SegWit losing Bitcoin Unlimited winning -> Moon soon

[jbreher]

But I have stated what happens, which it is always devolves to majority-collusion.

My point is that this is outcome is not affected by the cap on maxblocksize.

Might be true. I've been pondering that today. If BU can successfully attack the token holders, then that should be proof that even small 1MB blocks don't stop mining cartelization/centralization.

We don't think of it as an attack, but as an upgrade. I haven't participated in mining in years, yet I am convinced that BU delivers more value to me than does the core plan.

So if BU was sincere, they could demonstrate it by including the necessary fixes to enable LN in their planned HF.

Again, BU is not resistant to a malleability fix (at least as far as I discern). As recent events display however, we have a dev bandwidth issue. We must prioritize the things we wish to accomplish. Abolition of this stupid centrally-planned production quota is the most pressing problem faced by Bitcoin. So we are focusing upon that. Longer term, we would like to enable LN, but not with the current built-in anticompetitive disincentive for on-chain transactions (i.e., the aforementioned maxblocksize limit).

(And LN is still possible without a malleability fix, but that is kind of an aside, in that it is acknowledged that such is suboptimal).

[iamnotback]

But I have stated what happens, which it is always devolves to majority-collusion.

My point is that this is outcome is not affected by the cap on maxblocksize.

Might be true. I've been pondering that today. If BU can successfully attack the token holders, then that should be proof that even small 1MB blocks don't stop mining cartelization/centralization.

We don't think of it as an attack, but as an upgrade. I haven't participated in mining in years, yet I am convinced that BU delivers more value to me than does the core plan.

So if BU was sincere, they could demonstrate it by including the necessary fixes to enable LN in their planned HF.

Again, BU is not resistant to a malleability fix (at least as far as I discern). As recent events display however, we have a dev bandwidth issue. We must prioritize the things we wish to accomplish. Abolition of this stupid centrally-planned production quota is the most pressing problem faced by Bitcoin. So we are focusing upon that. Longer term, we would like to enable LN, but not with the current built-in anticompetitive disincentive for on-chain transactions (i.e., the aforementioned maxblocksize limit).

(And LN is still possible without a malleability fix, but that is kind of an aside, in that it is acknowledged that such is suboptimal).

My reaction is you need better communication with the token holders. My thought or idea is to raise the level of competence, PR, communication and planning on all levels BEFORE attacking.

You don't win my confidence by having incorrect technological arguments such as the unlimited block size equilibrium white paper which is a meaningless model and can only serve to fool n00bs, which doesn't impress those who try to understand the technology deeply. Core is able to impress us, because they get their technological facts more well organized.

And your promises are as trustable as Core's promises (e.g. to increase block size with HF after softfork is approved), so why should we believe BU will do what you say they will do.

Perhaps if you get more of the community behind your with better communication and admitting that the mining is centralized and there is nothing we can do about it, then perhaps more resources will come your way.

But I guess they've strategized on this already and have reasons for doing what they are doing? Perhaps the war is fake and pre-planned to shake cheap BTC from the trees? Or to sustain the illusion of decentralization? I think the last item is the most likely. Neither Core nor the miners want us to realize the system is centralized, so they fight proxy issues instead of going directly to the point:

Point being that the small blocks = decentralization might be an erroneous strawman argument constructed to fool us into thinking we couldn't have larger blocks sooner.

Why is Core trying to fool us? Is it to keep the illusion of decentralization alive? Perhaps some of you who are more intimately familiar with Core's arguments can clue me in. I haven't been following all the wranglings over the past year.

[jbreher]

And your promises are as trustable as Core's promises (e.g. to increase block size with HF after softfork is approved), so why should we believe BU will do what you say they will do.

I understand that. And it is even worse than you represent. There are no promises in what I said above. I do not speak for BU. All I can do is relay my impression based upon my regular conversations with the principals.

[BillyBobZorton]

Might be true. I've been pondering that today. If BU can successfully attack the token holders, then that should be proof that even small 1MB blocks don't stop mining cartelization/centralization.

In which case, larger blocks along with LN would provide more choice to users. As I wrote upthread, Core has masterfully fooled some people into believing they are rational with no ulterior motive.

But then I don't understand how Core could have ever expected to succeed, since the miners would naturally fork the protocol and increase the block size so they can get more revenue. Core's apparent goal of forcing users to use LN appears to be impossible to enforce (mining will always be a cartel and the cartel will not agree to be stripped of revenue).

But on the flip side, the mining cartel ostensibly doesn't want to allow off chain LN scaling (which is why they won't fix malleability) because that would compete with the miners for on chain fees.

Some have argued that enabling LN would increase overall usership and thus increase onchain transaction fee revenue.

So if BU was sincere, they could demonstrate it by including the necessary fixes to enable LN in their planned HF. Because otherwise we can look forward possibly to a monopoly on block size and thus miners squeezing the market for maximum fees inhibiting the scaling of Bitcoin.

(I'm duplicating this to two other places, because readers can't go clicking links off to so many other places to find the key points, but I am linking it here, so you can decide to reply just here if you want. Your decision obviously. I'd like to finish this discussion asap if possible.)

Core wants to raise the block size, no one in Core (except the guy that actually wants smaller blocks) wants to stay 1MB forever, but we must do things right, that means segwit must be activated before any blocksize increase since it solves quadratic hashing problem and so on.

BUcoin can do nothing, they are incompetent. They will last 2 seconds in the wild after a hard fork, tons of bugs and exploits ready to kill it in the case they hard fork, nobody will trust it with their money.

Miners going against a 80%+ of nodes are obviously out of their mind and will meet their mistake via PoW change. Smart devs will guarantee BTC does not become exploitable during this period of reorganization.

But then I don't understand how Core could have ever expected to succeed, since the miners would naturally fork the protocol and increase the block size so they can get more revenue.

Increasing block size = less fees. I don't see why people trust the miners with BU, they could block the blocksize forever and never increase it to keep milking as-high-as-possible fees. The idiot miners supporting BU are either bribed or are stupid enough to not see beyond short term profits.

PS: Yes, we can do nothing against PoW hashrate centralization (thus far, maybe in the future someone comes up with a better idea to end up centralized long term), but at least lets keep the network decentralized so average joes can run nodes and have a say to make balance against mining cartels. We lose this and we are lost.

[york780]

Might be true. I've been pondering that today. If BU can successfully attack the token holders, then that should be proof that even small 1MB blocks don't stop mining cartelization/centralization.

In which case, larger blocks along with LN would provide more choice to users. As I wrote upthread, Core has masterfully fooled some people into believing they are rational with no ulterior motive.

But then I don't understand how Core could have ever expected to succeed, since the miners would naturally fork the protocol and increase the block size so they can get more revenue. Core's apparent goal of forcing users to use LN appears to be impossible to enforce (mining will always be a cartel and the cartel will not agree to be stripped of revenue).

But on the flip side, the mining cartel ostensibly doesn't want to allow off chain LN scaling (which is why they won't fix malleability) because that would compete with the miners for on chain fees.

Some have argued that enabling LN would increase overall usership and thus increase onchain transaction fee revenue.

So if BU was sincere, they could demonstrate it by including the necessary fixes to enable LN in their planned HF. Because otherwise we can look forward possibly to a monopoly on block size and thus miners squeezing the market for maximum fees inhibiting the scaling of Bitcoin.

(I'm duplicating this to two other places, because readers can't go clicking links off to so many other places to find the key points, but I am linking it here, so you can decide to reply just here if you want. Your decision obviously. I'd like to finish this discussion asap if possible.)

Core wants to raise the block size, no one in Core (except the guy that actually wants smaller blocks) wants to stay 1MB forever, but we must do things right, that means segwit must be activated before any blocksize increase since it solves quadratic hashing problem and so on.

BUcoin can do nothing, they are incompetent. They will last 2 seconds in the wild after a hard fork, tons of bugs and exploits ready to kill it in the case they hard fork, nobody will trust it with their money.

Miners going against a 80%+ of nodes are obviously out of their mind and will meet their mistake via PoW change. Smart devs will guarantee BTC does not become exploitable during this period of reorganization.

But then I don't understand how Core could have ever expected to succeed, since the miners would naturally fork the protocol and increase the block size so they can get more revenue.

Increasing block size = less fees. I don't see why people trust the miners with BU, they could block the blocksize forever and never increase it to keep milking as-high-as-possible fees. The idiot miners supporting BU are either bribed or are stupid enough to not see beyond short term profits.

Bigger blocks=BU right? So adopting BU means less fees. Why do the miners support BU when they are collecting less fees because of it?

[BillyBobZorton]

Might be true. I've been pondering that today. If BU can successfully attack the token holders, then that should be proof that even small 1MB blocks don't stop mining cartelization/centralization.

In which case, larger blocks along with LN would provide more choice to users. As I wrote upthread, Core has masterfully fooled some people into believing they are rational with no ulterior motive.

But then I don't understand how Core could have ever expected to succeed, since the miners would naturally fork the protocol and increase the block size so they can get more revenue. Core's apparent goal of forcing users to use LN appears to be impossible to enforce (mining will always be a cartel and the cartel will not agree to be stripped of revenue).

But on the flip side, the mining cartel ostensibly doesn't want to allow off chain LN scaling (which is why they won't fix malleability) because that would compete with the miners for on chain fees.

Some have argued that enabling LN would increase overall usership and thus increase onchain transaction fee revenue.

So if BU was sincere, they could demonstrate it by including the necessary fixes to enable LN in their planned HF. Because otherwise we can look forward possibly to a monopoly on block size and thus miners squeezing the market for maximum fees inhibiting the scaling of Bitcoin.

(I'm duplicating this to two other places, because readers can't go clicking links off to so many other places to find the key points, but I am linking it here, so you can decide to reply just here if you want. Your decision obviously. I'd like to finish this discussion asap if possible.)

Core wants to raise the block size, no one in Core (except the guy that actually wants smaller blocks) wants to stay 1MB forever, but we must do things right, that means segwit must be activated before any blocksize increase since it solves quadratic hashing problem and so on.

BUcoin can do nothing, they are incompetent. They will last 2 seconds in the wild after a hard fork, tons of bugs and exploits ready to kill it in the case they hard fork, nobody will trust it with their money.

Miners going against a 80%+ of nodes are obviously out of their mind and will meet their mistake via PoW change. Smart devs will guarantee BTC does not become exploitable during this period of reorganization.

But then I don't understand how Core could have ever expected to succeed, since the miners would naturally fork the protocol and increase the block size so they can get more revenue.

Increasing block size = less fees. I don't see why people trust the miners with BU, they could block the blocksize forever and never increase it to keep milking as-high-as-possible fees. The idiot miners supporting BU are either bribed or are stupid enough to not see beyond short term profits.

Bigger blocks=BU right? So adopting BU means less fees. Why do the miners support BU when they are collecting less fees because of it?

Because BU givers miners pretty much unilateral control over block size. So they become kings of the whole thing. They could make big pressure by changing block size at will. "Support us or else meet our massive hashrate" is their weapon. People are delusional giving away power to money obsessed chinamen.

[teramit]

Right now Segwit has more support than BU
Segwit=34%
BU = 33,3%

[gentlemand]

Right now Segwit has more support than BU
Segwit=34%
BU = 33,3%

Isn't that just bog standard variance? The same way that BU was over 40% for a day or two. It would need to continue for a string of blocks to be able to get full sense out of it.

[andyatcrux]

A telling sign as well is the number of community and miners that have not yet signaled either Segwit or BU but are prepared for one or the other.




https://coin.dance/poli

[andyatcrux]

Right now Segwit has more support than BU
Segwit=34%
BU = 33,3%

Isn't that just bog standard variance? The same way that BU was over 40% for a day or two. It would need to continue for a string of blocks to be able to get full sense out of it.

Yes, the Segwit miners have had some luck the past 24 hours.

[iamnotback]

My reaction is you need better communication with the token holders.

...

Perhaps if you get more of the community behind your with better communication and admitting that the mining is centralized and there is nothing we can do about it, then perhaps more resources will come your way.

So they did it, but tried to continue the illusion:

Re: Why Bitcoin won’t hardfork like Ethereum

Some people spread rumors around, saying that the mining industry will control Bitcoin if BU wins. This is obviously a fallacy, no one can fight against the market unless he possess more money than the market.

As if the market will have any other choice. That was a nice lie.

Now that Bitcoin is at least 51% mined from China, prepare for future regulations to be enforced on all transactions. The reference to Taiwan a subliminal warning to Westerners of their future ass kicking humiliation.

The BU mining cartel admitted it can and will 51% attack when required to.

I warned you all last year. And you all said I was spreading FUD.

When you guys are serious about decapitating the centralized power of the miners, come talk to me.

[iamnotback]

@jbreher, I finally analyzed Andrew Sutton's research and I found it is flawed:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18323030#msg18323030

[iamnotback]

Ah the plot thickens. Looks like a change in PoW hash is imminent. The DAO hacker is going to strike again. Unless the Chinaman aborts. Core is possibly luring the mining cartel into a trap.

[Killerpotleaf]

Ah the plot thickens. Looks like a change in PoW hash is imminent. The DAO hacker is going to strike again. Unless the Chinaman aborts. Core is possibly luring the mining cartel into a trap.

thats some HQ fud man 

[megaman84]

I think not many realize the consequences for crypto at all in case BU wins....

Bitcoin will loose trust and won't find mass adoption anymore. People will be even more confused, hence there will be 2 different Bitcoin. Which one is the real one?
I definatley would not accept BTC payments in my shop anymore...

[megashira1_is_hacked]

So if BU were to get its bug issues fixed what would be the problem?

[Searing]

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki

what about this....could it be this easy? or would BU just fork and take the name brand of bitcoin and downsize it ..due to FUD of 2 camps?

[Hyena]

This is it! Bitcoin Unlimited will be the real bitcoin and there will be no hard fork, it is now certain. Read the below paragraph.

Once a certain hash power threshold is met (perhaps 2/3rds or 3/4ths), miners will begin orphaning blocks from non-upgraded miners (e.g., refer to this piece from ViaBTC). This will serve as an expensive-to-ignore reminder to non-compliant miners to get ready for the upgrade.

On the emerging consensus regarding Bitcoin’s block size limit: insights from my visit with Coinbase and Bitpay

[seradj0]

This is it! Bitcoin Unlimited will be the real bitcoin and there will be no hard fork, it is now certain. Read the below paragraph.

Once a certain hash power threshold is met (perhaps 2/3rds or 3/4ths), miners will begin orphaning blocks from non-upgraded miners (e.g., refer to this piece from ViaBTC). This will serve as an expensive-to-ignore reminder to non-compliant miners to get ready for the upgrade.

On the emerging consensus regarding Bitcoin’s block size limit: insights from my visit with Coinbase and Bitpay

I see BTU as a corporate altcoin
president, investor
paid dev for closed source updates
like they said BU = paypal 2.0

[Hyena]

I see BTU as a corporate altcoin
president, investor
paid dev for closed source updates
like they said BU = paypal 2.0

Listen, it doesn't matter. The debate is not about BU, it is about bigger blocks. We need bigger blocks now. If you don't like BU, that's fine. Just support whichever wallet implementation has enabled bigger blocks.