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

[cpfreeplz]

What happens if there is 50/50 between BU and core and there is a hard fork? Do we now own bitcoin 1.0 and bitcoin 2.0 or do you have to switch your coins to one and hope you made the right choice? I've never been through a hard fork with bitcoins (or any alts tbh).

[Hexadecibel]

It seems to me that BU will take over Segwit. I dont know if it's good or bad.

But the inability of the devs to figure out a solution faster is leading to this. Plus, we are tired of huge fees.

So whatever can fix the fee problem, I will stand besides it.

If we dont fix the fee problem, we wont have any bitcoin to debate about, so better choose now, and risk bitcoin, than to lose bitcoin altogether over some other coin.

It's a good thing.

Core and Blockstream don't think there is a fee problem. They want to kick regular people off the network by maintaining 1mb blocks, a limitation originally intended as an anti-spam measure.

Bitcoin unlimited isn't against 2nd layer solutions (look up flextrans) but not to the determent of normal people using the Bitcoin Block Chain.

[AgentofCoin]

What happens if there is 50/50 between BU and core and there is a hard fork? Do we now own bitcoin 1.0 and bitcoin 2.0 or do you have to switch your coins to one and hope you made the right choice? I've never been through a hard fork with bitcoins (or any alts tbh).

Your question was previously answered earlier in the thread
(as well as millions of other times in millions of other threads).

...

...
(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.

[Hexadecibel]

What happens if there is 50/50 between BU and core and there is a hard fork? Do we now own bitcoin 1.0 and bitcoin 2.0 or do you have to switch your coins to one and hope you made the right choice? I've never been through a hard fork with bitcoins (or any alts tbh).

BU will not activate until it has 75% hashing power. Once activated, the hard fork won't go into affect for some time, allowing miners who have not yet transitioned over to make the change... or be left behind.

[cpfreeplz]

What happens if there is 50/50 between BU and core and there is a hard fork? Do we now own bitcoin 1.0 and bitcoin 2.0 or do you have to switch your coins to one and hope you made the right choice? I've never been through a hard fork with bitcoins (or any alts tbh).

Your question was previously answered earlier in the thread
(as well as millions of other times in millions of other threads).

...

...
(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.

Perfect thanks. I was just looking through and still couldn't find the answer. So I'll have bitcoin and a bitcoin clone then I'll just hang onto both and see which does better basically. As long as I don't have to do anything then it's pretty fool proof!

[AgentofCoin]

What happens if there is 50/50 between BU and core and there is a hard fork? Do we now own bitcoin 1.0 and bitcoin 2.0 or do you have to switch your coins to one and hope you made the right choice? I've never been through a hard fork with bitcoins (or any alts tbh).

BU will not activate until it has 75% hashing power. Once activated, the hard fork won't go into affect for some time, allowing miners who have not yet transitioned over to make the change... or be left behind.

The code is designed so that it is possible at 51%.
75% is what the community is currently agreeing to defer to.

So "activating" at 75% is contingent that they do not agree to reduce it later,
for example if only 65% could be reached.

[AgentofCoin]

What happens if there is 50/50 between BU and core and there is a hard fork? Do we now own bitcoin 1.0 and bitcoin 2.0 or do you have to switch your coins to one and hope you made the right choice? I've never been through a hard fork with bitcoins (or any alts tbh).

Your question was previously answered earlier in the thread
(as well as millions of other times in millions of other threads).

...

...
(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.

Perfect thanks. I was just looking through and still couldn't find the answer. So I'll have bitcoin and a bitcoin clone then I'll just hang onto both and see which does better basically. As long as I don't have to do anything then it's pretty fool proof!

Yes, in theory. If you hold, you are safe.
If you re not experienced in such, you should wait and see before transacting or trading.

[ebliever]

It seems to me that BU will take over Segwit. I dont know if it's good or bad.

But the inability of the devs to figure out a solution faster is leading to this. Plus, we are tired of huge fees.

So whatever can fix the fee problem, I will stand besides it.

If we dont fix the fee problem, we wont have any bitcoin to debate about, so better choose now, and risk bitcoin, than to lose bitcoin altogether over some other coin.

It's a good thing.

Core and Blockstream don't think there is a fee problem. They want to kick regular people off the network by maintaining 1mb blocks, a limitation originally intended as an anti-spam measure.

Bitcoin unlimited isn't against 2nd layer solutions (look up flextrans) but not to the determent of normal people using the Bitcoin Block Chain.

If they didn't think there was a fee problem they wouldn't be working on segwit/LN implementation.

I went looking for a roadmap for BU today and what I found was a seven months old, very weak regarding the current issues, and and vague about the proposals it did have. This is not a serious alternative to core/segwit/LN.  Hating on core without evidence they are doing anything wrong is not going to fix anything.

If I had a miner I'd be doing exactly what the folks on Reddit are doing - signalling support for BU so they go ahead with their plans, then pull the rug out from under them once they commit. It's time to end this foolishness.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

If I had a miner I'd be doing exactly what the folks on Reddit are doing - signalling support for BU so they go ahead with their plans, then pull the rug out from under them once they commit. It's time to end this foolishness.

While I suppose it is your right to use deception to get what you want, though I'm not sure how that lines up with other passages from the good book you quote in your sig,

Didn't it have some words to say about The Deceiver?

[franky1]

If they didn't think there was a fee problem they wouldn't be working on segwit/LN implementation.

I went looking for a roadmap for BU today and what I found was a seven months old, very weak regarding the current issues, and and vague about the proposals it did have. This is not a serious alternative to core/segwit/LN.  Hating on core without evidence they are doing anything wrong is not going to fix anything.

If I had a miner I'd be doing exactly what the folks on Reddit are doing - signalling support for BU so they go ahead with their plans, then pull the rug out from under them once they commit. It's time to end this foolishness.

simple solutions dont require big re-writes
real workable solutions dont need excuses of why X, Y, X are needed . then downplaying it when its revealed that X and Y are not needed and Z is actually an A(complete opposite)

simple solutions don't need to promise things and then pretend the promises still promise even when it wont be achieved even if they got super majority
simple solutions dont need to suck eggs and write scripts with buzzword of the month competitions to show which spammers are involved in the competition (like a secret handshake)(bucoin btucoin, ad-hom, conservative)

[hv_]

It seems to me that BU will take over Segwit. I dont know if it's good or bad.

But the inability of the devs to figure out a solution faster is leading to this. Plus, we are tired of huge fees.

So whatever can fix the fee problem, I will stand besides it.

If we dont fix the fee problem, we wont have any bitcoin to debate about, so better choose now, and risk bitcoin, than to lose bitcoin altogether over some other coin.

It's a good thing.

Core and Blockstream don't think there is a fee problem. They want to kick regular people off the network by maintaining 1mb blocks, a limitation originally intended as an anti-spam measure.

Bitcoin unlimited isn't against 2nd layer solutions (look up flextrans) but not to the determent of normal people using the Bitcoin Block Chain.

Its pretty logical:

Blockstream offers very limited space for miners, but unlimited for 2nd layer = Blockstream Unlimited 2ndLayer Coins


Good for Miners ?  - No, only good for 2nd layer projects. Penalty for miners. Not economically balanced!



Bitcoin Unlimited offers both - just no limits = real disruption bitcoin   <-  I want rather that

Miners might be more happy with that open competition vs 2nd layer scaling. Better eco balanced.

[jacafbiz]

.

Core and Blockstream don't think there is a fee problem. They want to kick regular people off the network by maintaining 1mb blocks, a limitation originally intended as an anti-spam measure.

I think you got it all wrong with your assessment of Core intention, Lighting will bring the transaction fee down considerably, also the SegWit will move the blocksize to more than 2mb, which I'm sure is significant for now and this will make on chain scaling possible.

I want to ask you do you trust the code written by Bitcoin Unlimited team. When are people going to understand that bigger doesn't mean better

[AngryDwarf]

also the SegWit will move the blocksize to more than 2mb, which I'm sure is significant for now and this will make on chain scaling possible.

But only if all UTXO's are moved from native keys to segwit keys, I have understood this right? If all UTXO's where moved from native keys to segwit keys, one input to one output, how long would it take move all UTXO's over, assuming there are no other transactions to process?

[Searing]

Hello class ..can we say "pending train wreck"



Lets face it guys it is ALL my fault....if BTC tanks to 'beanie baby status". My one shot at making a killing.

The ASIC/CRYPTO gods shall likely 'smite' me and I will take you all with me...

(hey its a gift ..if there is money to be made..I can inverse that puppy in no time at all)

[hv_]

Hello class ..can we say "pending train wreck"



Lets face it guys it is ALL my fault....if BTC tanks to 'beanie baby status". My one shot at making a killing.

The ASIC/CRYPTO gods shall likely 'smite' me and I will take you all with me...

(hey its a gift ..if there is money to be made..I can inverse that puppy in no time at all)

No - it's not your fault.  We've been told right before the start: It just cannot scale - and we tired anyway:

http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09963.html

[franky1]

how long would it take move all UTXO's over, assuming there are no other transactions to process?

46million outputs
http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/unspent-transaction-output-set

on average equates to about 18million transactions

if every user voluntarily moved their funds (including the oldtimers and satoshi)
if every block was filled with ONLY the 'opt-in' to segwit (average native tx to a segwit tx)

AT BEST. 2 months of constantly filled blocks just to pay themselves just to 'opt-in' to segwit

[dinofelis]

No - it's not your fault.  We've been told right before the start: It just cannot scale - and we tired anyway:

http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09963.html

Someone got it.

However, between "cannot scale" because of technological limitations, and "cannot scale" because frozen into the protocol for ever, there's still some room

Bitcoin is frozen in far before the technological (and moving) limits are reached.

[AngryDwarf]

how long would it take move all UTXO's over, assuming there are no other transactions to process?

46million outputs
http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/unspent-transaction-output-set

on average equates to about 18million transactions

I calculate that to be between a 70 day operation for average transactions at 3 tps, to 76 days for 1 input to output at 7 tps. Or maybe I need another cup of coffee to wake up if I have calculated it wrong.

[franky1]

how long would it take move all UTXO's over, assuming there are no other transactions to process?

46million outputs
http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/unspent-transaction-output-set

on average equates to about 18million transactions

I calculate that to be between a 70 day operation for average transactions at 3 tps, to 76 days for 1 input to output at 7 tps. Or maybe I need another cup of coffee to wake up if I have calculated it wrong.

not an exact science. i used the average of 2100tx per block*144 block with the 18mill tx average
18m/144/2100=59days


but think about it. 18million transactions (46mill outputs) all trying to rush to 'opt-in'
... mempool crash

but think about it. will malicious users 'opt-in' or see a good oppertunity to stick with native-to-native and cause further disruption while the sheep think they can achieve 100% voluntarily.

[AngryDwarf]

how long would it take move all UTXO's over, assuming there are no other transactions to process?

46million outputs
http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/unspent-transaction-output-set

on average equates to about 18million transactions

I calculate that to be between a 70 day operation for average transactions at 3 tps, to 76 days for 1 input to output at 7 tps. Or maybe I need another cup of coffee to wake up if I have calculated it wrong.

not an exact science. i used the average of 2100tx per block*144 block with the 18mill tx average
18m/144/2100=59days


but think about it. 18million transactions (46mill outputs) all trying to rush to 'opt-in'
... mempool crash

but think about it. will malicious users 'opt-in' or see a good oppertunity to stick with native-to-native and cause further disruption while the sheep think they can achieve 100% voluntarily.

Either back of the fag packet calculations gives a good idea of a 2 month migration cost being added to the chain, assuming everybody voluntarily moves over. So we do not get that promised transaction rate increase for a very long time in practice.