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

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

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.

It's also expensive to switch and then have to switch back if the fork doesn't happen but SegWit does.

There is no technical reason to run BU on a mining node now except for testing, and you do not need to move a majority of your nodes to test.

Right now it is just about the signal, so it is wise to only signal.

Once 75% consensus is reached for a difficulty period, if that ever happens, there is a span of two difficulty periods before the fork takes place and that is plenty of time for them to actually upgrade the client itself.

[1713578832]

1713578832

[AngryDwarf]

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.

BU has had its own network propagation improvements for quite some time, which have been tested on the live network:

https://medium.com/@peter_r/towards-massive-on-chain-scaling-presenting-our-block-propagation-results-with-xthin-da54e55dc0e4#.57yryf5um

Have core solutions have been implemented that surpass this? (compact blocks? fibre?)

The other improvements miners will care about relate to block creation time. BU might have optimisations in development that we don't know about.

I should imagine other niceties, such as IBD improvements will be an 'on the back-burner' issue until the future network direction is resolved.

[AngryDwarf]

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

Is there any fool proof way to tell exactly what node a miner vote is running?
Some articles would indicate that more pools (e.g. ViaBTC) are mining on BU nodes, but then we all know a phoney war is part of the cold war.

[Carlton Banks]

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.

BU has had its own network propagation improvements for quite some time, which have been tested on the live network:

https://medium.com/@peter_r/towards-massive-on-chain-scaling-presenting-our-block-propagation-results-with-xthin-da54e55dc0e4#.57yryf5um

...and they had to rely on the Core developers to point out the serious flaws in their design.

Have core solutions have been implemented that surpass this? (compact blocks? fibre?)

Yep.

The other improvements miners will care about relate to block creation time. BU might have optimisations in development that we don't know about.

I should imagine other niceties, such as IBD improvements will be an 'on the back-burner' issue until the future network direction is resolved.

The Bitcoin developers have made IBD and block propagation improvements, and released them in 0.14. Maybe BU do have unreleased ideas that they've not announced yet, guess who else with a larger team, who've proven to be consistently more competent team, also has the same


Where are the BU privacy solutions, like Confidential Transaction or Mimblewimble? Where are the new more efficient tx encoding formats? The reason BU does zero development along those lines is that they're entirely focused on creating the most disruption to the Bitcoin ecosystem as possible, not on improving it at all. It's literally trolling software, made for the sole purpose of trolling the Bitcoin network, and is unsurprisingly promoted using actual internet trolls using trolling tactics

[franky1]

I should imagine other niceties, such as IBD improvements will be an 'on the back-burner' issue until the future network direction is resolved.

an idea...

IBD concerns are less about time of IBD but actually of..
(subtle difference of psychology(nodes function-ability vs users utility))
time to get it synced to have a full UTXO set to see their uptodate imported key balance and actually start spending.

by simply (much like a liteclient) downloading a UTXO set first as a temporary measure. it then allows people to see their upto date "balance" to then start spending. making the IBD still important, but in practice something that becomes more of a background matter and atleast not have people "waiting".

then as the IBD works in the background. it just makes any changes to the UTXO as it gets updated.

then IBD becomes less practically tiresome to the user

[hv_]

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.

... and still : Not voting for SW because of all that nice little core goodies -> BU is more voted, what does this tell you?

[franky1]

Where are the BU privacy solutions, like Confidential Transaction or Mimblewimble?

maybe bloating up a tx from say 450bytes to 1.4kb by adding commitments is less important than keeping transactions lean.
maybe mimble and other 'confidential' matters should be left for second layer solutions like LN or sidechains. and to keep bitcoin lean is more practical

Where are the new more efficient tx encoding formats?

well if core want to change tx encoding for minimal tx efficiences, but then bloat tx's with in-efficient bloating commitments for the sake of confidentiality. results in no beneficial efficiency trade-off.

thus by just keeping things lean actually becomes more efficient, than the bait and switch of gaining then subtracting efficiency.

[Carlton Banks]

BU is more voted, what does this tell you?

That it's not a vote, lol

When a proposal wins a vote, it becomes dominant. BUcoin won't survive the markets, the vast majority of commercial and private players actually using Bitcoin are publicly rejecting it

[hv_]

BU is more voted, what does this tell you?

That it's not a vote, lol

When a proposal wins a vote, it becomes dominant. BUcoin won't survive the markets, the vast majority of commercial and private players actually using Bitcoin are publicly rejecting it

If only  C  rated Banks reject I'm fine with such poor predictions....

 

[franky1]

When a proposal wins a vote, it becomes dominant. BUcoin won't survive the markets, the vast majority of commercial and private players actually using Bitcoin are publicly rejecting it

only the "markets" that are VC funded by DGC, http://dcg.co/portfolio/
which are in blockstreams pocket

hence why BTCC is the loudest pool supporting segwit..and flagged segwit support within minutes of the october start, rather than take the time to assess things first... oh look DCG->BTCC

[hv_]

When a proposal wins a vote, it becomes dominant. BUcoin won't survive the markets, the vast majority of commercial and private players actually using Bitcoin are publicly rejecting it

only the "markets" that are VC funded by DGC, http://dcg.co/portfolio/
which are in blockstreams pocket

hence why BTCC is the loudest pool supporting segwit..and flagged segwit support within minutes of the october start, rather than take the time to assess things first... oh look DCG->BTCC

And lots of their miners already moved out - the % of BTCC has dropped sharply

[AngryDwarf]

If that BIP proposal forcing segwit activation goes through, we can expect market attempts at resolution before the end of summer.

[OmegaStarScream]

Another update, Bitcoin Unlimited is now 32% while SegWit is still 26% since the last updated I have made. I'm the only one thinking that BU will get activated sooner or later? without forgetting that they only need 75% while SegWit require 95% signalling in order to get activated.

[Lauda]

Another update, Bitcoin Unlimited is now 32% while SegWit is still 26% since the last updated I have made. I'm the only one thinking that BU will get activated sooner or later? without forgetting that they only need 75% while SegWit require 95% signalling in order to get activated.

BTU has no activation threshold AFAIK. 75% is what they prefer.
Let me just leave this here: Bitcoin Unlimited Remote Exploit Crash
Professional code at its finest:

Code:

else if (inv.type == MSG_THINBLOCK)
{
    //irrelevant
} else {
    assert(0);
}

For those unfamiliar with this part of the code, here's an explanation on the 'assert(0)':

In assert(0) the 0 is interpreted as false, so this assertion will always fail, or fire, when assertion checking is on.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/34236653/what-does-assert0-mean

[Carlton Banks]

For those unfamiliar with this part of the code, here's an explanation on the 'assert(0)':

In assert(0) the 0 is interpreted as false, so this assertion will always fail, or fire, when assertion checking is on.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/34236653/what-does-assert0-mean

It has nothing to do with "this part of the code" Lauda, or "interpreting" as your poorly chosen quote states. Any assert statement is a logical evaluation, and 0 is literally a false evaluation (1 evaluates as true), assert statements are logical evaluations by definition

[Lauda]

It has nothing to do with "this part of the code" Lauda, or "interpreting" as your poorly chosen quote states. Any assert statement is a logical evaluation, and 0 is literally a false evaluation (1 evaluates as true), assert statements are logical evaluations by definition

Was this necessary? It makes no difference to those who don't understand it anyways. More information can be found following that up and the reddit commits.

Don't talk about code you don't even understand: that's the point

You're becoming worse than franky.

[Carlton Banks]

It has nothing to do with "this part of the code" Lauda, or "interpreting" as your poorly chosen quote states. Any assert statement is a logical evaluation, and 0 is literally a false evaluation (1 evaluates as true), assert statements are logical evaluations by definition

Was this necessary? It makes no difference to those who don't understand it anyways. More information can be found following that up and the reddit commits.

Don't talk about code you don't even understand: that's the point

If you want to help people, there's not much point in presenting and commenting on code in a way that doesn't teach anyone anything, your explanation can only serve to confuse someone who is trying to learn, and bolster your reputation for comprehending the code, which is obviously pretty limited (and I'm not even an accomplished coder)

[AngryDwarf]

Looks like someone has noticed a fix going in to the repository and has decided to exploit it.

[xskl0]

I read somewhere that BU just need 75% of consensus.

[AngryDwarf]

On a positive note, that means people are seriously looking at the BU code now to toughen up any exploits. Amusing watching the BU node count go down though (yep, they took mine out too!)