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

[dinofelis]

Looks like this could very well be the end game for bitcoin.

The end game for bitcoin as a "currency on the internet", but its beginning as an institutionalized reserve currency.

[1713311538]

1713311538

[1713311538]

1713311538

[1713311538]

1713311538

[1713311538]

1713311538

[AngryDwarf]

Looks like this could very well be the end game for bitcoin.

The end game for bitcoin as a "currency on the internet", but its beginning as an institutionalized reserve currency.

Underlying capacity not big enough for an institutionalised global reserve currency. They'll soon work that out and buy gold and security vans instead.

[dinofelis]

Underlying capacity not big enough for an institutionalised global reserve currency. They'll soon work that out and buy gold and security vans instead.

If 2-3 transactions are too low for "currency on the internet", I don't know if this is not sufficient for settlements between institutional players. 

[AngryDwarf]

Underlying capacity not big enough for an institutionalised global reserve currency. They'll soon work that out and buy gold and security vans instead.

If 2-3 transactions are too low for "currency on the internet", I don't know if this is not sufficient for settlements between institutional players.  

A quick internet search and calculations regarding the Swift network:

1995: Average around 0.5 tps.
2015: Average around 3 tps.

Plus to be able to be used for institutional settlement, there would need to be a registry of address ownership.

They would be better off creating their own blockchain instead.

[manselr]

Bitcoin unlimited can never anywhere because the most important thing is the code, and the team is obviously light years away from the Core team, so you are wasting your time thinking anyone but the idiots that only think about cheap fees are going to be running this abomination called BU.

[AngryDwarf]

Bitcoin unlimited can never anywhere because the most important thing is the code, and the team is obviously light years away from the Core team, so you are wasting your time thinking anyone but the idiots that only think about cheap fees are going to be running this abomination called BU.

Anyone can create their own node software as long as it complies with the consensus network protocol. That statement is similar to calling linux developers idiots because most people run Windows.

[AngryDwarf]

..., it'll be used to hedge and invest, the fees are extremely competitive for that and capacity is fine.

Kind of like the derivatives ticking time bomb that will need to be propped up with tax payers cash.

People wanting to buy a coffee will just need to use something like dash.

Can Dash handle 'visa tomorrow'? Look at the transaction usage and blockchain size and tell me how well you think that system has been stress tested.

[hv_]

..., it'll be used to hedge and invest, the fees are extremely competitive for that and capacity is fine.

Kind of like the derivatives ticking time bomb that will need to be propped up with tax payers cash.

People wanting to buy a coffee will just need to use something like dash.

Can Dash handle 'visa tomorrow'? Look at the transaction usage and blockchain size and tell me how well you think that system has been stress tested.

DASH has some super nodes, that means scale good, security bad.  ETH might need to do the same (PoS) to achieve scalability with smart contracts on top... Bad security!

[AngryDwarf]

DASH has some super nodes, that means scale good, security bad.

But even with the dash masternodes being able to quickly agree on an 'instant payment', don't these still need to be written to the blockchain? And can they quickly agree on millions of transactions being thrown at it?

[AngryDwarf]

DASH has some super nodes, that means scale good, security bad.

But even with the dash masternodes being able to quickly agree on an 'instant payment', don't these still need to be written to the blockchain? And can they quickly agree on millions of transactions being thrown at it?

They are written to the next block, not much of an issue when it is standard purchases and with 2.5 minute block time

So the masternodes, once agreed, must broadcast this as a high priority transaction some how to all other nodes (which would override any conflicting tx in its mempool), so that if someone mines a block it will be included. If the dash blockchain capacity fails to meet demand there could be issues. How does it fool proof it to prevent a double spend, e.g. node which has not yet received the masternode winner already writes a double spend into a block it mines. Why could such a system not be included into all bitcoin nodes (without requiring someone to lock up 1000BTC and expect mircropayment)?

[David Rabahy]

Suppose I think Core and BU won't compromise (thickheads).  I want to spread my investment out across both.  Too early?

[AngryDwarf]

Suppose I think Core and BU won't compromise (thickheads).  I want to spread my investment out across both.  Too early?

Just make sure that you obtain BTC before any potential bilateral split (should it occur), and then you have an identical stake in both. That BTC has to be on your own private key to be safe (not on exchange or web wallet).

[dinofelis]

Can Dash handle 'visa tomorrow'? Look at the transaction usage and blockchain size and tell me how well you think that system has been stress tested.

DASH is a copy of bitcoin, with build-in mixers, and some other fancy stuff like mem-pool confirmation.  However, DASH will not run into bitcoin's consensus problems, given that it is centralized, with the devs owning a very large portion of the voting system that determines everything that happens in DASH.

That said, as of now, until the DASH devs decide otherwise, DASH has 4 times more block room than bitcoin, as it runs 4 times faster.

[dinofelis]

DASH has some super nodes, that means scale good, security bad.

But even with the dash masternodes being able to quickly agree on an 'instant payment', don't these still need to be written to the blockchain? And can they quickly agree on millions of transactions being thrown at it?

Instant X is nothing else but a certification that the transaction is on the mempool. 

[AngryDwarf]

Can Dash handle 'visa tomorrow'? Look at the transaction usage and blockchain size and tell me how well you think that system has been stress tested.

DASH is a copy of bitcoin, with build-in mixers, and some other fancy stuff like mem-pool confirmation.  However, DASH will not run into bitcoin's consensus problems, given that it is centralized, with the devs owning a very large portion of the voting system that determines everything that happens in DASH.

That said, as of now, until the DASH devs decide otherwise, DASH has 4 times more block room than bitcoin, as it runs 4 times faster.

I think Evan's multiple masternodes have already voted for a 2MB limit increase, but they have voted to reduce the block time and implemented it first to mimic LTC. So it will have eight times the capacity. Or perhaps the 2MB vote was just a publicity stunt at the time.

[AngryDwarf]

DASH has some super nodes, that means scale good, security bad.

But even with the dash masternodes being able to quickly agree on an 'instant payment', don't these still need to be written to the blockchain? And can they quickly agree on millions of transactions being thrown at it?

Instant X is nothing else but a certification that the transaction is on the mempool.  

So still a small chance that a mining node thinks differently (e.g. has a double spend in its mempool)? In that case it would be no more secure than the zero confirmation economy, apart from you have to pay for the privilege to use it.

[dinofelis]

So still a small chance that a mining node thinks differently (e.g. has a double spend in its mempool)? In that case it would be no more secure than the zero confirmation economy, apart from you have to pay for the privilege to use it.

I think that if there's an issue, you can write an e-mail to Evan, who will put the right transaction on the block chain 

[David Rabahy]

Suppose I think Core and BU won't compromise (thickheads).  I want to spread my investment out across both.  Too early?

Just make sure that you obtain BTC before any potential bilateral split (should it occur), and then you have an identical stake in both. That BTC has to be on your own private key to be safe (not on exchange or web wallet).

I have two investments; 1) non-retirement mostly in a private wallet although I do have 1 physical coin, 2) retirement (Roth IRA) in GBTC.

So, my private investment is ready for what comes.  What happens to the physical coin depends on the details when we get there.  My retirement investment in GBTC will depend on how Grayscale handles it (if I don't jump to COIN (if it becomes a reality)).

[AngryDwarf]

Back on topic here I thought Bitcoin unlimited had super little support what happened? Who the hell supports them?

This is my take on it:

There is a phoney/cold war going on.
The phoney war is the spreading of propaganda causing the cold war which is two separated group of factions opposed to each other.

Miners can vote for their preference by signalling it in a flag in the block. Of those who are signalling these blocks, bigger block solutions have a slight edge over segwit at the moment. (BU being the vast majority of the bigger block vote solutions). There are still many pools not signalling there intentions.

But no matter what the miners vote, nothing can be implemented unless the user nodes accept it.

The vast majority of user nodes are core nodes. Bigger block nodes are mostly BU. Consider though, that a lot of users maybe uninformed and will run the latest thing from core downloaded from the bitcoin.org, and not even know BU or other node software exists. (This is probably not an unreasonable assumption, but some could easily attack this as FUD, even though BU and other nodes are not listed on the bitcoin.org site)

So with the current node distribution, segwit would get activated if miners signal 95% support. BU does not have the node support to be activated even if they signalled 95% support.

There is talk of User Activated Soft Forks as mechanism to force miners hands. This could be the trigger for all out thermonuclear bitcoin war. In this case leave your bitcoins unmoved, head for the bunker, and wait for the radiation to settle. Remember a cold war includes as an arms race, and when war breaks out arms deployment, strategy and who changes sides will determine the winner.

The winner then blames the loser for starting the war.

[David Rabahy]

I run a 0.13.2 Core full node with 8 outgoing and 52 incoming connections and am thinking about going to 0.14.0 soon.  I have run a BU version in the not too distant past but I really want both SegWit and BU.  I suppose I could alternate every so often but that seems cumbersome.  I could run two full nodes but I just want to run one.  Would someone build me a version which runs both SegWit and BU?  Please.