SegWit losing Bitcoin Unlimited winning -> Moon soon

[ridery99]

When I can start double spend on both chains?

[zimmah]

No matter which side ends up winning, a conclusion to this debate would be good for bitcoin either way.

Personally I'd prefer it if BU wins though, because I want bitcoin to remain decentralized.

[AlexM]

No matter which side ends up winning, a conclusion to this debate would be good for bitcoin either way.

Personally I'd prefer it if BU wins though, because I want bitcoin to remain decentralized.

I think you have chosen the wrong side for decentralization lol.

BU is a centralized company trying to do a hostile takeover of Bitcoin. Core are a bunch of volunteer developers (some of whom are paid by MIT and Blockstream) but any developer can volunteer to work for core and help make Bitcoin better. BU want in install a president of Bitcoin, not all the BU code they release is reviewed, not all the code they release if visible for anyone to see, and all developers are paid employees. So if BU ever manages to take over the Bitcoin chain, Bitcoin will lose 90+% of its value within 2 years, people will move to independent alts. Who wants a company managing Bitcoin, might as well use Visa.

BU's bigger blocks can also mean smaller blocks, the miners decide on the blocksize, so in theory they could vote for smaller blocks and thus higher fees. The other issue with larger block is the larger the block the more decentralized the miners become. If the blocksize went much larger quickly only data centres would be able to mine as no one else would have the bandwidth or storage needed. If the blocksize were to hit 4mb in the next year or 2 then the whole of Austrialia and Africa would be unable to process the data needed to mine due to bandwidth. So that is 2 continents without any possible mining.

[jbreher]

BU is a centralized company trying to do a hostile takeover of Bitcoin. Core are a bunch of volunteer developers (some of whom are paid by MIT and Blockstream) but any developer can volunteer to work for core and help make Bitcoin better. BU want in install a president of Bitcoin, not all the BU code they release is reviewed, not all the code they release if visible for anyone to see, and all developers are paid employees. So if BU ever manages to take over the Bitcoin chain, Bitcoin will lose 90+% of its value within 2 years, people will move to independent alts. Who wants a company managing Bitcoin, might as well use Visa.

BU's bigger blocks can also mean smaller blocks, the miners decide on the blocksize, so in theory they could vote for smaller blocks and thus higher fees. The other issue with larger block is the larger the block the more decentralized the miners become. If the blocksize went much larger quickly only data centres would be able to mine as no one else would have the bandwidth or storage needed. If the blocksize were to hit 4mb in the next year or 2 then the whole of Austrialia and Africa would be unable to process the data needed to mine due to bandwidth. So that is 2 continents without any possible mining.

I'm impressed how many bald-faced lies you are able to spew in a single post.

[AlexM]

BU is a centralized company trying to do a hostile takeover of Bitcoin. Core are a bunch of volunteer developers (some of whom are paid by MIT and Blockstream) but any developer can volunteer to work for core and help make Bitcoin better. BU want in install a president of Bitcoin, not all the BU code they release is reviewed, not all the code they release if visible for anyone to see, and all developers are paid employees. So if BU ever manages to take over the Bitcoin chain, Bitcoin will lose 90+% of its value within 2 years, people will move to independent alts. Who wants a company managing Bitcoin, might as well use Visa.

BU's bigger blocks can also mean smaller blocks, the miners decide on the blocksize, so in theory they could vote for smaller blocks and thus higher fees. The other issue with larger block is the larger the block the more decentralized the miners become. If the blocksize went much larger quickly only data centres would be able to mine as no one else would have the bandwidth or storage needed. If the blocksize were to hit 4mb in the next year or 2 then the whole of Austrialia and Africa would be unable to process the data needed to mine due to bandwidth. So that is 2 continents without any possible mining.

I'm impressed how many bald-faced lies you are able to spew in a single post.

Ok, you are calling me a liar. I would like to see you disprove what I have written.  I accept that "Bitcoin will lose 90+% of its value within 2 years, people will move to independent alts. Who wants a company managing Bitcoin, might as well use Visa" is my opinion based on what I know. Im pretty sure the rest is truthful.

I think that larger blocks have some merit, but I do not think that BU has any merit at all.

[Bastime]

When I can start double spend on both chains?

I think there will be a consensus about the increase of the block size. So Most hash will go to one chain and there will be very short time with two chains.

[jbreher]

BU is a centralized company trying to do a hostile takeover of Bitcoin. Core are a bunch of volunteer developers (some of whom are paid by MIT and Blockstream) but any developer can volunteer to work for core and help make Bitcoin better. BU want in install a president of Bitcoin, not all the BU code they release is reviewed, not all the code they release if visible for anyone to see, and all developers are paid employees. So if BU ever manages to take over the Bitcoin chain, Bitcoin will lose 90+% of its value within 2 years, people will move to independent alts. Who wants a company managing Bitcoin, might as well use Visa.

BU's bigger blocks can also mean smaller blocks, the miners decide on the blocksize, so in theory they could vote for smaller blocks and thus higher fees. The other issue with larger block is the larger the block the more decentralized the miners become. If the blocksize went much larger quickly only data centres would be able to mine as no one else would have the bandwidth or storage needed. If the blocksize were to hit 4mb in the next year or 2 then the whole of Austrialia and Africa would be unable to process the data needed to mine due to bandwidth. So that is 2 continents without any possible mining.

I'm impressed how many bald-faced lies you are able to spew in a single post.

Ok, you are calling me a liar. I would like to see you disprove what I have written.  I accept that "Bitcoin will lose 90+% of its value within 2 years, people will move to independent alts. Who wants a company managing Bitcoin, might as well use Visa" is my opinion based on what I know. Im pretty sure the rest is truthful.

I think that larger blocks have some merit, but I do not think that BU has any merit at all.

BU is a centralized

false

company

false

trying to do a hostile takeover of Bitcoin.

false

...BU want in install a president of Bitcoin

false

not all the BU code they release is reviewed

false

not all the code they release if visible for anyone to see

false

and all developers are paid employees

false

So if BU ever manages to take over the Bitcoin chain, Bitcoin will lose 90+% of its value within 2 years

speculation. faulty speculation

people will move to independent alts

faulty speculation

...If the blocksize were to hit 4mb in the next year or 2 then the whole of Austrialia and Africa would be unable to process the data needed to mine due to bandwidth

false

[xmasdobo]

satoshi hated BUgcoin

A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me.  It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in.  If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version.

[Miz4r]

Guys we really need to stop fighting, it's obvious that there are powers interested in keeping us divided so BTC development will stall and it will not be able to scale. SegWit is here now and it will bump up the blocksize to 2-2.5 MB. This is what Classic wanted a year ago so why reject it now? BU requires a contentious hard fork and thus has no realistic chance to succeed or if it did it would be catastrophic, but SegWit actually has a chance to be activated if we stop this infighting and move forward together. Miners need good information about SegWit and realize that it's also in their best interest to activate it. If we are able to come together and activate SegWit it would be a major positive signal for Bitcoin and it will lead to more transactions per block, lower fees and a much higher Bitcoin price. If we do neither then we'll stay stuck in the current deadlock, another bear market will begin and the manipulators and social engineers get their way. Maybe this is what needs to happen before miners wake up, but I'd prefer we not go through this difficult period at all.

[lowbander80]

BU will fork regardless of the voting outcome.Anyway if you read the whitepaper and look at some of his posts here Satoshi said Bitcoin would need to hard fork when this scenario of Bitcoin congestion arrived.I believe he thought it would happen before now.

[lionheart78]

Guys we really need to stop fighting, it's obvious that there are powers interested in keeping us divided so BTC development will stall and it will not be able to scale. SegWit is here now and it will bump up the blocksize to 2-2.5 MB. This is what Classic wanted a year ago so why reject it now? BU requires a contentious hard fork and thus has no realistic chance to succeed or if it did it would be catastrophic, but SegWit actually has a chance to be activated if we stop this infighting and move forward together. Miners need good information about SegWit and realize that it's also in their best interest to activate it. If we are able to come together and activate SegWit it would be a major positive signal for Bitcoin and it will lead to more transactions per block, lower fees and a much higher Bitcoin price. If we do neither then we'll stay stuck in the current deadlock, another bear market will begin and the manipulators and social engineers get their way. Maybe this is what needs to happen before miners wake up, but I'd prefer we not go through this difficult period at all.

With Segwit an off-chain transaction will be enabled making miners lose profit.  If  you look at this at a miners perspective, it really is a foul since they are the one securing the network and is competing with one another to get the reward.  they had been like this ever since.  We can say miners  gone greedy now a day skipping low fee transactions,  but I think it is the senders fault because they feed the miners greed by adjusting their fee higher to confirm easily.  I am not a pro BU, but with segwit and LN, isn't it centralization already? If it is not, care to explain to me why it isn't?

[Miz4r]

With Segwit an off-chain transaction will be enabled making miners lose profit.

Explain how Segwit will make miners lose profit? Lightning I can kinda understand but even here miners will make more profit due to much higher BTC price and there's nothing blocking miners from running Lightning nodes themselves and earn those fees. In the end more users will be using Bitcoin and this is also good for miners.

I am not a pro BU, but with segwit and LN, isn't it centralization already? If it is not, care to explain to me why it isn't?

Everyone can run a Lightning node, I don't see what's centralized about it? And Segwit just fixes malleability and several other issues, plus it bumps up the maximum blocksize.

[york780]

BU is a centralized company trying to do a hostile takeover of Bitcoin. Core are a bunch of volunteer developers (some of whom are paid by MIT and Blockstream) but any developer can volunteer to work for core and help make Bitcoin better. BU want in install a president of Bitcoin, not all the BU code they release is reviewed, not all the code they release if visible for anyone to see, and all developers are paid employees. So if BU ever manages to take over the Bitcoin chain, Bitcoin will lose 90+% of its value within 2 years, people will move to independent alts. Who wants a company managing Bitcoin, might as well use Visa.

BU's bigger blocks can also mean smaller blocks, the miners decide on the blocksize, so in theory they could vote for smaller blocks and thus higher fees. The other issue with larger block is the larger the block the more decentralized the miners become. If the blocksize went much larger quickly only data centres would be able to mine as no one else would have the bandwidth or storage needed. If the blocksize were to hit 4mb in the next year or 2 then the whole of Austrialia and Africa would be unable to process the data needed to mine due to bandwidth. So that is 2 continents without any possible mining.

I'm impressed how many bald-faced lies you are able to spew in a single post.

Ok, you are calling me a liar. I would like to see you disprove what I have written.  I accept that "Bitcoin will lose 90+% of its value within 2 years, people will move to independent alts. Who wants a company managing Bitcoin, might as well use Visa" is my opinion based on what I know. Im pretty sure the rest is truthful.

I think that larger blocks have some merit, but I do not think that BU has any merit at all.

BU is a centralized

false

company

false

trying to do a hostile takeover of Bitcoin.

false

...BU want in install a president of Bitcoin

false

not all the BU code they release is reviewed

false

not all the code they release if visible for anyone to see

false

and all developers are paid employees

false

So if BU ever manages to take over the Bitcoin chain, Bitcoin will lose 90+% of its value within 2 years

speculation. faulty speculation

people will move to independent alts

faulty speculation

...If the blocksize were to hit 4mb in the next year or 2 then the whole of Austrialia and Africa would be unable to process the data needed to mine due to bandwidth

false

Wow u are ruthless! I like you!

[David Rabahy]

Compromise or watch someone else eat our lunch.  Chop Core into bite-sized pieces and find the right subset that appease BU et al.

Miners; sorry, but one way or another you are eventually going to lose your grip.

[anonymoustroll420]

BU is doing a hostile takeover. They refuse to implement relay protection. The devs have stated their main reason for doing this is to attack the old chain. Also miners supporting BU have stated they will attack the old chain if there is a fork. It's not a "peaceful" fork, they're actively attempting to force people onto their chain.

SegWit on the other hand is optional, you are not forced to use it if you don't want to.

Currently running a small listening node needs ~2TB of bandwidth a month. This is way too much, and the people that say it isn't don't run a node. Increasing blocksize will only increase this even more and make it more difficult for people to run nodes. Many p2p file sharing systems in the past have failed due to nodes becoming too few thus too centralized due to prohibitively high resource consumption, making them vulnerable to DMCA takedowns etc.

Even at 72MB blocks (which is the largest the Satoshi codebase can currently support) Bitcoin still cannot scale anywhere near the size of visa. While increasing the blocksize may help with scalability in the short term, clearly increasing the blocksize is not a long-term solution.

After Napster was taken down due to having a centralized server tracking which nodes had which files, a fully decentralized p2p filesharing network called gnutella was created in 2000. This was a fully decentralized p2p file sharing network. It had some fairly advanced features for it's time, including a decentralized file searching system and TLS encryption between all nodes by default. It is in some ways similar to Bitcoin and Satsohi had mentioned this network before in his posts. Early versions of Bitcoin written by Satoshi included an IRC bootstrapping mechanism that seems to be lifted right out of gnutella. The gnutella network got huge media publicity and it grew very fast and eventually ran into scaling problems. The original dev team had abandoned the project, and so the community had to come up with scalability solutions. Many different solutions were pushed, including the use of "trusted" ultranodes. Concensus could not be formed by the community and eventually the network forked into hundreds of smaller networks, such as LimeWire, FrostWire, WinMX, Kaazaa, BearShare, eDonkey (developed by some Core developers IIRC). The large gnutella network had essentially been split into hundreds of smaller networks. Each network by in large didn't share files with one another, or if they did it was very buggy. Some networks such as WinMX got sybil attacked  because of their small size(funnily enough this attack went on for 12 years and only subsided a few months ago). Some networks such as LimeWire lived on for a while until the devs were sued by RIAA and the "trusted" ultranodes shut down, but the split kicked off the death of gnutella, which was basically replaced by BitTorrent, a much less decentralized network but one that doesn't have scalability issues.

Splitting and centralization are things we should avoid at all costs.

[Emoclaw]

satoshi hated BUgcoin

A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me.  It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in.  If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version.

BU is a BIP, just like SegWit. It is not a "second version".
Bitcoin was designed in a way so that it can be upgraded with hard forks. BU is about removing the block size limit, which was meant to be removed at some point.

Though such bugs shouldn't exist. BU developers are disappointing.

[andreibi]

Geez, it's like watching Libertards vs Trumpets.

[iamnotback]

Re: Alt shilling increase when Bitcoin is under attack

Not everything is a conspiracy. In case you haven't noticed, there has been a very broad-based rise in the entire altcoin market.

Yeah because the % of the total crypto marketcap in Bitcoin dropped precipitously from the 80s to the 60s.

Although it will bounce back somewhat if the Scalepocalypse crisis is ever resolved (and it won't be any time soon!), this poll will tell you (and even explain to you why if you bother to read it) that something has fundamentally changed.

You Bitcoin maximalists are going to become minority owners of the crypto and blockchain ecosystem. Lol.  

What this BU vs. Core fuckup did was cause many users which had never installed an altcoin wallet to do so.

BU opened the floodgates to altcoin dominance. Now once these guys get a taste of the freedom-of-choice and higher ROI from altcoins, they won't be coming back. They'll be converting more and more BTC to alts over time.

BU slayed Bitcoin. Or Core did. Depending who you want to blame for the Scalepocalypse.

Well I think Bitcoin will come back up and still $2000+ eventually, but the long-term outlook for Bitcoin has become less certain.

[jbreher]

BU is doing a hostile takeover.

Not quite. BU is doing a network-wide upgrade.

They refuse to implement relay protection.

Of course they refuse. It is the only way to ensure that the upgrade takes. Besides, it is not the majority chain's responsibility to protect the minority chain. Especially as a significant existence of a minority chain ensures losses for one or more branches, while a dead minority ensures retention of value for everyone. Lastly, replay protection can be handled within the client. There is no purpose served by polluting the protocol with it.

[alucard23]

From what I read, it seems that miners are against segwit as this may prevent them from charging higher fees. But I don't get it, if segwit and lightning were able to bring greater adoption, the increase in the number of users would allow them to earn more money anyway.