SegWit (26.8%) vs Bitcoin Unlimited (32.2%)

[nowytutaj]

Can someone explain me what will happen with blockchain size after 2MB blocks? Will it start becoming double as big as it is now, or just double as much transactions will happen at a time? Just wondering what will happen with full nodes in year 2020, because setting up full node today require average machine and a week of downloading, and chain doubles its size each year.

[1714634659]

1714634659

[1714634659]

1714634659

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

Can someone explain me what will happen with blockchain size after 2MB blocks? Will it start becoming double as big as it is now, or just double as much transactions will happen at a time? Just wondering what will happen with full nodes in year 2020, because setting up full node today require average machine and a week of downloading, and chain doubles its size each year.

When the block size increases, each block will be able to fit more transactions which means the competition to get your transaction into the block will not be as fierce and you will have have shorter confirmation times with smaller fees.

That's what will happen.

Regarding blockchain size, you can use a torrent to speed that up considerably. At least one use to be able to use a torrent to speed that up considerably.

[franky1]

Can someone explain me what will happen with blockchain size after 2MB blocks? Will it start becoming double as big as it is now, or just double as much transactions will happen at a time? Just wondering what will happen with full nodes in year 2020, because setting up full node today require average machine and a week of downloading, and chain doubles its size each year.

1mb blocks allow a max blockchain growth of ~52gb a year
over the last 8 years (mainly the very first 6 years) blocks were not full which is why right now 8 years of data is not ~420gb
EG before 2013 blocks were less than half filled

however because demand is at a constant 1mb full now. expect ATLEAST 52gb growth/year
-whereby it would be ~52gb a year if we just stay stuck at 1mb blocks.
-whereby it grows beyond 52gb/year depending on demand with more than 1mb blocks being allowed

[OmegaStarScream]

It looks like Bitcoin Unlimited is now  28.5% while SegWit is only 26.2%, I'm starting to think that SegWit has no chance sadly. In the meantime, Coinbase, Bitfinex  decided to list BU as an Altcoin after the soft fork which I think is a good thing because If we ever have the exchanges and online services with SegWit, BU won't have much of a chance even though If miners are supporting it.

[BigBoom3599]

It looks like Bitcoin Unlimited is now  28.5% while SegWit is only 26.2%, I'm starting to think that SegWit has no chance sadly. In the meantime, Coinbase, Bitfinex  decided to list BU as an Altcoin after the soft fork which I think is a good thing because If we ever have the exchanges and online services with SegWit, BU won't have much of a chance even though If miners are supporting it.

I think it's a horrible idea for exchanges to list BU as an altcoin, that only encourages the splitting of the network... It doesn't really matter if we go with SW or BU IMO, but the whole network needs to agree on one of the two, the network ending up in 2 forks is the worst that can happen to Bitcoin atm.  If it does Bitcoin will lose one of its biggest advantages, all the adoption that it has built up over the years.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

It looks like Bitcoin Unlimited is now  28.5% while SegWit is only 26.2%, I'm starting to think that SegWit has no chance sadly. In the meantime, Coinbase, Bitfinex  decided to list BU as an Altcoin after the soft fork which I think is a good thing because If we ever have the exchanges and online services with SegWit, BU won't have much of a chance even though If miners are supporting it.

I think it's a horrible idea for exchanges to list BU as an altcoin, that only encourages the splitting of the network... It doesn't really matter if we go with SW or BU IMO, but the whole network needs to agree on one of the two, the network ending up in 2 forks is the worst that can happen to Bitcoin atm.  If it does Bitcoin will lose one of its biggest advantages, all the adoption that it has built up over the years.

It might not be a bad thing.

Those who want it as a reserve currency would have it as a reserve currency and those who want it as use currency would have it as a use currency.

The free market could then decide which use is better.

There is a drawback though, in that the two currencies would have different values yet payment addresses would look the same. That would cause a huge problem for usage, so I I would prefer it if one of the philosophies started with a new genesis block and a different scheme for base58 payment addresses.

However if blockstream went to SegWit and BU did not, SegWit addresses look different so it may not be that confusing except when using non SegWit addresses on the Blockstream chain.

[franky1]

It might not be a bad thing.

Those who want it as a reserve currency would have it as a reserve currency and those who want it as use currency would have it as a use currency.

The free market could then decide which use is better.

There is a drawback though, in that the two currencies would have different values yet payment addresses would look the same. That would cause a huge problem for usage, so I I would prefer it if one of the philosophies started with a new genesis block and a different scheme for base58 payment addresses.

However if blockstream went to SegWit and BU did not, SegWit addresses look different so it may not be that confusing except when using non SegWit addresses on the Blockstream chain.

segwit started as an altcoin(elments project) with its own genesis block
segwit also rewrote thousands of lines of code just to become bitcoin compatible
segwit requires moving people away from native tx addresses to get segwit benefits
segwit requires banning and moving nodes around and orphaning native blocks

where as
BU is just a tweak to bitcoin code and people dont need to move funds just to get BU benefits
BU treats blocks under 1mb just as valid


so segwit should start a new genesis block

[Stedsm]

What I don't understand between Segwit and Bitcoin Unlimited is, whoever wins the race, will they get the complete control over the whole bitcoin network as well as nodes, or is it limited to something specific, like mining?

[franky1]

What I don't understand between Segwit and Bitcoin Unlimited is, whoever wins the race, will they get the complete control over the whole bitcoin network as well as nodes, or is it limited to something specific, like mining?

BU stays on the same playing field as classic, xt and about a dozen other implementations. and requires core to only rewrite a few lines of code to be on the same playing field

segwit requires everyone to rewrite thousands of lines of code to match segwit. or just download it from the blockstream controlled repo.

the minority(core) avoiding any rewriting/downloading/upgrading to either. will (either BU or SW activates) not remain 'full nodes' and it then becomes useless to be a node as you might aswell just be running an spv(lite) wallet

[RealBitcoin]

we cannot 'give'. they take because they can due to their role and investment. you would do the same in their place.

No, we give them, if we are passive.

It's the nodes who should be in charge, not the miners. Segwit really needs to address that issue, and not give power in miners hands.

If you let the miners take over, then the miners will effectively become the Central Bank of Bitcoin, that's a fact.

[David Rabahy]

Let's suppose SegWit is pretty good stuff but is falling behind in the public relations department.  Is there a way to incorporate SegWit without forcing everyone to move their coins to new SegWit-compatible addresses?  Or am I confused?

I'm lazy and don't want to have to do anything.  Besides which there will be the fees to be paid to get my investment/holdings moved to the new addresses.  If I don't move them then eventually they will become valueless, right?

If all of this is right then Satoshi's coins will either have to move (interesting) or become worthless (interesting).

If forced to chose at this very moment then I would be inclined to chose BU.  I would much rather see the two camps compromise.

How much does the https://bitnodes.21.co/dashboard/ User Agents chart matter to folks?

[AngryDwarf]

Let's suppose SegWit is pretty good stuff but is falling behind in the public relations department.  Is there a way to incorporate SegWit without forcing everyone to move their coins to new SegWit-compatible addresses?  Or am I confused?

I'm lazy and don't want to have to do anything.  Besides which there will be the fees to be paid to get my investment/holdings moved to the new addresses.  If I don't move them then eventually they will become valueless, right?

If all of this is right then Satoshi's coins will either have to move (interesting) or become worthless (interesting).

If forced to chose at this very moment then I would be inclined to chose BU.  I would much rather see the two camps compromise.

How much does the https://bitnodes.21.co/dashboard/ User Agents chart matter to folks?

You need to check your terms & conditions of your investment trusts to see what would happen should a bilateral split occur. Similarly, the same applies for online wallets or exchange accounts I should think.

At the moment there has been no announcement that native UTXO sets will become invalid if segwit activates. Leave your coins unmoved in your desktop or paper wallet and you will have an equal stake in both coins should a bilateral split occur.

[Carlton Banks]

At the moment there has been no announcement that native UTXO sets will become invalid if segwit activates. Leave your coins unmoved in your desktop or paper wallet and you will have an equal stake in both coins should a bilateral split occur.

David Rabahy's had this demonstrated to him in the past, and still behaves as if he doesn't understand this blindingly obvious "subtlety".



David, do people actually take investment advice from you? On Bitcoin? They are incredibly unwise to take advice from a financial adviser one who states

"I'm lazy and don't want to have to do anything"

[BitcoinNewsMagazine]

Shaolin Fry has committed a bip-segwit-flagday draft that may be useful.

[AngryDwarf]

Shaolin Fry has committed a bip-segwit-flagday draft that may be useful.

Interesting development: (Definitely worth reading)

-------------------------

  Status: Draft
  Type: Informational
  Created: 2017-03-12

Motivation

Cause the mandatory activation of the existing segwit deployment before the end of midnight November 15th 2017.

--------------------------

[bitcampaign]

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-unlimited-reaches-almost-40/
Bitcoin Unlimited Reaches Almost 40% 

[andron8383]

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-unlimited-reaches-almost-40/
Bitcoin Unlimited Reaches Almost 40% 

Let them be new altcoin like XT Classic , who cares about them now ?
Mining will be centralized over time IMO.
Over time few people will own pools / hardware factories and we will and like FED but miners FED.
Once few people have monopoly at mining they can force even 1% inflation if they want.
They will just say we will stop mining with 99% of machines and what you can do to me ?

Shitcoins had solution for that with fast recalculating blocks if time-limit is not reached.

[Lauda]

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-unlimited-reaches-almost-40/
Bitcoin Unlimited Reaches Almost 40% 

You can watch the current signaling here: https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools?resolution=24h. You don't need to rely on any news articles for such. Keep in mind that ironically, almost no miner (besides Bitcoin.com) is actually running BU. They are just signalling it.

[jonald_fyookball]

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-unlimited-reaches-almost-40/
Bitcoin Unlimited Reaches Almost 40% 

You can watch the current signaling here: https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools?resolution=24h. You don't need to rely on any news articles for such. Keep in mind that ironically, almost no miner (besides Bitcoin.com) is actually running BU. They are just signalling it.

Probably because they are waiting for 75% to diminish the impact of a contentious fork.

[-ck]

Keep in mind that ironically, almost no miner (besides Bitcoin.com) is actually running BU. They are just signalling it.

There are also substantial performance improvements in core 0.13 and 0.14 that haven't made their way into the BU code so miners would lose all those benefits by abandoning the core client.