To answer the OP,
-snip-
I appreciate the answer, now what exactly BU is offering that SegWit is not? I also don't understand how Gavin & Roger ver mostly are supporting such a thing as they are early adopters and probably have a net worth of millions of dollars, It's impossible to predict what's gonna happen and seeing them taking such a risk is definitely something phishy.
(1)
SegWit is basically a reconfiguration of the block structure so that a new transaction
type (SegWit TX) can be implemented that creates more space with the 1MB cap. It changes
the "blocksize" into a "blockweight" by allowing 1MB of transaction data in the block and 3MB
of witness data outside of the block. The original purpose was to fix the malleability flaw but
was then seen as also adding "more space to a block". So it is an optimization, a fix, and an
"tx increase". This is not a long term scaling solution but helps facilitate second layers in a
more efficient and safer manner as well as maintains current level of decentralization and
unregulatability by governments.
BU is basically a final scaling solution. This proposal creates a new paradigm that bitcoin has
not experienced ever. It essentially give the miners the power to create any size block, as long
as their BU node network approves of that size cap. In theory, BU is based upon pure economic
market principals that believe that the market is rational and will balance the Bitcoin system to
an appropriate equilibrium. It uses a new Consensus mechanism call "Emergent Consensus".
It is intended to solve scaling so that it follows along the same lines as difficultly adjustments
and halving, as that they are automatic parts of the Bitcoin system.
(2) Gavin and Roger Ver only support the BU version because they believe Satoshi intended
On-Chain scaling, even at the cost of centralization and regulation of the network. Some think
those possibilities were intended by Satoshi, others think they may not happen, and others have
no opinion either way since they are purely interested in mass adoption and low fees only. Gavin
and Roger (and others) truly believe that they are right because they are following the "original
Satoshi plan" of an online currency. They believe that the "original Satoshi plan" has been
sidetracked and/or delayed.
(3) I don't know if Gavin has a lot of coins now, since he doesn't talk about such and he did give
alot away with his old faucet. But Roger Ver claims to be bitcoin wealthy and has shown so by
creating infrastructures and support system that support his Bitcoin beliefs. It is likely that both
believe that their coins would in theory be more valuable in time, as more people get their hands
on and start using bitcoin as a mass payment platform.
(4) If the hardfork occurs, your coins will be safe as long as you do not transact until it has
been shown to be safe. ...
There is one area that makes me wonder though in a hard-fork scenario what happens to the unconfirmed transactions.
Unless you delete the unconfirmed transactions and put the balance back into the forked wallets balance they would be stuck but that pretty seems complex if your not running your own client and using a service instead unless they keep rebroadcasting it.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=35214.20If your tx is in the mempool and unconfirmed at the time of a hardfork, my understanding is that
you will have "double coins". Whats important is whether your tx was including within a block, PRIOR
to the hardfork. That is all. So, if your tx gets 1 confirm, then the hardfork, the receiver now gets the
"double coins". You do not need to delete your pending tx unless you are worried about getting into a
block prior to the hardfork. Point is, if we have warning of the hardfork, you can wait till after the split,
but if it is unexpected, then what will be will be.
The above are my understandings.
