convince regular users to use BU instead of Bitcoin is by lying about both Bitcoin and BU.

[franky1]

BU isn't a re-implementation of Bitcoin, it's an attempt to change the rules of Bitcoin,  

segwit block looks nothing like a native bitcoin block data
segwit keys look nothing like native bitcoin keys
segwit nodes treat native nodes differently
segwit nodes treat native blocks differently

segwit avoids node consensus
segwit requires nodes to filter(translate) segwit blocks
segwit requires being centralised to be the upstream filters
segwit require getting people to move funds to segwit keys just to disarm those volunteers. while still leaving native users armed


all BU(or any dymanic block proposal*)does is change what is the acceptable blocksize miners can build.. but automated
meaning the data looks the same, the nodes relay the same, the tx's are the same. it just allows more of it with a few other efficiency tweaks

*note:
there are other dynamic block proposals, but most wont hear about them because they dont get passed the blockstreams moderated censorship wall to be seen on blockstreams moderated bip list

[jonald_fyookball]

and yet... despite the fact that its massive changes we think are bad,
somehow we're able to resist childishly labeling it 'segwitcoin' 

[Darkbot]

BUcoin may fork, but ultimately people will dump their BTU for BTC. BUcoin will be another marginal altcoin with stagnating price and marketcap as the developers can't keep up with the Core devs.

calling it a BUcoin is more reddit script drama. because blockstream dont want to admit that BU, btcd, bitcoinj, xt, classic and a dozen others as part of bitcoin

BU wont cause a bilateral split.. nither would the other nodes that want to happily have one network and use real consensus to grow as one progressive network
blockstream will have to cause the split.(but are delaying it to try poking the bear to get others to do the dirty work so they can fakingly play the victim card of the crime they want committed)

its obvious blockstream will and it seems blockstreamers want to split.
so it will be blockstream that will cause "cause havok just like ETH/ETC"

and blockstream seem to love the idea of it

Here we have Franky1 again, spewing out FUD with 3 post on the first page. It doesn't matter if you copy paste walls of text, mixing things together, BU is just a cheap alternative.

You must be a miss-informend pessimist shill, paid by Roger.

[franky1]

Here we have Franky1 again, spewing out FUD with 3 post on the first page. It doesn't matter if you copy paste walls of text, mixing things together, BU is just a cheap alternative.

You must be a miss-informend pessimist shill, paid by Roger.

^ here we have a blockstream defender who cannot rebut using code scenarios or real info but only rebut with personal attack.
[yawn]... oh look a tumbleweed blowing down the road.

please learn bitcoin
learn consensus
learn coding and come back with some logical rebuttles about how bitcoin actually works.

but to address your point about "a cheap alternative" while also using words of your king..

using gmaxwells words(not verbatim)
'BU is just a core 0.12 copy and paste job with a few minimal changes...'

well thats just proof that offering more capacity doesnt require a total game changing re-write of the entire thing, doesnt require "upstream filters" doesnt require new keys, doesnt require users moving funds to new keys just to see a feature function, doesnt require intentionally banning nodes.

[unamis76]

OP, sorry for somewhat "hijacking" the thread, but posts here made me think... Where do we really draw the line regarding BU or SegWit being or not being altcoins?

[very_452001]

So in summary from reading all these replies that BU is bad. It is bad because BU is trying to take over BTC by manipulation? So BU is not truly decentralised?

Likelihood of SEC ETF disapproval is high yeah? So if thats the case then next BTC price dip will be on the 13th March I assume.

[Gimpeline]

BU is a joke made up by the drama queen Roger Ver
It's doomed to fail, but at least Roger "Drama queen" Ver can cry that "everyone is against me" on the way down

[franky1]

So in summary from reading all these replies that BU is bad. It is bad because BU is trying to take over BTC by manipulation? So BU is not truly decentralised?

your listening to sheep that are just saying its bad because it is not allowing blockstream (private company) to centralise the network.

BU wants to keep the network open. and work on the same playing field (network) as others.. only blockstream(segwit) are the ones that want centralisation and commercialisation where blockstream are kings.

its worth you spending time learning about bitcoin by learning the meaning of this word as your starting point of bitcoin:
consensus

dont just read the 30 second elevator scripts thrown around on reddit. learn about bitcoin and try to not be sold by the empty gestures of fake blockstream scripts

[Gimpeline]

So in summary from reading all these replies that BU is bad. It is bad because BU is trying to take over BTC by manipulation? So BU is not truly decentralised?

your listening to sheep that are just saying its bad because it is not allowing blockstream (private company) to centralise the network.

BU wants to keep the network open. and work on the same playing field (network) as others.. only blockstream(segwit) are the ones that want centralisation and commercialisation where blockstream are kings.

its worth you spending time learning about bitcoin by learning the meaning of this word as your starting point of bitcoin:
consensus

dont just read the 30 second elevator scripts thrown around on reddit. learn about bitcoin and try to not be sold by the empty gestures of fake blockstream scripts

Repeating BS is still BS.
Why do you think that repeating old lies makes them true?

[franky1]

Repeating BS is still BS.
Why do you think that repeating old lies makes them true?

calling someone a liar . but no technical rebuttal is just wasting your own time.
all i say to you is
[yawn]... oh look a tumbleweed blowing down the road.

try spending time learning about bitcoin and less time just mouthing off. it will actually help you to learn bitcoin so please learn it

remember "its bad coz its bad" is not a valid argument.

[AngryDwarf]

and yet... despite the fact that its massive changes we think are bad,
somehow we're able to resist childishly labeling it 'segwitcoin' 

That made me laugh. I wonder if SWC is already taken.

BU looks does not look like the worse option to me. I don't think soft fork segwit is going to get miner consensus, so they will have to get back to the roundtable at some point.

[jbreher]

::sigh::

Most BU proponents have grown weary of rehashing the same discussion over and over. So they have ceded to quietly running BU, in anticipation of greater adoption, and the ultimate realization by the bulk of the Bitcoin network that Bitcoiners as a whole can be trusted with setting the max block size.

Some things most BU advocates believe:

- the biggest threat to Bitcoin is an artificially imposed limit on transaction throughput (approx 250,000/day)
- Bitcoin's current network effect dominance is not necessarily immune from encroachment by another crypto that offers more utility
- the users are the proper people to determine maxblocksize (as opposed to a centrally planned coding construct)
- transaction malleability is a problem worth solving - all other things being equal
- The SegWit Omnibus Changeset does deliver a moderate one-time effective block size increase
- the block size increase within The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is too little, too late
- the block size increase within The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is completely dependent upon the proportion of transactions that employ the SegWit format
- the malleability fix simplifies creation of the Lightning Network
- the Lightning Network does not currently have a design for decentralized route discovery
- The Lightning Network has inherent incentives that will be pressure to tendency to a hub-and-spoke (centralizing) topology

[Lauda]

- the biggest threat to Bitcoin is an artificially imposed limit on transaction throughput (approx 250,000/day)

Claims the BU crowd, which is obviously a very biased statement to make. There is little to no research confirming this statement.

- Bitcoin's current network effect dominance is not necessarily immune from encroachment by another crypto that offers more utility

Similar to above. Some claim that it is, others that it is not.

- the users are the proper people to determine maxblocksize (as opposed to a centrally planned coding construct)

Yes, passengers should decide how the plane should be built. 

- transaction malleability is a problem worth solving - all other things being equal
- The SegWit Omnibus Changeset does deliver a moderate one-time effective block size increase

Indeed.

- the block size increase within The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is too little, too late

'Too little' - disagreed; 'too late' - agreed, considering that it could have been activated in December.

- the Lightning Network does not currently have a design for decentralized route discovery
- The Lightning Network has inherent incentives that will be pressure to tendency to a hub-and-spoke (centralizing) topology

Relevancy? LN or something similar to LN will pop up with or without Segwit.