SegWit losing Bitcoin Unlimited winning -> Moon soon

[leopard2]

So far I gather that

-Segwit is making BTC more efficient, so transactions consume less bytes
-BTC unlimited allows miners to set a block size but ALL US IDIOTS still need to download the super-bloated blockchain to our harddrives

Why does OP like Unlimited and hate Segwit? U selling harddisks?!

[1715548126]

1715548126

[1715548126]

1715548126

[1715548126]

1715548126

[cellard]

So far I gather that

-Segwit is making BTC more efficient, so transactions consume less bytes
-BTC unlimited allows miners to set a block size but ALL US IDIOTS still need to download the super-bloated blockchain to our harddrives

Why does OP like Unlimited and hate Segwit? U selling harddisks?!

It's simple, OP does not know how bitcoin unlimited works beyond the promise of solving the "scaling problem once and for all" which is a vapid concept.

BUcoiners do not understand game theory. They don't understand tradeoffs. All BUcoin will do is centralize the network even more, miners will be kings.

Anyone not supporting Core + segwit + LN route is an idiot in 2017. If you can do better than them, let's see the code.

[notme]

...figure only 1 out of 20 odds of this being true...but BTC can still go pear shaped...

... No, it won't cause an immediate fork once it gets to some magic threshold.

Do you realise that once 51% of blocks are signalling Unlimited (according to Coindance today it is 33.3%) then the very first block mined by an Unlimited miner who cares to create a block of any size above 1 MB, will create a fork. BU miners will be able to follow that fork. That fork will be invalid for Core miners.

The reasoning from some BU community members is that everyone will be sensible enough to wait until something like 75% of blocks support BU, before a miner creates such a block. I ask anyone following the whole scaling debate from both sides, are coordination and cooperation the hallmarks of this situation?

The moment we reach 51% of blocks signalling BU, a whole new opportunity opens up for manipulation, for example for a miner to take a short position on Bitcoin and then mine +1MB blocks, before a more sensible threshold is reached.

Bitcoin has always been about one chain, one history, no split, immutability. This is going to be the biggest paradigm shift since the genesis block.

For months the talk has been ETF, China, etc. Scaling is by far and away the no.1 critical issue - has been for two years. I don't think people fully understand what's coming.

For disclosure, personally I'm not heavily on one or other side of the debate.

That is not how BU works.  Miners have an "excessive block" (EB) setting.  They will not produce or mine on top of a block that exceeds this setting.  If an excessive block gets more confirmations than their acceptance depth (AD), then they will mine on top of it, but will still not produce their own larger blocks.  99% of miners signaling for BU have a EB setting of 1MB.  At 51% you still can't cause a fork unless you can mine enough blocks to exceed the AD of half the miners, which is highly unlikely since most have an AD of 6.

So, I'll repeat myself and ask people to put some effort into understanding how BU works instead of continuing to spread false information about it.

[xDan]

When BU gets near 50% things are gonna get reaaally interesting. What crazy things will Core do? Will they accept defeat? Will they create their own minority hashrate altcoin?

Whatever happens, the Bitcoin hodler wins. This stagnation has been a cancer.

[jofus]

Is there some where someone can find a good objective review of the pros and cons of both BU and Segwit and legitimate reasons why people are so viscously apposed to one or the other? 

I've so far seen some coherent reasons for why people are not a fan of Segwit, but I really haven't seen much a rational argument from Segwit supporters. 

I'd really like to make an informed decision on which one I support.

[Biodom]

You have to look at  a list of who would benefit:

BU-chinese party apparatchiks and their deciples in form of Jihan and Roger. Why?
Because it precludes second layer privacy inducing protocols that ALSO will compete with Jihan's mining "empire".
Chinese communists don't want privacy and don't even want bitcoin to be used in goods trading (see latest PBOC statements).
Case closed.

Segwit/LN-practically everybody else would benefit. We can see now where BU is heading-linear increase of blocksize and fees. Maybe good for some near-sided miners (only in a short term), bad for EVERYBODY else.

BU=improvement from 14.4baud modem to 28.8 baud modem to 56k modem.

Segwit/LN/privacy enhancements=going from telephony to cable to fiberoptics equivalent.

It is all crystal clear to me (for now).

[Hyena]

Is there some where someone can find a good objective review of the pros and cons of both BU and Segwit and legitimate reasons why people are so viscously apposed to one or the other? 

I've so far seen some coherent reasons for why people are not a fan of Segwit, but I really haven't seen much a rational argument from Segwit supporters. 

I'd really like to make an informed decision on which one I support.

I'm a life long software architect and a programmer. Having said that, as a specialist in my field, I can say the following:

Bitcoin Unlimited is a clean and elegant way how to upgrade the Bitcoin protocol one step at a time. It is philosophically sound, it is simple and effective. This is how software should be developed.

SegWit is an abomination to all self-respectful software architects. Shortly put --- it is a really ugly hack. It tries to accomplish many goals all at once. This drives up code/protocol complexity and increases the attack surface on the Bitcoin network by an order of magnitude. What is more, it will scare away open-source programmers from the Bitcoin project because no one enjoys working on a codebase that has become a labyrinth due to all these hacks and quirks. Does anyone remember the Heartbleed vulnerability discovered in OpenSSL? Well that's the kind of stuff you will get for code that no one enjoys reviewing. I don't want OpenSSL Heartbleed analogy to happen to Bitcoin and that's why I reject SegWit.

Those who keep saying "SegWit because of LN, TX-malleability, quadratic hashing fix" are demagogues. By saying this they make it seem as if Bitcoin Unlimited is not going to solve those issues. This is brutally wrong. You will get Lightning networks, a fix to TX malleability and a fix to quadratic hashing with Bitcoin Unlimited or even with Bitcoin Classic. You will get those features the way software is ought to be developed --- modularly, so that different features are logically separated and can be individually reviewed.

[Biodom]

I don't care about attack surfaces, but i DO care about not falling under a PBOC-driven cabal, present company excluded.

[jofus]

You have to look at  a list of who would benefit:

BU-chinese party apparatchiks and their deciples in form of Jihan and Roger. Why?
Because it precludes second layer privacy inducing protocols that ALSO will compete with Jihan's mining "empire".
Chinese communists don't want privacy and don't even want bitcoin to be used in goods trading (see latest PBOC statements).
Case closed.

From what I've read, there is no reason why side chains can't happen without Segwit implication so I'm not sure that that is a valid argument.  

To me it seems forcing transactions to side chains is a form a centralization.

It also seems to me that incentivizing mining is a key component to the stability and security of the network.

It also seems to me that no one is precluded from having an "empire" on mining, since anyone can start mining.  Perhaps this Jihan person has the most miners, but I would assume it is because Jihan invested a lot of resources into achieving these miners, which is also investing in the bitcoin network, helping to secure it and creating its worth.

The equation of X(mining) is profitable and Y(Jihan) is doing a lot of mining so Z(we must create something that disrupts that) doesn't make sense except if you were looking at it from the point of view that you wanted to find away to profit  but didn't wanted to bypass the free market competitive process of also mining.

Mind you coming up with an improvement of the network or system that benefits everyone on average and finding a away to derive profit from that is totally fine.  But the reason that X+Y should equal Z (from above paragraph) does not validate its usefulness or benefit to the community.

Please show me anywhere that I am wrong, I definitely won't pretend to see all the ins and outs of this.  But please refrain from using unsubstantiated statements like:

Segwit/LN-practically everybody else would benefit. We can see now where BU is heading-linear increase of blocksize and fees. Maybe good for some near-sided miners (only in a short term), bad for EVERYBODY else.

BU=improvement from 14.4baud modem to 28.8 baud modem to 56k modem.

Segwit/LN/privacy enhancements=going from telephony to cable to fiberoptics equivalent.

This doesn't tell me anything besides your opinion on the matter.

[Yves_Oluchione]

Is there some where someone can find a good objective review of the pros and cons of both BU and Segwit and legitimate reasons why people are so viscously apposed to one or the other? 

I've so far seen some coherent reasons for why people are not a fan of Segwit, but I really haven't seen much a rational argument from Segwit supporters. 

I'd really like to make an informed decision on which one I support.

I'm a life long software architect and a programmer. Having said that, as a specialist in my field, I can say the following:

Bitcoin Unlimited is a clean and elegant way how to upgrade the Bitcoin protocol one step at a time. It is philosophically sound, it is simple and effective. This is how software should be developed.

SegWit is an abomination to all self-respectful software architects. Shortly put --- it is a really ugly hack. It tries to accomplish many goals all at once. This drives up code/protocol complexity and increases the attack surface on the Bitcoin network by an order of magnitude. What is more, it will scare away open-source programmers from the Bitcoin project because no one enjoys working on a codebase that has become a labyrinth due to all these hacks and quirks. Does anyone remember the Heartbleed vulnerability discovered in OpenSSL? Well that's the kind of stuff you will get for code that no one enjoys reviewing. I don't want OpenSSL Heartbleed analogy to happen to Bitcoin and that's why I reject SegWit.

Those who keep saying "SegWit because of LN, TX-malleability, quadratic hashing fix" are demagogues. By saying this they make it seem as if Bitcoin Unlimited is not going to solve those issues. This is brutally wrong. You will get Lightning networks, a fix to TX malleability and a fix to quadratic hashing with Bitcoin Unlimited or even with Bitcoin Classic. You will get those features the way software is ought to be developed --- modularly, so that different features are logically separated and can be individually reviewed.

That is not true, that solves temporary i'm agree (short term) the problematics of high fees and increases the capacity of number of transactions /s but the total blockchain size would become exponentially faster a problem than with little blocks, this isn't elegant at all this is just basically a brutal short term approach, with that said the code of BU would cause many security problems and uncertainties on the immutability of Bitcoin now and that will mean the end of the project and would mean a big NON SENSE for investors who are searching a mean of storing value via a secured and immutable system.
And by the way The Core blocks represent still 73.4% of the blocks, BU is a minority which want to spread political rhetoric and non-scientifics argues to divide the Bitcoin community and kill bitcoiin because of their greed and their egocentralized point of view

[Biodom]

It also seems to me that no one is precluded from having an "empire" on mining, since anyone can start mining.  Perhaps this Jihan person has the most miners, but I would assume it is because Jihan invested a lot of resources into achieving these miners, which is also investing in the bitcoin network, helping to secure it and creating its worth.

The equation of X(mining) is profitable and Y(Jihan) is doing a lot of mining so Z(we must create something that disrupts that) doesn't make sense except if you were looking at it from the point of view that you wanted to find away to profit  but didn't wanted to bypass the free market competitive process of also mining.

Mind you coming up with an improvement of the network or system that benefits everyone on average and finding a away to derive profit from that is totally fine.  But the reason that X+Y should equal Z (from above paragraph) does not validate its usefulness or benefit to the community.

Please show me anywhere that I am wrong, I definitely won't pretend to see all the ins and outs of this.  But please refrain from using unsubstantiated statements like:

Segwit/LN-practically everybody else would benefit. We can see now where BU is heading-linear increase of blocksize and fees. Maybe good for some near-sided miners (only in a short term), bad for EVERYBODY else.

BU=improvement from 14.4baud modem to 28.8 baud modem to 56k modem.

Segwit/LN/privacy enhancements=going from telephony to cable to fiberoptics equivalent.

This doesn't tell me anything besides your opinion on the matter.

...it is your job to read more on the subject...i am not writing a dissertation here on a message board post.
In simplest terms: linear increase the size of the block does not equal new technology, but segwit combined with LN does mean NEW technology, hence the comparison with modems vs cable/fiberoptics.
Re Jihan, please educate yourselves on "monopoly".

[Hyena]

I don't care about attack surfaces, but i DO care about not falling under a PBOC-driven cabal, present company excluded.

BlockStream bankster maffia is no better, so this really isn't a valid argument you have there. If SegWit goes through BlockStream would have monopoly over Bitcoin development. Someone truly being the "Bitcoin CEO" won't be a joke then.

[jofus]

It also seems to me that no one is precluded from having an "empire" on mining, since anyone can start mining.  Perhaps this Jihan person has the most miners, but I would assume it is because Jihan invested a lot of resources into achieving these miners, which is also investing in the bitcoin network, helping to secure it and creating its worth.

The equation of X(mining) is profitable and Y(Jihan) is doing a lot of mining so Z(we must create something that disrupts that) doesn't make sense except if you were looking at it from the point of view that you wanted to find away to profit  but didn't wanted to bypass the free market competitive process of also mining.

Mind you coming up with an improvement of the network or system that benefits everyone on average and finding a away to derive profit from that is totally fine.  But the reason that X+Y should equal Z (from above paragraph) does not validate its usefulness or benefit to the community.

Please show me anywhere that I am wrong, I definitely won't pretend to see all the ins and outs of this.  But please refrain from using unsubstantiated statements like:

Segwit/LN-practically everybody else would benefit. We can see now where BU is heading-linear increase of blocksize and fees. Maybe good for some near-sided miners (only in a short term), bad for EVERYBODY else.

BU=improvement from 14.4baud modem to 28.8 baud modem to 56k modem.

Segwit/LN/privacy enhancements=going from telephony to cable to fiberoptics equivalent.

This doesn't tell me anything besides your opinion on the matter.

...it is your job to read more on the subject...i am not writing a dissertation here on a message board post.
In simplest terms: linear increase the size of the block does not equal new technology, but segwit combined with LN does mean NEW technology, hence the comparison with modems vs cable/fiberoptics.
Re Jihan, please educate yourselves on "monopoly".

That was my original plan, but I'm having a hard time finding anything objective and rational especially in regards to segwit. This is why I asked if anyone happened to know a balanced source of information on the two and the reasons for and against them.

[Paashaas]

I don't care about attack surfaces, but i DO care about not falling under a PBOC-driven cabal, present company excluded.

BlockStream bankster maffia is no better, so this really isn't a valid argument you have there. If SegWit goes through BlockStream would have monopoly over Bitcoin development. Someone truly being the "Bitcoin CEO" won't be a joke then.

BU is in control of a few Cinese miners, i think this central mining cartel isn't so decentralised, right? How much does Roger Ver pays you to mine ChinaCoin?  While Satoshi's vision is already absolute, the majority of the whole economic infrastructure wants SegWitt, NOT BU, BU miners will eventually mine for a loss sooner ore later. Blockstream ore Core's behaviour is irrelevant, ceo's, Exchanges, walletproviders, merchants etc the all dont care about it, except BU supporters

[Hyena]

That is not true, that solves temporary i'm agree (short term) the problematics of high fees and increases the capacity of number of transactions /s but the total blockchain size would become exponentially faster a problem than with little blocks, this isn't elegant at all this is just basically a brutal short term approach, with that said the code of BU would cause many security problems and uncertainties on the immutability of Bitcoin now and that will mean the end of the project and would mean a big NON SENSE for investors who are searching a mean of storing value via a secured and immutable system.
And by the way The Core blocks represent still 73.4% of the blocks, BU is a minority which want to spread political rhetoric and non-scientifics argues to divide the Bitcoin community and kill bitcoiin because of their greed and their egocentralized point of view

what you just said is not true. stop spreading lies.

Bitcoin Unlimited is much more than just block size increase. They are implementing all the nice feature SegWit has slapped together except BU is doing it conceptually in a correct way --- one feature at a time. The most urgent one is block size increase. So basically what you just said is warm air, no content.

[chopstick]

I think it's laughable that Core supporters won't stop whining about Roger Ver, as if he were really some kind of Bitcoin Boogeyman.

The fact that one side has to engage in personal attacks & smear campaigns against the other side is really, really telling.

It is a sign of weakness if you have to slander your opponent with blatant lies and exaggerations.

[Paashaas]

I think it's laughable that Core supporters won't stop whining about Roger Ver, as if he were really some kind of Bitcoin Boogeyman.

The fact that one side has to engage in personal attacks & smear campaigns against the other side is really, really telling.

It is a sign of weakness if you have to slander your opponent with blatant lies and exaggerations.

Roger Ver is buying up hashrate...just wait untill his ''social money'' runs out. He's also trolling in his latest interviews so i dont blame the ''blamers''.

[Yves_Oluchione]

what you just said is not true. stop spreading lies.

Bitcoin Unlimited is much more than just block size increase - one feature at a time. The most urgent one is block size increase.

So you just admitted that the BU is just about block size increase for now  

You didn't answer on technical problematics : _What about the total blockchain size which will grow exponentially faster with a block size increase ?
                                                              _What will be the block size with BU ? By choice of miners ? So the security problems and immutability problems that will result ?
                                                              _I'm not saying that segwit is essential, i think it's the best solution for now but of courseall solutions could always be better   but if segwit will be rejected well i wouldn't think bitcoin is dead but if the chain split or if BU become the established chain i would reconsider my position on mid-term long-term investments due to the problematics that will cause

[FiendCoin]

what you just said is not true. stop spreading lies.

Bitcoin Unlimited is much more than just block size increase - one feature at a time. The most urgent one is block size increase.

So you just admitted that the BU is just about block size increase for now  

You didn't answer on technical problematics : _What about the total blockchain size which will grow exponentially faster with a block size increase ?
                                                              _What will be the block size with BU ? By choice of miners ? So the security problems and immutability problems that will result ?
                                                              _I'm not saying that segwit is essential, i think it's the best solution for now but of courseall solutions could always be better   but if segwit will be rejected well i wouldn't think bitcoin is dead but if the chain split or if BU become the established chain i would reconsider my position on mid-term long-term investments due to the problematics that will cause

It's sad that so many bitcoiners are dumb enough to support B(F)U Chinacoin.

[Hyena]

I don't care about attack surfaces, but i DO care about not falling under a PBOC-driven cabal, present company excluded.

BlockStream bankster maffia is no better, so this really isn't a valid argument you have there. If SegWit goes through BlockStream would have monopoly over Bitcoin development. Someone truly being the "Bitcoin CEO" won't be a joke then.

BU is in control of a few Cinese miners, i think this central mining cartel isn't so decentralised, right? How much does Roger Ver pays you to mine ChinaCoin?  While Satoshi's vision is already absolute, the majority of the whole economic infrastructure wants SegWitt, NOT BU, BU miners will eventually mine for a loss sooner ore later. Blockstream ore Core's behaviour is irrelevant, ceo's, Exchanges, walletproviders, merchants etc the all dont care about it, except BU supporters

SegWit is in control of a few banksters from BlockStream and their lap dogs (Johnny and other Core devs). Roger does not pay me anything. I am exposing the SegWit lies from my free time for free ever since Bitcointalk mods censored my free speech in here. I made a Bitcoin Unlimited topic under Bitcoin general discussion and it got moved to altcoin board. The censorship guys made a powerful enemy that day and I promised publicly to do everything in my power to expose the corrupt SegWit/Core devs. And censoring tells really a lot about the agenda of BlockStream/Core. It's a big red flag.

So what do I get out of this you may ask? I'm a bitcoin hodler since 2012 and I just happen to be technically adept enough to understand that SegWit is really bad for Bitcoin. It just happens that BU is currently the only good alternative. Ideally there would be many dev teams all around the world working independently on improving the Bitcoin protocol. Wallet implementations should also be decentralized and that's why we must ditch the Core team. Core team's bitcoin-core implementation does not equate to Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a protocol not a protocol implementation and a technical variable such as the block size does not belong to the protocol layer. Block size is already limited by network speed, it does not require an arbitrary limit imposed by a bunch of self-proclaimed Bitcoin-CEOs.

SegWit supporters are like Hilary Clinton supporters. They play it dirty and they are sore losers.