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

[OmegaStarScream]

I'm not entirely sure of what happened but It looks like Bitcoin Unlimited is seriously catching up with SegWit while SW is pretty much stable and not changing. I want to know now, If BU get 95%, is it when It will get activated and If yes, we will have to download another client or they will take control over the current Bitcoin Core Repository because It looks pretty much confusing... and should we switch our coins somewhere else after that?

[1714630061]

1714630061

[dinofelis]

Immutability at work.  Perfect consensus over status quo.
Not the slightest bit of consensus over alternatives.  That was what the immutability dynamics of bitcoin was all about, and it works marvellously.  Not the slightest bit of chance of a rule-changing consensus.  Ever.  That is what "immutability of the rules" means.

Two options: when near 50-50: a hard fork and two coins.  Or, nothing.

[Amph]

Immutability at work.  Perfect consensus over status quo.
Not the slightest bit of consensus over alternatives.  That was what the immutability dynamics of bitcoin was all about, and it works marvellously.  Not the slightest bit of chance of a rule-changing consensus.  Ever.  That is what "immutability of the rules" means.

Two options: when near 50-50: a hard fork and two coins.  Or, nothing.

hard fork and two coins is worse than having one single chain that take over, i don't know where you see this as a good thing, the value would split and bitcoin would lose credibility

i'm all for the block limit fix and i don't care at this point how you achieve it, if miners(the majority) decide for bu, nothing can be done, BU will be the new bitcoin and yes you need to download the new client, since it's and hard fork

[BigBoom3599]

This is probably due to AntPool starting to signal for BU, if they go trough with it we'll see a significant rise in BU hashrate. It may even cause others to jump on and get the train rolling. I agree with Amph, we need something quick, it doesn't really matter which of the two.

[dinofelis]

Immutability at work.  Perfect consensus over status quo.
Not the slightest bit of consensus over alternatives.  That was what the immutability dynamics of bitcoin was all about, and it works marvellously.  Not the slightest bit of chance of a rule-changing consensus.  Ever.  That is what "immutability of the rules" means.

Two options: when near 50-50: a hard fork and two coins.  Or, nothing.

hard fork and two coins is worse than having one single chain that take over, i don't know where you see this as a good thing, the value would split and bitcoin would lose credibility

i'm all for the block limit fix and i don't care at this point how you achieve it, if miners(the majority) decide for bu, nothing can be done, BU will be the new bitcoin and yes you need to download the new client, since it's and hard fork

I'm not commenting on "good" or "bad".  I'm telling you about the dynamics of a distributed consensus system, which has as hypothesis that all scarcity parameters are frozen in eternally (that, for instance, 21 million coins cannot be changed by full consensus).  Now, block chain room became a scarcity parameter, just as valuable as the 21 million coins limit.  So, if distributed consensus mechanisms work as expected, that is, if they impose immutability, then this parameter will not be changed any more ever.  If too much tension arises between two camps, a hard fork will happen.  It is not a matter of "good" or "bad".

As I said, as long as the main value proposition of bitcoin is "first mover advantage", people will be so afraid of a hard fork and two coins, that it will not happen.  Status quo.  From the moment that bitcoin's first mover advantage over altcoins will be eroded, the hard fork will be acceptable.

But what will NOT happen, is a single bitcoin chain, with a bigger block chain, segwit or whatever.  Unless bitcoin becomes sufficiently centralized that the consensus mechanism breaks down, and a cartel can make decisions.

[bcmine]

Dont let the cartel from Roger Ver and Bu altcoin take over! Fight. Of course chinese miner wants bigger blocks so they can mine more blocks then people outside the china internet wall.

[dinofelis]

Dont let the cartel from Roger Ver and Bu altcoin take over! Fight. Of course chinese miner wants bigger blocks so they can mine more blocks then people outside the china internet wall.

This is exactly the "immutability" at work, and why I am convinced that nothing will happen.

[AgentofCoin]

...
...If BU get 95%, is it when It will get activated and If yes, we will have to download another client or they will take control over the current Bitcoin Core Repository because It looks pretty much confusing... and should we switch our coins somewhere else after that?

To answer the OP,

(1) My understanding is that BU has the coded ability to hardfork at 51%,
but it is likely they will wait till more, around 75% consensus according to what I have
read previously (75% = current verbal agreement.). As a comparison, SegWit has
it's consensus set for 95%.

(2) If BU hardforks whether at 51% all the way up to 100%, and you wish to follow their
chain, whether it becomes the main chain or is one of two, you will need to download
their BU client in order to transact on that chain.

(3) If BU hardforks, whatever the result, Core Github and BU Github will remain separate
most likely. If in the event Core devs would like to work on BU later, they will need to
participate on the BU Github, presumably.

(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. You will have the same amount of coins on both chains, both
associated with your single privatekey. It is best for noobs to wait and hold their coins until
the community and devs determine it is safe to move and how to move if there are any
special precautions.

[dinofelis]

(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. You will have the same amount of coins on both chains, both
associated with your single privatekey. It is best for noobs to wait and hold their coins until
the community and devs determine it is safe to move and how to move if there are any
special precautions.

Indeed, and the only way to distinguish transactions between the two chains, is to mix with coins mined on one fork only.  Otherwise, your signature is valid on both chains and your transaction will happen in both coins.

[aarturka]

chinese miners are afraid of the UASF. If unlimited gets 51% they become another alt and finaly we get rid of Ver, Andressen, Hearn and other Judas.
When split happens it's important not to miss the moment and sell all BU, before it's price is dumped to the lever of the other alts

[tomkat]

chinese miners are afraid of the UASF. If unlimited gets 51% they become another alt and finaly we get rid of Ver, Andressen, Hearn and other Judas.
When split happens it's important not to miss the moment and sell all BU, before it's price is dumped to the lever of the other alts

If unlimited gets 51%, then it's rather core being an altcoin with its 49% minority, isn't it?

[OmegaStarScream]

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.

[dinofelis]

chinese miners are afraid of the UASF. If unlimited gets 51% they become another alt and finaly we get rid of Ver, Andressen, Hearn and other Judas.
When split happens it's important not to miss the moment and sell all BU, before it's price is dumped to the lever of the other alts

If unlimited gets 51%, then it's rather core being an altcoin with its 49% minority, isn't it?

Strictly speaking, no.  The original protocol is the original coin.  But with ethereum too, they "stole the name".  The original ethereum is now ETC, and the new altcoin with the modified protocol kept the name, ETH.

Note that the original splitting in mining power doesn't mean much, as two coins will emerge, and it is the MARKET CAP that will determine the mining ratio, and not the other way around.  Even a "minority miner" coin, that gets a higher market cap, will be very lucrative to mine, so will attract more miners.  And a "majority miner coin" that plummets in the market, will not be interesting to mine with high difficulty and low market value.  So miners will leave it, until miner ratio will equal market cap ratio.

[tomkat]

chinese miners are afraid of the UASF. If unlimited gets 51% they become another alt and finaly we get rid of Ver, Andressen, Hearn and other Judas.
When split happens it's important not to miss the moment and sell all BU, before it's price is dumped to the lever of the other alts

If unlimited gets 51%, then it's rather core being an altcoin with its 49% minority, isn't it?

Strictly speaking, no.  The original protocol is the original coin.  But with ethereum too, they "stole the name".  The original ethereum is now ETC, and the new altcoin with the modified protocol kept the name, ETH.

Note that the original splitting in mining power doesn't mean much, as two coins will emerge, and it is the MARKET CAP that will determine the mining ratio, and not the other way around.  Even a "minority miner" coin, that gets a higher market cap, will be very lucrative to mine, so will attract more miners.  And a "majority miner coin" that plummets in the market, will not be interesting to mine with high difficulty and low market value.  So miners will leave it, until miner ratio will equal market cap ratio.

Well, almost everything in your post is just speculations, imo. That's because you wouldn't be able to define what is "the original protocol" in Bitcoin, and no one in this world will ever be able to judge which one is original Ethereum. Also, no one is able to predict what's gonna happen in case of split. ETC exists because exchanges listed it, so if no exchanges will list any of the forked Bitcoin branch, then how are you going to perform a valuation? There're so many factors that the post-split reality is unpredictable.

[dinofelis]

Well, almost everything in your post is just speculations, imo. That's because you wouldn't be able to define what is "the original protocol" in Bitcoin, and no one in this world will ever be able to judge which one is original Ethereum. Also, no one is able to predict what's gonna happen in case of split. ETC exists because exchanges listed it, so if no exchanges will list any of the forked Bitcoin branch, then how are you going to perform a valuation? There're so many factors that the post-split reality is unpredictable.

Exchanges list it if they think that there will be transaction volume, which is their source of income.  ETC/ETH has been very lucrative to exchanges.  Why wouldn't they list it ?   The first exchange that lists the split, will take the lion's share of the initial volume.  Can you imagine the gains ?  Other exchanges will be eager to do so too, or leave the volume to their competitor.

Moreover, there is all chance to have a huge initial volume, because everybody owning "old bitcoin" will have "free money" on the chain that he doesn't like, and will try to cash it out for the coin he likes.  What exchange wouldn't want that volume ?

And concerning "the original protocol", that's easy: for bitcoin, it is the current one.  All the previous ones are dead, and their chains stopped.  For ethereum, it is the one that was continued by ETC.  Simple.

"not listing" to "protect the unity of bitcoin" is suffering from the tragedy of the commons.  You are foregoing a huge reward in the form of transaction fees while those not adhering to it, reap in the part you could have taken.

[Cashew]

People here are definitely not learning anything... Unlimited is like the Communist Party of nowadays, this is some kind of dreams. SegWit threshold is too low, and should be increased to 95% like Unlimited. This way we would be sure none will ever get activated ...

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

(2) If BU hardforks whether at 51% all the way up to 100%, and you wish to follow their
chain, whether it becomes the main chain or is one of two, you will need to download
their BU client in order to transact on that chain.

Or rebuild any of the other clients changing probably just one line of code so they accept 8 MB blocks.

[dinofelis]

(2) If BU hardforks whether at 51% all the way up to 100%, and you wish to follow their
chain, whether it becomes the main chain or is one of two, you will need to download
their BU client in order to transact on that chain.

Or rebuild any of the other clients changing probably just one line of code so they accept 8 MB blocks.

It is pretty evident that if you want to use an alt coin, that you need a wallet talking the protocol of that alt coin...
You can't transact litecoins with a monero wallet either...

[dfd1]

Note that the original splitting in mining power doesn't mean much, as two coins will emerge, and it is the MARKET CAP that will determine the mining ratio, and not the other way around.  Even a "minority miner" coin, that gets a higher market cap, will be very lucrative to mine, so will attract more miners.  And a "majority miner coin" that plummets in the market, will not be interesting to mine with high difficulty and low market value.  So miners will leave it, until miner ratio will equal market cap ratio.

Isn't it like both coins can be merged mined, so miners simply would not  care and mine both?

[dinofelis]

Isn't it like both coins can be merged mined, so miners simply would not  care and mine both?

Well, of course, but they have to pick a chain to spend their hashrate on.  Merge mining doesn't mean that you mine *at the same time* on both chains.  It only means that you can switch easily BETWEEN chains.   But you have to chose for each block.