BU vs SEGWIT ?

[bikerleszno]

Hello,

Can anyone explain in easy words what is BU and SEGWIT ?
What they mean for normal users of bitcoin ?
What is the difference between them?
Who decide which one will be choosen?
What will change after BU or SEGWIT will be choosen?

Please use easy words to explain people who don`t have idea about it.

[1714827059]

1714827059

[1714827059]

1714827059

[1714827059]

1714827059

[dfd1]

As far as I understand BU propose bitcoin scaling as designed years ago, by increasing block size.
SegWit, instead, proposes some major changes to protocol. Lots of new code and changes in transaction processing arrived with an update.
SegWit, if not failed, supposed to be able to resolve scaling problem without increasing in block size, provide some new transactions types and some other progress in Bitcoin.
BU, in the other hand, is a proven concept that never failed before and JUST WERKS.
Problem with BU: blockchain size and traffic between full nodes will rise.
Problem with SegWit: if blockstream team fuck up with coding everything will be ruined beyond repair.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

This thread again.....REALLY?

[DannyHamilton]

Can anyone explain in easy words what is BU and SEGWIT ?

What is the difference between them?

BU - Bitcoin Unlimited
SegWit = Segregated Witness

Bitcoin Unlimited is a version of the Bitcoin reference software that allows miners to agree to create blocks of transactions that are larger than 1 megabyte. It allows each miner to choose for themselves when they want to risk creating a larger block and provides a way to announce the largest size supported to help other miners make such a decision.

Segregated Witness is a feature added to the version of Bitcoin reference software that is commonly known as "Bitcoin Core". It reduces the size of transactions in the traditional bitcoin block so that more of them fit. It does this by moving parts of the transaction out of the traditional block in to a separate area. By moving these parts it opens up new technical possibilities for transactions.

What they mean for normal users of bitcoin ?

They both provide solutions that will allow more transactions to confirm. As such the transaction fees required for fast confirmation are likely to be reduced.  If enough people run Unlimited, then we won't need to plan a hard fork every time we want to increase the block size.  If enough people run software that supports SegWit, then there will be new technical possibilities for bitcoin transactions.

If the two options end up forking the blockchain, then you'll need to know which Bitcoin a merchant supports before sending them a payment.  You'll need to make sure you use software that matches the software that the merchant uses or else they won't receive your payment.
 

Who decide which one will be choosen?

We all do.  If everyone runs software that supports Unlimited, then Unlimited is "chosen".  If everyone runs software that supports SegWit, then SegWit is "chosen". If everyone runs software that supports both, then both are "chosen". If some people decide they hate SegWit and refuse to run any software that supports it, and some people decide they hate Unlimited and refuse to run any software that supports it, then there is a possibility that the network will split into two incompatible versions of "Bitcoin" both trying to call themselves the "Real Bitcoin".

What will change after BU or SEGWIT will be choosen?

More transactions will probably get confirmed.  Transaction fees might get smaller. New technical possibilities for transactions may be possible. Blocks might get bigger.

[dinofelis]

Bitcoin is designed to produce 1 block of transactions every 10 minutes.  The size of that block is now limited to 1 MB.  That comes down to a transaction capacity of about 2-3 transactions per second.  Bitcoin is now reaching this transaction rate, and hence, people have difficulties getting their transactions confirmed (written in a block by a miner).

Back in the old days, Satoshi had put this limit to 32 MB, but it was lowered later to "avoid spam".

As you can see, the block chain is now full:

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size

and the number of transactions is now limited:
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-per-block?timespan=2years

The fact that there is now more demand for transactions than the bitcoin block chain can provide, is now monetized by the miners, who take only those transactions with the biggest fees.  This establishes a (rising) fee market.  

https://blockchain.info/charts/transaction-fees-usd

This makes that miners are not very keen on "solving the problem": they would slaughter the hen with the golden eggs.  It also makes that small bitcoin transactions make no sense any more: only large transactions, on which one pays large fees, will get through.  Small wallets will be frozen for ever.  The guy with half a bitcoin will soon not be able to transact any more.  But the venture capitalist transacting 1000 bitcoin will have no problems paying a high fee to get his transaction on the chain.  A very lucrative thing for miners at first sight: only big transactions, big fees, and small blocks.  No ordinary people paying a book or a second-hand i-phone in bitcoin.

Nevertheless, there are several solutions proposed to this problem.  One is simply to increase the block size again.  BU.  However, in order to do so, one needs a HARD FORK.  New blocks (bigger than 1 MB) will not be accepted by old protocol.  As such, chances are that two different coins emerge: a "big block BU bitcoin", and a standard bitcoin.  Like ethereum split in ETC and ETH.  

The other solution is segwit.  Segwit does several things.  It allows more transactions within a single 1 MB block by "compressing" transactions in a certain way.  But, most importantly, it prepares for the possibility to have the Lightning network on top of bitcoin.  That would make certain nodes "banks" and then you can send your transactions through these banks to your destiny, WITHOUT USING THE BLOCK CHAIN.  The block chain would only hold some collateral of these banks to keep them honest.  Segwit doesn't need big blocks (well...) as the block chain wouldn't be used much any more, and the "banker's network" on top of it would send the payments.  A bit like normal banks do when you tell them to send money to another bank's account.

What do people say about these two solutions ?  One thing for sure is that just "increasing the amount of transactions per block" (by increasing the block size, or by compressing them) only kicks the can somewhat further down the road.  So much is for sure.  The "banker's layer" is a radically new way of transacting bitcoin and can, in principle, handle WAY WAY larger numbers of transactions.

But:

1) some people say that bigger blocks will make bigger block chains and will discourage small nodes to exist, leading to "centralization".  To me, that argument is bogus.  Non-mining nodes don't matter really, but for the owner of the node.  People do not agree over this, but when one looks at the investment by miners and their centralization, then the cost of a bigger hard disk and a faster PC is not going to be the main centralizing force.   But nevertheless, this is a main argument against "bigger blocks".  For me, the main argument is that it is just kicking the can.

2) other people say that segwit and the lightning network will totally "fiatize" bitcoin, with a banker's network that can only be afforded by big bitcoin holders (to put the collateral on chain) with large computing infrastructure.    This is most probably true.  However, this kind of infrastructure is the only infrastructure that can allow BIG VOLUMES of transactions in bitcoin.  You can't have it both ways.  

3) Segwit proponents don't want the block size to increase, as this would be too much of a relief and wouldn't pressure people to accept segwit, which is why they are furiously against a block size increase.

4) many miners see the lightning network as a serious threat to their fees, as most transactions are now not on the chain.

So there is now a religious fight between both camps.

[Carlton Banks]

More transactions will probably get confirmed.  Transaction fees might get smaller. New technical possibilities for transactions may be possible. Blocks might get bigger.

Incorrect.


With Segwit, consensus is uniform (i.e. the actual definition of the word "consensus") and so the blockchain will be in no danger of spontaneously splitting according to diverging blocksize preferences. And in addition, Blocks will get bigger, there is no "maybe".


With BU, the consensus system is changed so that blocksize consensus no longer exists. This means that the chain can be easily forked, constantly. And there are no guarantees the blocksize will increase, the miners could easily flood the network (or networks, once BU has forked into BU 1, 2, 3  and so on) with voting nodes to force through whatever blocksize they like (which of course includes smaller blocksizes than 1MB). Note that the banking industry would love this outcome, as it would be all too easy for their corporate media buddies to claim convincingly that Bitcoin was then a failed experiement

[AngryDwarf]

It's kind of like a phoney/cold war going on at the moment. When thermonuclear war breaks out, don't move your bitcoin until the radiation settles.

[dinofelis]

Note that the banking industry would love this outcome, as it would be all to easy for their corporate media buddies to claim convincingly that Bitcoin was then a failed experiement

That said, with segwit, bitcoin BECOMES a banking industry...

[Carlton Banks]

Note that the banking industry would love this outcome, as it would be all to easy for their corporate media buddies to claim convincingly that Bitcoin was then a failed experiement

That said, with segwit, bitcoin BECOMES a banking industry...

Explain. Writing ... is not an explanation

[bikerleszno]

So why block can`t have 32 MB like Satoshi did ?

[Carlton Banks]

So why block can`t have 32 MB like Satoshi did ?

Why not get it correct instead


Satoshi's original client had NO blocksize limit at all, the 32MB limit was on network messages, not blocks


Then, who introduced the 1MB limit? It was Satoshi

[jonald_fyookball]

So why block can`t have 32 MB like Satoshi did ?

Theoretically, it could.  Problem is we can't seem to all agree.

[dinofelis]

Explain. Writing ... is not an explanation

What will Lightning Network nodes with sufficient transactions (a big network hub) look like, you think ?  

[franky1]

Nevertheless, there are several solutions proposed to this problem.  One is simply to increase the block size again.  BU.  However, in order to do so, one needs a HARD FORK.  New blocks (bigger than 1 MB) will not be accepted by old protocol.  As such, chances are that two different coins emerge: a "big block BU bitcoin", and a standard bitcoin.  Like ethereum split in ETC and ETH.  

no

ethereum intentionally split by banning opposing nodes (google it: --oppose-dao-fork)
hence why you can spend coins on eth but keep coins on etc because they do not inter-communicate to add the coin to the mempools of both sides
this is different than a consensus where only one chain survives and the opposition simply cannot sync because it has different rules and simply ends up orphaning everything it see's
to avoid being left unsynced, it needs to ban the opposition so that it doesnt see the oppositions higher blockheight and also doesnt see thier own attempts getting orphaned and doesnt end up trying to grab the highest height just to orphan and remain unsynced.


when it comes to which to choose and what happens next is dependant on what the oppositions do.
for instance without there being a banning event.

its either consensus (high acceptability rate by the network) where by the high acceptability will see low orphan rate because they win the height more often and where the minority orphan out ALOT but ultimately one chain. and the minority just dead and unsynced because although they see the highest blockheight they will orphan it because the data wont meet their rules.

or controversial(above medium acceptability rate) where by the above medium acceptability will see more orphans rate because they win the height but have orphans happening often as there is a bit more of a fight for height.. but ultimately one chain. and the minority just dead and unsynced

whether its soft (change occurs only by pools trigger) or hard (change occurs by NODES and pools trigger)
consensus, controversial .. or worse intentional split(banning AKA bilateral split) can happen.

yes even going soft, core(managed by blockstream) can (and admittedly will) split the network

BIP9 changed to a new quorum sensing approach that is MUCH less vulnerable to false triggering, so 95% under it is more like 99.9% (C) under the old approach.  basically when it activates, the 95% will have to be willing to potentially orphan the blocks of the 5% that remain(B)
If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90%  ... then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.(A)

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/

once segwit activates, it will be possible for other miners to produce blocks that you consider to be valid but which every segwit-enforcing node rejects; if you build any of your blocks upon those invalid blocks, your blocks will be considered invalid too.
...
 anyone who wants to use the features enabled by the segwit soft fork will want to know that a sufficient number of full node users have upgraded their nodes to refuse blocks and transactions that violate the segwit rules,

the minority "could" then ban the opposition and only communicate with pools the nodes can accept and this is then allowing the minority to build their own chain

BU, classic, xt and about a dozen independent implementations do not want to ban nodes and create an altcoin.
they want to stick with one network that grows using consensus

only core(managed by blockstream) want to split... but blockstream are trying to push fake doomsdays that their opposition will create an altcoin, but secretly(well now public) it will be blockstream that will cause the altcoin but they want to play the 'victim card' pretending its their oppositions fault

What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.

I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral ... Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--

[dinofelis]

ethereum intentionally split by banning opposing nodes (google it: --oppose-dao-fork)

It didn't ban nodes.  That instruction simply installed an ETC client or an ETH client.   With a different protocol.  It is as if you could use a bitcoin core client, and give the instruction --run-litecoin.

And transactions from one chain WERE transmitted to the other chain, which caused a lot of surprise.  But this is normal: miners wanted the fees, so they went LOOKING AFTER valid transactions (not on the network, but on the block chain !).

[dinofelis]

to avoid being left unsynced, it needs to ban the opposition so that it doesnt see the oppositions higher blockheight and also doesnt see thier own attempts getting orphaned and doesnt end up trying to grab the highest height just to orphan and remain unsynced.

Again, this is not true.  A "higher block count" doesn't matter if these blocks are not valid.

If the chain contains 5 more blocks of 3 MB, and your node considers only blocks smaller than 1MB, these blocks are simply invalid.  You don't consider them.  You keep the last block of 1 MB as the highest one.  The miners keeping with the old protocol will do the same, and build on this block.  So you will now accept this next block.  And the next 1 MB block.  And the next and still the next.  You are on the old protocol chain.

On the other hand, a BU node will accept these 5 extra blocks as valid.  It will consider the 1MB block next to it as orphaned.  and the next one and the next one.  Because if BU has more hash power, the chain built on the 3 MB blocks which you consider valid is growing with more PoW.  You are on the new butcoin chain.  And there's no confusion.  A BU node will only accept the BU chain (and orphan the old bitcoin branch).  A bitcoin non-BU node will only accept the bitcoin blocks of < 1MB, and consider the other blocks as invalid blocks.  Whether they communicate or not.

But you should seriously distinguish between a soft fork and a hard fork. 

[franky1]

ethereum intentionally split by banning opposing nodes (google it: --oppose-dao-fork)

It didn't ban nodes.  That instruction simply installed an ETC client or an ETH client.   With a different protocol.  It is as if you could use a bitcoin core client, and give the instruction --run-litecoin.

And transactions from one chain WERE transmitted to the other chain, which caused a lot of surprise.  But this is normal: miners wanted the fees, so they went LOOKING AFTER valid transactions (not on the network, but on the block chain !).

lol bitcoin and litecoin are different coins. etc and eth are different coins. they have their own networks.
they have their own mempools.
they do not intercommunicate. because they only connect to the side they like and ban from talking to the side they dont like. to avoid the orphan drama.

yes i agree initially it was a consensus/controversial event. but then turned into a bilateral split. by nsuring they avoided the orphan drama by avoiding inter-communication

[leopard2]

Brrr. The BU sounds like a horrible idea, sort of like a live fork-o-rama with all sorts of different blocks floating around 

So the best compromise would be a Segwit with slightly larger blocks, the new efficient transactions that consume less space, but without the Lightning thingy

Why is no one doing that? Ideology war? 

[dinofelis]

Brrr. The BU sounds like a horrible idea, sort of like a live fork-o-rama with all sorts of different blocks floating around 

So the best compromise would be a Segwit with slightly larger blocks, the new efficient transactions that consume less space, but without the Lightning thingy

I don't think you can avoid the lightning network once segwit is live.

[dinofelis]

ethereum intentionally split by banning opposing nodes (google it: --oppose-dao-fork)

It didn't ban nodes.  That instruction simply installed an ETC client or an ETH client.   With a different protocol.  It is as if you could use a bitcoin core client, and give the instruction --run-litecoin.

And transactions from one chain WERE transmitted to the other chain, which caused a lot of surprise.  But this is normal: miners wanted the fees, so they went LOOKING AFTER valid transactions (not on the network, but on the block chain !).

lol bitcoin and litecoin are different coins. etc and eth are different coins. they have their own networks.
they have their own mempools.
they do not intercommunicate. because they only connect to the side they like and ban from talking to the side they dont like. to avoid the orphan drama.

There is no orphan drama when there is a hard fork.  Blocks on one chain are simply invalid on the other one, and respective miners build on one or the other.
There is no NEED to communicate, but it is not the fact of stopping the communication that makes that there are two chains of course.  The double-valid transactions WILL get across (miners will pick them from the other chain) and the block information is not relevant because mutually invalid.

butcoin and bitcoin will also be entirely different coins, like ETC and ETH.  And yes, most probably their clients will end up only talking to one another within their network, but it is not this "banning" that splits the chain.