BU vs SEGWIT ?

[dinofelis]

When things get bad enough, change happens... one way or another.

Kind of like an alcoholic hitting rock bottom.

Often, the change that happens then, is not one of the alternatives you thought it was going to be...

[Decoded]

Anyone can make their own software, but no one has the software distribution channel they have. They still decide what goes into the clients that the majority of people use.

Well, normally, the protocol is protected by the consensus mechanism that imposes immutability, that is, status quo.  So the software will not be able to change the protocol.  That is what we are witnessing.  We see that the dynamics of the consensus mechanism is such, that everything evolves in such a way that nothing happens.

When things get bad enough, change happens... one way or another.

Kind of like an alcoholic hitting rock bottom.

Exactly. We need to make a move now, or only after a large or even multiple large crises, we will fork. Probably after then, Bitcoin will have tumbled down a deep bearish trend, and may snowball further due to many people jumping ship.

[FiendCoin]

Anyone can make their own software, but no one has the software distribution channel they have. They still decide what goes into the clients that the majority of people use.

Well, normally, the protocol is protected by the consensus mechanism that imposes immutability, that is, status quo.  So the software will not be able to change the protocol.  That is what we are witnessing.  We see that the dynamics of the consensus mechanism is such, that everything evolves in such a way that nothing happens.

When things get bad enough, change happens... one way or another.

Kind of like an alcoholic hitting rock bottom.

Exactly. We need to make a move now, or only after a large or even multiple large crises, we will fork. Probably after then, Bitcoin will have tumbled down a deep bearish trend, and may snowball further due to many people jumping ship.

As long as the move isn't made out of desperation, because that's how bad choices are made.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

As long as the move isn't made out of desperation, because that's how bad choices are made.

I agree with this. That is one of the reasons I like BU. The miners have an intelligent well thought out plan for how the fork will be activated IF it is activated, and it is done in three very cautious steps with each step taking a full difficulty cycle to complete. User activated soft fork is the only thing that could throw a wrench in their plan, as that may require an immediate fork. They do not want to do that.

With the blocks currently full however, LN then becomes something people have to use out of desperation to conduct normal business rather than out of choice.

[dinofelis]

As long as the move isn't made out of desperation, because that's how bad choices are made.

I agree with this. That is one of the reasons I like BU. The miners have an intelligent well thought out plan for how the fork will be activated IF it is activated, and it is done in three very cautious steps with each step taking a full difficulty cycle to complete. User activated soft fork is the only thing that could throw a wrench in their plan, as that may require an immediate fork. They do not want to do that.

With the blocks currently full however, LN then becomes something people have to use out of desperation to conduct normal business rather than out of choice.

Well, if "miners have an intelligent well thought plan", why didn't it happen then already ?  Because the "evil people at core" are not allowing them to collude and activate BU ?  Of course not.  Simply because they cannot agree. And happily, that they cannot agree.  Because if they did, it would mean that there is a >51% collusion between miners, and bitcoin's immutability is gone.

Also, "users" cannot activate segwit.  ONLY miners can.  segwit being a soft fork, it is something users have no say about, and if it gets activated, something users cannot "downvote".

So users cannot impose segwit at all.  

Users cannot decide to activate BU either.  But at least, when miners (with their cunning plan, remember) activate it, if they do not collude for >90%, there will be two coins, and users can then *vote with their money* on how the market cap of bitcoin will be divided between the new coin and the old coin.

Again, nobody is imposing anything on anybody. The evil core people do not have the magic power to hold BU back.  BU not happening, is simply because there's no consensus over it.  Segwit not happening, is simply because there's no consensus over it.  As it should be in a distributed trustless consensus system that provides for immutability.

Also, it is not because they are running BU software to "vote", that they are willing to actually activate the genuine hard fork, meaning, making really blocks > 1 MB.   You don't know how many of the BU voters only do this to avoid segwit, but have no intention to really do the fork.  Because you still have to mine your first block > 1MB and not have it orphaned...

[bikbik2]

As long as the move isn't made out of desperation, because that's how bad choices are made.

I agree with this. That is one of the reasons I like BU. The miners have an intelligent well thought out plan for how the fork will be activated IF it is activated, and it is done in three very cautious steps with each step taking a full difficulty cycle to complete. User activated soft fork is the only thing that could throw a wrench in their plan, as that may require an immediate fork. They do not want to do that.

With the blocks currently full however, LN then becomes something people have to use out of desperation to conduct normal business rather than out of choice.

Well, if "miners have an intelligent well thought plan", why didn't it happen then already ?  Because the "evil people at core" are not allowing them to collude and activate BU ?  Of course not.  Simply because they cannot agree. And happily, that they cannot agree.  Because if they did, it would mean that there is a >51% collusion between miners, and bitcoin's immutability is gone.

Also, "users" cannot activate segwit.  ONLY miners can.  segwit being a soft fork, it is something users have no say about, and if it gets activated, something users cannot "downvote".

So users cannot impose segwit at all.  

Users cannot decide to activate BU either.  But at least, when miners (with their cunning plan, remember) activate it, if they do not collude for >90%, there will be two coins, and users can then *vote with their money* on how the market cap of bitcoin will be divided between the new coin and the old coin.

Again, nobody is imposing anything on anybody. The evil core people do not have the magic power to hold BU back.  BU not happening, is simply because there's no consensus over it.  Segwit not happening, is simply because there's no consensus over it.  As it should be in a distributed trustless consensus system that provides for immutability.

Also, it is not because they are running BU software to "vote", that they are willing to actually activate the genuine hard fork, meaning, making really blocks > 1 MB.   You don't know how many of the BU voters only do this to avoid segwit, but have no intention to really do the fork.  Because you still have to mine your first block > 1MB and not have it orphaned...

If everything is exactly as you say, then what kind of freedom is bitcoin in question, if theoretically, bitcoin users are dependent. It seems to me that bitcoin today still gives independence to the user, and it is not excluded that tomorrow everything will change not in a good way.

[dinofelis]

If everything is exactly as you say, then what kind of freedom is bitcoin in question, if theoretically, bitcoin users are dependent.

Bitcoin's principle is trustless distributed consensus, which is supposed to lead to "immutability", that is: the rules are graved in stone FOREVER, and the block chain will never pedal backwards: what's on the chain is there for ever, and the rules are the rules for ever.

So a bitcoin "user" subscribes to these rules and that principle, and it is working as it should: the rules are immutable.  Nobody can change them.  Only "insignificant technical details" can change.  Once a technical aspect becomes an economic aspect, it is frozen in.  Like the 21 million coins.  Bitcoin users cannot "decide" to change that number.  It is frozen in.  And now, the block size, and the scarcity of transactions, is also frozen in.  That's bitcoin.  A frozen system, with immutable rules.  As it was designed to be.  If that system is not working as you want to, as you expect to, as they told you to, that's a different story.  But bitcoin is what it is, and will never change.  Unless the immutability is broken, and a centralized authority decides to change something, and has the central power to impose it.  But then it is not a decentralized trustless consensus system any more.  Which can happen.

Such a consensus system, however, can split if the tensions between different views become so untenable, that there is more profit to be made when the community splits, rather than when it stays locked in: a hard fork like ETC/ETH.  But that would sacrifice the most valuable aspect of bitcoin, the most important thing it has going for it: its "first mover" advantage.  So as long as this is strong, I think there will not be enough "partial consensus" to fork away.