SegWit losing Bitcoin Unlimited winning -> Moon soon

[Holliday]

[1715083986]

1715083986

[1715083986]

1715083986

[Hyena]

The bug in Bitcoin Unlimited is fixed already, updated all 3 of my full nodes and actually none were even attacked. Bitcoin Unlimited blocks continue to rule over this ugly thing SegWitCoin. Pic related, SegWitCoin sucks. And only dumbasses like Dafar (more like Jaffar) support it because they clearly don't understand that SegWit = Trojan Horse which will not serve the Bitcoin community but instead serves the interests of global bankers who want to gain control over the Bitcoin Network. They are such sore losers, just read what BlockStream's president has to say in the article linked below.



I remember bugs like this happening to core wallet back in the day when they still made effort to enhance the Bitcoin protocol. Now the core team is just stagnating. And they are so egoistic they are unable to accept defeat and unable to see that the Bitcoin network has rejected SegWit. It will never activate, they know it and they are not making any other proposal.

Many of SegWit supporters blindly think it is for the good of the community but in reality it will just fill the pockets of BlockStream CEO and other corporate gangsters. Also it will centralize Bitcoin around the Lightning Network hubs.

An Undercover Interview with Adam Back, Blockstream’s President

[Tigggger]

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.

Can you explain how miners increase profit by increasing the block size, this doesn't compute for me. Currently miners are gaining the most out of everyone from the current status quo because of the rising fees. They could be thinking long term ie lets not make $1 on 100 transactions, let's make $0.001 on a Million transactions, but that's a long long way off and might not ever happen.

Orphans with bigger blocks would be a problem sure, which is why from what I have read, any increase that comes about will be done slowly and incrementally, again they have the most to lose if they move too quick and get orphans.

The days when everyone could mine in a significant way have long since passed, and we just have to accept the reality of what has happened, mining is now fairly centralised amongst a number of very large private farms, I don't like it much either, but it's a done deal and I don't see any way that 'bitcoin' can change that now.

Centralised nodes is just a red herring, even if blocks jumped to 32Mb tomorrow which is not what will happen, most nodes would cope just fine, and for those that can't maybe pi users with small cards then prune is available already.  Although I run 2 nodes (one of each btw) I'm not convinced that they are that important anymore and most people don't need the full blockchain anyway.

[manselr]

BUcoiners are at an all time high in terms of denial. BU's developer incompetence got exposed again, and not only that, all the fake nodes got taken down at once.

http://bitcoinist.com/bu-critical-bug-millions-fork/

If someone was stupid enough to consider BU, after this is definitely over. The price didn't even move because no one cares about BU, yet delusional BUcoiners will make up some story on their mind justifying the BU's shitshows time after time lol.

What's even more shocking is, they steal 99.99% of code, add 00.01% and still manage to fuck up at such level.

[btcmerich]

BUcoiners are at an all time high in terms of denial. BU's developer incompetence got exposed again, and not only that, all the fake nodes got taken down at once.

http://bitcoinist.com/bu-critical-bug-millions-fork/

If someone was stupid enough to consider BU, after this is definitely over. The price didn't even move because no one cares about BU, yet delusional BUcoiners will make up some story on their mind justifying the BU's shitshows time after time lol.

What's even more shocking is, they steal 99.99% of code, add 00.01% and still manage to fuck up at such level.

Bitcoin is open source so no one is stealing anything. Any one can edit and play with the codes and if it is good or will make things better then the new codes/functions will gain support.

[Moose30000]

Even if BU is shit , do they have valid critism
Of Segwit?

[lowbander80]

Bitcoin Unlimited (BU), which has been touted as being the fix to Bitcoin’s blockchain transaction backlog, has suffered a blow after attackers unleashed a new bug that crashed the system.

[leopard2]

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 was one of the more convincing statements I have read so far. Holy cow, I am glad I do not have to decide over this 

[rogerwilco]

It wouldn't matter if BU was the greatest code ever written. The consequences of a hard fork would be disastrous.

[ASHLIUSZ]

Bitcoin Unlimited (BU), which has been touted as being the fix to Bitcoin’s blockchain transaction backlog, has suffered a blow after attackers unleashed a new bug that crashed the system.

Yeah it has been crashed and 900,000 transactions waiting to get cleared will stuck on the blockchain when system runs over capacity. One among the developer said when the bug is found we'll fix and move on. The same is not possible in a short, as blockchain has got problems because antpool is the one mine and we have got several other mines working on fork.

[pooya87]

~
Can you explain how miners increase profit by increasing the block size, this doesn't compute for me. Currently miners are gaining the most out of everyone from the current status quo because of the rising fees. They could be thinking long term ie lets not make $1 on 100 transactions, let's make $0.001 on a Million transactions, but that's a long long way off and might not ever happen.
~

users won't put up with  increasing fees forever, if it continues going up, soon people will stop using bitcoin for transactions and move on to other things and transaction count will fall and fees go down again and because of people leaving price will also fall and in the long run it is miners who are fucked!

(this may take a long time but eventually it will happen)

i am not sure about what are the downsides of bigger blocks but to answer your question, bigger blocks means more transactions in one block and a higher total fee miners can get hence a higher profit. and more importantly it means scaling to match the need of 2017 not remain the same thing as it was back in couple years ago and can lead to more adoption, higher price and again more profit.

[Killerpotleaf]

BU isn't going to produce "bigger blocks" tho..
BU is going to produce "slightly bigger blocks"


with BU, miners control block size collectively.
no way in hell will they collectively decided to create enough blockspace such that everyone can get in a block with a 1cent fee
thats nutty!

given today's TX demand, a blocksize of 1.2MB will maintain fee pressure AND generate 20% more TX fees pre block
this is what will drive blocksize growth! the growth in Fee Paying TX.
often poeple say TX demand is unbound, thats true, but 50cent Fee Paying TX is NOT unbound.
miners will look to maximize fee revenue by balancing the free market through minimal blocksize increases.

Core will be constantly pressuring miners to "keep blocks small Because Decentralization", this + the idea of maximizing fee revenue is going to prove IMPOSSIBLE for miner to ignore.

it will literally be  IMPOSSIBLE ... because step 1) they maximizes fee revenue 2) miners profitability goes UP 3) because its more profitable , more miners come online 4) more miners == less profitability 5) miners are now completely DEPENDENT on the fee market being optimized, they will need to make sure to keep fee pruess strong, and that means no unnecessary blocksize incress.

1.2MB 1.3MB  1.35MB 1.39MB

these are the increases to be expected

they need to collectively decide on blocksize, so... all that is require is a small % of hashing power to understand the profit in keeping blocks small and we'll have this optimized fee market.

[el kaka22]

i am not sure about what are the downsides of bigger blocks but to answer your question, bigger blocks means more transactions in one block and a higher total fee miners can get hence a higher profit. and more importantly it means scaling to match the need of 2017 not remain the same thing as it was back in couple years ago and can lead to more adoption, higher price and again more profit.

You are talking about long-term benefits of bigger block size for all the people of bitcoin ecosystem. But miners prefer smaller blocks as of now for their own benefits like they can enjoy higher transaction fees along with usual mining rewards.

Bigger locks will pick more transactions hence there will be no huge amounts of pending transactions so people will start enjoying lower tx fees. But miners will suffer high resources needed for their mining processes.
The mass adoption and price increase will not happen in a week nor month but miners need to face losses (compared to their today's benefits) till price increase will happen.

In future (after one or two halving) miners will start earning more tx fees than block rewards hence they will always aim for higher tx fees than higher bitcoin prices.

[Tigggger]

i am not sure about what are the downsides of bigger blocks but to answer your question, bigger blocks means more transactions in one block and a higher total fee miners can get hence a higher profit. and more importantly it means scaling to match the need of 2017 not remain the same thing as it was back in couple years ago and can lead to more adoption, higher price and again more profit.

You are talking about long-term benefits of bigger block size for all the people of bitcoin ecosystem. But miners prefer smaller blocks as of now for their own benefits like they can enjoy higher transaction fees along with usual mining rewards.

Bigger locks will pick more transactions hence there will be no huge amounts of pending transactions so people will start enjoying lower tx fees. But miners will suffer high resources needed for their mining processes.
The mass adoption and price increase will not happen in a week nor month but miners need to face losses (compared to their today's benefits) till price increase will happen.

In future (after one or two halving) miners will start earning more tx fees than block rewards hence they will always aim for higher tx fees than higher bitcoin prices.

As you say miners wan't to earn the most possible, which is why it seems counter-intuitive that they are the ones pushing for the bigger blocks, unless it's long term thinking.

With scaling in place, a balance will be found between block size to keep orphans low and high transactions to keep the backlog low.

I think fees replacing block rewards was part of the vision from the start, but to do that it has to handle a lot more transactions than at present.

[Iranus]

It's strange to view any similarities in the code as theft of it.  Bitcoin code is open source, and there's always going to be amendments made based on what the new developers feel is needed at the time.  What people could argue is that BU's code is poorly developed, along with reasonable justifications why.

[FandangledGizmo]

Since the date you posted this BTC has struggled and now especially that the exchanges are talking about incorporating it. BU will crash the price even further I suspect. The miners will pull back then try again and pretty soon they should be crystal clear the market does not support it at all.

While Segwit was in the ascendancy BTC was hitting new highs, was resilient after the ETF was declined and was on track for moon.

[seradj0]

The bug in Bitcoin Unlimited is fixed already, updated all 3 of my full nodes and actually none were even attacked. Bitcoin Unlimited blocks continue to rule over this ugly thing SegWitCoin. Pic related, SegWitCoin sucks. And only dumbasses like Dafar (more like Jaffar) support it because they clearly don't understand that SegWit = Trojan Horse which will not serve the Bitcoin community but instead serves the interests of global bankers who want to gain control over the Bitcoin Network. They are such sore losers, just read what BlockStream's president has to say in the article linked below.



I remember bugs like this happening to core wallet back in the day when they still made effort to enhance the Bitcoin protocol. Now the core team is just stagnating. And they are so egoistic they are unable to accept defeat and unable to see that the Bitcoin network has rejected SegWit. It will never activate, they know it and they are not making any other proposal.

Many of SegWit supporters blindly think it is for the good of the community but in reality it will just fill the pockets of BlockStream CEO and other corporate gangsters. Also it will centralize Bitcoin around the Lightning Network hubs.

An Undercover Interview with Adam Back, Blockstream’s President

who is paying you Roger , GAVINI, CIA, to destroy bitcoin
you will win an altcoins BTCun and destruction of cryptocurrency

[Silberman]

I don’t know about that, BU is winning but then this opens the possibility of a hard fork, what will happen then? I think the price is going to plummet for a time, and for some that is going to be the opportunity of a lifetime and will try to get as many bitcoins as possible but I don’t know if we will be able to even get back to the prices we saw before.

[European Central Bank]

Since the date you posted this BTC has struggled and now especially that the exchanges are talking about incorporating it. BU will crash the price even further I suspect. The miners will pull back then try again and pretty soon they should be crystal clear the market does not support it at all.

While Segwit was in the ascendancy BTC was hitting new highs, was resilient after the ETF was declined and was on track for moon.

segwit's been solid and steady but hardly going crazy.

it's clear that the status quo is much preferred to any unlimited uncertainty. if it really did look like unlimited was gonna happen everything would turn to shit.

at the same time i dunno how much longer the status quo will remain attractive to newcomers. maybe we do need to swallow the uncertainty pain wherever it comes from to get some progress. 

[iamnotback]

Also I find this explanation very good, also taken from BU's home page under FAQ section:

Will unlimited size blocks actually result in no fee market?

No. Intuitively you can understand this by realizing that it will take a lot longer to propagate a gigantic block across the network than a small one. Therefore a gigantic block has a higher likelihood of being "orphaned" -- that is, a competing block will be found, propagated across the network and supplant the gigantic block. In this case the miner of the gigantic block will lose the block subsidy and transaction fees. Therefore miners are incentivised by limitations in the underlying physical network to produce smaller blocks, and incentivized by transaction fees to produce larger ones.

Finding the balance between these forces is where the free market excels. As underlying physical networks improve or fees increase, miners will naturally be able to produce larger blocks. The transaction "supply" (space in a block) therefore depends directly on the fundamental capacity, rather than relying on some centralized "steering committee" to properly set maximum block size. Bitcoin is all about disintermediation, and this is another example of it working.

Bitcoin Unlimited is a vote for free markets. SegWit is like a communist centrally planned economy.

Although that sounds logical to a n00b, who ever wrote that and believes that must have forgotten or flunked their high school (or perhaps as late as 2nd year university) probability and statistics math class. Reminds me of when I found a high school level probability error in the masternode security model in Dash's InstantX white paper, not to mention how egregiously flawed the Dash the Instant X design is. Evan Duffield replied, but then ran away. Even the economic arguments for Dash's flawed design were refuted. Note that Dash's required premixing (and even not premixing if not employing homomorphic encryption of transaction values, i.e Monero before RingCT) eliminates the possibility of merging UTXO balances and thus causes an exponential blowup in UTXO, which is an issue for scaling to trillions of microtransactions given that performance requires keeping UTXO in RAM.

The probability that another block solution will be found within the propagation time t (not to be confused with at the time t) is the Poisson process (λt)e^-λt where n = 1 (i.e. only one or more occurrences required). Which as λt becomes smaller than roughly ¹/₁₀₀ then e^-λt is closely approximated by 1 - λt or approximately 1. Thus, we can see the probability that another block solution will be found within the propagation time t approximates a linear proportion λt when λt is less than roughly ¹/₁₀₀.

So with a block period (aka block time) λ of 10 minutes and a propagation time t (for finding a second block) of less than 6 seconds (and propagation will usually be less than 600 milliseconds so that is even a more linear relationship at  ¹/₁₀₀₀), then presuming roughly (on average) that doubling the block size doubles both the transaction fees and the propagation time, then the miner has the same income on average with the largest possible block they can make because doubling the risk of another miner finding a block also doubles the miner's income per block statically speaking. If you don't understand this, then read it over and over until you grasp the mathematical (statistical) point that the quoted statement above is incorrect and there is no free market limit on block size and no fee market. The point being that yes the risk of another miner winning the block increases, but the miner's income commensurately (proportionally) also increases, so statistically the miner loses nothing by creating a larger block and thus is leaving tranactions fees on the table for some other miner to take if the miner doesn't make a larger block. However presuming some transactions pay less per byte than others (and higher valued transactions can afford to pay more per byte), the economic converse effect occurs wherein the miner has the incentive to make the smallest block possible or below the size where propagation latency is linearly proportional to block size (i.e. the latency that is a constant factor independent of data transferred), which is again not a free market limit on block size and not a fee market. So the same Tragedy-of-the-Commons occurs that has always been argued as the problem with unlimited block size, in that the power vacuum must be filled by a collusion of miners which pool their (at least 33% of the systemic) hashrate and selfish mine against the rest of the network enforcing a block size which maximizing their profit which is basically the highest level of fees x volume the market will bear. I had even argued (I claim successfully) against @ArticMine that Monero's algorithmically adjusting block size suffers from a similar Tragedy-of-the-Commons outcome (ultimately due to the power-law centralization of mining economies-of-scale). No matter how you slice and dice it, Satoshi's PoW will become centralized so choose your poison how you want to get there, Bitcoin Core (aka Blockstream) funded by banksters or Bitcoin Unlimited (with insufficient developer resources) lead by technical incompetents such as Roger Ver. This is why I designed (a yet unpublished) solution for blockchain consensus which is not PoW and not PoW (something totally new, which I am working on now).

Even if you try to argue that propagation out to the minority hashrate can take up to minutes, the most profitable (i.e. winning) economics models selfish mining wherein only the minimum propagation time to only 33% of the hashrate is relevant, thus it is likely to be (and currently is even to the average network diameter, i.e. the majority) less than 6 seconds.

Bitcoin has taken a big hit because of Bitcoin Unlimited. Roger Ver with his recent affiliation with the technologically flawed Dash (and his Dash pump) and attacking Bitcoin with big blocks is really trying to shake things up, but as I had explained Roger Ver is somewhat technically myopic. Also perhaps some people may be speculating Winkervoss twins might liquidate.


P.S. I liked @gmaxwell's explanation of why cryptocurrency fundamentally must rely on cryptography.


Edit: @aklan made me aware of a Bitcoin Unlimited white paper, which I am reading now and will respond soon.