SegWit losing Bitcoin Unlimited winning -> Moon soon

[Hyena]

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

Blockchain size is not a problem of the Bitcoin protocol. It is a technical problem that can be overcome by technical means. It is a full node implementation related issue and thus not even worth talking about. Block chain size is never going to be a problem because digital storage does not cost much at all and technically it is possible to store the block chain in a decentralized manner. Instead of every full node storing the whole copy of the block chain they could only store parts of it proportionally to their disk capacity. When every full node stores random parts of the block chain then the block chain will still exist but is simply spread over the whole network rather than duplicated on every device. We also have block chain available in the torrent network so don't worry, nothing is lost. It's just a technical issue and it can be solved. Right now there just isn't big enough incentive to solve it and for that reason full nodes are still storing full copies of the block chain.

[1715109936]

1715109936

[1715109936]

1715109936

[1715109936]

1715109936

[Wexlike]

Core 0.14 allows manual prunning of the blockchain, to a minimum of 450 MB(<- that is the number that I remember).

[Hyena]

Core 0.14 allows manual prunning of the blockchain, to a minimum of 450 MB(<- that is the number that I remember).

Yes, this is a really nice feature. So block chain size in general is a non-issue. People should just stop spreading paranoia about it, it's embarrassing.

[jofus]

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.

This is one thing I noticed a lot of coming from the Segwit side.  From previous experience in other situations similar to this, it doesn't paint a pretty picture of what they have to give to the public.

[Hyena]

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.

This is one thing I noticed a lot of coming from the Segwit side.  From previous experience in other situations similar to this, it doesn't paint a pretty picture of what they have to give to the public.

It is especially concerning that all the "coin news" blogs seem to be biased and in favour of SegWit. A news reporter/blog writer should generally remain neutral, research both sides and try to give an objective evaluation of the situation. What I see more and more are attempts to manipulate the public opinion in favour of SegWit. It's utterly disgusting. I know I know BlockStream would go bankrupt if SegWit is rejected. Their whole business model is to gain sole control over the Bitcoin network similarly to how Ethereum Foundation is a central entity having a private block chain they call Ethereum. So they reverse transactions just like that. No wonder we see censoring and brainwashing, it's all backed up by the money of Blockstream investors who were sold the promise of becoming the owners of the Bitcoin network.

[Alesis]

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.

This is one thing I noticed a lot of coming from the Segwit side.  From previous experience in other situations similar to this, it doesn't paint a pretty picture of what they have to give to the public.

I think that doesn't necessarily say a lot about the actual people who are in favour of SegWit.  There will always be people on both sides of anything who are nasty about the other, but this doesn't say anything about what SegWit itself is actually presenting to the public or about the majority of SegWit/BU supporters.

[jofus]

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.

This is one thing I noticed a lot of coming from the Segwit side.  From previous experience in other situations similar to this, it doesn't paint a pretty picture of what they have to give to the public.

I think that doesn't necessarily say a lot about the actual people who are in favour of SegWit.  There will always be people on both sides of anything who are nasty about the other, but this doesn't say anything about what SegWit itself is actually presenting to the public or about the majority of SegWit/BU supporters.

Of course, I wouldn't base my decision only on that.  Unfortunately I'm hard pressed to find a rational argument in favour of Segwit over BU.  I thought surely there would be one since I would assume the group that is working on Segwit is full of highly intelligent individuals that understand the nuts and bolts of Blockchain and Bitcoin very well.  I usually end up reading the reasons to support segwit are:

-slanderous statements against individuals that are in support of BU
-claims of impending doom to the network should BU be implemented with no technical explanation or reasoning, or ones not based on facts.
-claims that BU creates a centralized model, but without explaining how increasing block size above 1MB does this?  At the same time not explaining how forcing the majority of transactions to be done by centralized off chain hubs with need for trusted third parties in the "dark" does not create more of a centralized system.
-claims that BU is bad because it incentives mining, even though that is how the blockchain and bitcoin maintain their security and strength and incentive to mine is core to the maintenance of the network.

[Hyena]

Of course, I wouldn't base my decision only on that.  Unfortunately I'm hard pressed to find a rational argument in favour of Segwit over BU.  I thought surely there would be one since I would assume the group that is working on Segwit is full of highly intelligent individuals that understand the nuts and bolts of Blockchain and Bitcoin very well.  I usually end up reading the reasons to support segwit are:

-slanderous statements against individuals that are in support of BU
-claims of impending doom to the network should BU be implemented with no technical explanation or reasoning, or ones not based on facts.
-claims that BU creates a centralized model, but without explaining how increasing block size above 1MB does this?  At the same time not explaining how forcing the majority of transactions to be done by centralized off chain hubs with need for trusted third parties in the "dark" does not create more of a centralized system.
-claims that BU is bad because it incentives mining, even though that is how the blockchain and bitcoin maintain their security and strength and incentive to mine is core to the maintenance of the network.

Here's a snapshot of this week's debate regarding this new altcoin "SegWitCoin" that wants to become Bitcoin.

Johnny (of Blockstream) vs Roger Ver - Bitcoin Scaling Debate (SegWit vs Bitcoin Unlimited)



Body language doesn't lie. Johnny is aware of his weakness and is afraid that he is not able to defend SegWit well enough to please his bankster masters, rightly so.

[Febo]

Of course, I wouldn't base my decision only on that.  Unfortunately I'm hard pressed to find a rational argument in favour of Segwit over BU.  I thought surely there would be one since I would assume the group that is working on Segwit is full of highly intelligent individuals that understand the nuts and bolts of Blockchain and Bitcoin very well.  I usually end up reading the reasons to support segwit are:

-slanderous statements against individuals that are in support of BU
-claims of impending doom to the network should BU be implemented with no technical explanation or reasoning, or ones not based on facts.
-claims that BU creates a centralized model, but without explaining how increasing block size above 1MB does this?  At the same time not explaining how forcing the majority of transactions to be done by centralized off chain hubs with need for trusted third parties in the "dark" does not create more of a centralized system.
-claims that BU is bad because it incentives mining, even though that is how the blockchain and bitcoin maintain their security and strength and incentive to mine is core to the maintenance of the network.

Here's a snapshot of this week's debate regarding this new altcoin "SegWitCoin" that wants to become Bitcoin.

Johnny (of Blockstream) vs Roger Ver - Bitcoin Scaling Debate (SegWit vs Bitcoin Unlimited)



Body language doesn't lie. Johnny is aware of his weakness and is afraid that he is not able to defend SegWit well enough to please his bankster masters, rightly so.

Lol, yes he had pain in his back. Before he start he did few back exercises.


They were talking about Bitcoin and nothing else. What his weakens you talk about. or you talk about Bitcoin weakness.  In OP you posted graph with totally identical support. How come you did that altho as you said one side finally totally won. Please explain.

[eddie13]

With a DASH shill in the background..

[Slark]

I wish i was able to understand what those half-wit and non-limited things actually meant...

BU supporters sayin SW is evil and SW supporters say the opposite.

Can someone explain the basic differences between them? Not anything technical. Just basic.

For example; will BU lower the transaction fees?

The problem some people have with SegWit is that it not pure protocol upgrade and Blockstream will try to appropriate bitcoin network using SegWit as a backdoor.

Bitcoin Unlimited main point is removal hard coded blocksize limit of 1 MB, and instead introduce soft limit, which can be easily be increased to 3MB, 4MB, and so on in the future.

Bigger blocks will have mainly 2 effects - it enables BTC to process more transactions per second and will lower transaction fees.

[Killerpotleaf]

I wish i was able to understand what those half-wit and non-limited things actually meant...

BU supporters sayin SW is evil and SW supporters say the opposite.

Can someone explain the basic differences between them? Not anything technical. Just basic.

For example; will BU lower the transaction fees?

The problem some people have with SegWit is that it not pure protocol upgrade and Blockstream will try to appropriate bitcoin network using SegWit as a backdoor.

Bitcoin Unlimited main point is removal hard coded blocksize limit of 1 MB, and instead introduce soft limit, which can be easily be increased to 3MB, 4MB, and so on in the future.

Bigger blocks will have mainly 2 effects - it enables BTC to process more transactions per second and will lower transaction fees.

this isn't quite right.
BU does not remove the limit.
BU isn't even much of a change for the status quo
BU keeps a limit.
the only real difference as that it doesn't require a 1 line edit + recompile to change that limit.
ofocure the code is more involved then this, BU clients take EB and AD and such into consideration, but thats besides the point.
the point is, BU doesn't remove the limit, it just makes it user define instead of hardcoded.

I believe the biggest plus to making this blocksize limit "market driven", is that it will allow for a stable TX fee market to form.

with a static limit the size of blocks will never be optimal and always lead to a screwed up fee market, either their is simply to much blockspace ( 8MB ) in which the fee market dies and all BTC TX get in a block with no fee at all, or the blocksize is to small (1MB) and miners loss out on potential fees of including a few more TX on each block.

with this market driven limit we will not see 1MB 2MB 8MB blocks.... Nope, miners will quickly realize that its in there best interst to have a blocksize limit which creates SOME fee pressure. besides the whole "bigger blocks will hurt decentration"  rhetoric, there will be a real economic incentive to agree on a minimalistic blocksizelimit.

we'll see block size incress at rate which keeps fee pressure at an optimal rate, and honestly i just dont see TX demand going up 10X  in a year. what is more likely IMO is seeing blocks grow like  1.1MB 1.25MB 1.4MB .... up to 8MB 4 years from now once fee paying BTC TX demand has increased about 8x

[Hyena]

I wish i was able to understand what those half-wit and non-limited things actually meant...

BU supporters sayin SW is evil and SW supporters say the opposite.

Can someone explain the basic differences between them? Not anything technical. Just basic.

For example; will BU lower the transaction fees?

The problem some people have with SegWit is that it not pure protocol upgrade and Blockstream will try to appropriate bitcoin network using SegWit as a backdoor.

Bitcoin Unlimited main point is removal hard coded blocksize limit of 1 MB, and instead introduce soft limit, which can be easily be increased to 3MB, 4MB, and so on in the future.

Bigger blocks will have mainly 2 effects - it enables BTC to process more transactions per second and will lower transaction fees.

this isn't quite right.
BU does not remove the limit.
BU isn't even much of a change for the status quo
BU keeps a limit.
the only real difference as that it doesn't require a 1 line edit + recompile to change that limit.
ofocure the code is more involved then this, BU clients take EB and AD and such into consideration, but thats besides the point.
the point is, BU doesn't remove the limit, it just makes it user define instead of hardcoded.

I believe the biggest plus to making this blocksize limit "market driven", is that it will allow for a stable TX fee market to form.

with a static limit the size of blocks will never be optimal and always lead to a screwed up fee market, either their is simply to much blockspace ( 8MB ) in which the fee market dies and all BTC TX get in a block with no fee at all, or the blocksize is to small (1MB) and miners loss out on potential fees of including a few more TX on each block.

with this market driven limit we will not see 1MB 2MB 8MB blocks.... Nope, miners will quickly realize that its in there best interst to have a blocksize limit which creates SOME fee pressure. besides the whole "bigger blocks will hurt decentration"  rhetoric, there will be a real economic incentive to agree on a minimalistic blocksizelimit.

we'll see block size incress at rate which keeps fee pressure at an optimal rate, and honestly i just dont see TX demand going up 10X  in a year. what is more likely IMO is seeing blocks grow like  1.1MB 1.25MB 1.4MB .... up to 8MB 4 years from now once fee paying BTC TX demand has increased about 8x

I agree with Slark but his answer was obviously not the whole answer.

I have a giant problem with BlockStream using SegWit as a trojan horse to gain control over Bitcoin. I also have philosophical reasons how software should be developed and I don't think bundling a bunch of untested features into one package and deliver it to the users is a good thing to do.

I also agree with Killerpotleaf because he is right, BU will enable truly free TX fee market and it is going to be awesome. We have already powerful features such as block chain pruning, prioritized mempool, child-pays-for-parent and estimatetxfee command (all of them empower free market). Now the only thing remaining is to get rid of the block size limit and let it be driven by the free market. When that's done we should focus on lightning network and other such nice-to-have features.

Also, here's a today's update on SegWitCoin losing to Bitcoin Unlimited even more day-by-day:

[Hyena]

Bitcoin Unlimited doing good. We can make this altcoin bubble burst, just keep supporting the good stuff.

[AjithBtc]

Bitcoin Unlimited doing good. We can make this altcoin bubble burst, just keep supporting the good stuff.

From the day when antpool mined based on bitcoin unlimited the network has been gaining potential. This time as mentioned the altcoins too were experiencing a bubble and supporting the good stuff leads to a better profiting with ease. These days the complications in transaction and it's fee to have decreased a lot.

[Paashaas]

Bitcoin Unlimited doing good. We can make this altcoin bubble burst, just keep supporting the good stuff.

BU is bugged.

[zby]

Bitcoin Unlimited doing good. We can make this altcoin bubble burst, just keep supporting the good stuff.

BU is bugged.

Yeah - miners thought they are in control here - but they forgot that they need devs (and exchanges also - but that is for another argument).

[FiendCoin]

Bitcoin Unlimited doing good. We can make this altcoin bubble burst, just keep supporting the good stuff.

BU is bugged.

Yeah - miners thought they are in control here - but they forgot that they need devs (and exchanges also - but that is for another argument).

Amateur code, what did people expect?

[danielW]

This is small, the biggest bug in BU has still not been fixed and is not even recognised as such.

i.e. Emergent consensus failure bug

The 'emergent consensus' mechanism means miners can increase profit by increasing the blocksize.

The only thing stoping increasing the blocksize is the increasing cost of bigger blocks due to orphan rate.

To optimise for profit miners will have competitive pressure to reduce orphan rate and that is easily done by centralisation of  mining.

With centralised mining Bitcoin is led to a permanent failure mode as it devolves into a fully centralised system. Centralised mining and centralised nodes.

This is a massive, massive, catastrophic bug that would slowly kill Bitcoin if the network would run on BU (unlikely). This still has not been fixed by Bitcoin Unlimited.

[Dafar]

OP, you are a dumbass for supporting BU... especially since you actually want bitcoin to appreciate in price