AntPool - switch to Bitcoin Unlimited

[epitome]

Look like we would see a fork either way in the near future and if things are not implemented properly it would be a disaster and i hope the core team will come up with a solution to settle everything and make everything right,Ant pool has a leverage as they are the biggest farm and hope the block limit problem will be resolved.

[rico666]

I say BU is ok after we have SegWit.

What Bitcoin really needs is LN, and for that SegWit is one of the most important prerequisites.
Miners do not want LN, because it weakens their position. 

If they weren't fucking braindead, they knew that a weakened position in a trillion market is better than a strong position in a billion market.

Unfortunately, fucking braindead they are.


Rico

[thepo1m]

I say BU is ok after we have SegWit.

What Bitcoin really needs is LN, and for that SegWit is one of the most important prerequisites.
Miners do not want LN, because it weakens their position. 

If they weren't fucking braindead, they knew that a weakened position in a trillion market is better than a strong position in a billion market.

Unfortunately, fucking braindead they are.


Rico

You can't put it any better, these miners are shortsighted looking to protect their present interest at the expense of future benefits. Can you imagine having or processing over 100 million transactions everyday the benefits it would bring to the space.

[Slark]

According to Vinny Lingham, we might see below $800 price any time soon when the hard fork happens. That's what he said and we all know that 90% of his predictions were accurate.

Wasn't that about the ETF?

Segregated Witness also failing to gain support with litecoin miners, development community should come with an alternative, nobody gives a fuck about Segregated Witness and now we will see the network forking, great times to be alive.

No. Only naive fools believed that ETF will be accepted so price decline of that magnitude just because ETG was denied was unlikely to happen.

SegWit unfortunately failed to grab people's trust. It is time to move on and work on another solution.
There is little time left, I doubt that core developers will be able manufacture another solution.

If HARD FORK happens BTC price will drop to even $200.
So, no your capital WILL NOT double.

Whatever we might think of Bitcoin Unlimited, your scenario is detached from reality.
Even is case of emergency fork which happened to Ethereum we didn't see that catastrophic failure.

[Xester]

AntPool, the biggest BTC miner switch their Entire Pool to Bitcoin Unlimited

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-13/bitcoin-miners-signal-revolt-in-push-to-fix-sluggish-blockchain

well, what's next? 

If antpool has switched to Bitcoin Unlimited then its just a matter of time when other miner pools will also shift to BU. It is clear now that in the end the consensus will favor Bitcoin Unlimited. Bitcoin Unlimited though I am not very clear of how it works but as long as it can give solution to the current problems on transaction fees and long confirmation then it is god to go. Even if bitcoin unlimited will win the price of bitcoin will not climb down as what some of us are thinking. When the miners fee goes down and the transaction confirmation become faster the price of bitcoin will start climbing again.

[Holliday]

Can you imagine having or processing over 100 million transactions everyday the benefits it would bring to the space.

Ya, 25 GB added to the block chain every day would do wonders for Bitcoin! Extremely beneficial for decentralization (you know, the very thing that gives Bitcoin value).

Edit: Reading comprehension issues. I blame lack of sleep!

[jonald_fyookball]

Can you imagine having or processing over 100 million transactions everyday the benefits it would bring to the space.

Ya, 25 GB added to the block chain every day would do wonders for Bitcoin! Extremely beneficial for decentralization (you know, the very thing that gives Bitcoin value).

if off chain scaling is used, where does all that transaction data go? 

[rico666]

Can you imagine having or processing over 100 million transactions everyday the benefits it would bring to the space.

Ya, 25 GB added to the block chain every day would do wonders for Bitcoin! Extremely beneficial for decentralization (you know, the very thing that gives Bitcoin value).

[ ] You understood the context he was writing in. (Hint: LN)


Rico

[Holliday]

Can you imagine having or processing over 100 million transactions everyday the benefits it would bring to the space.

Ya, 25 GB added to the block chain every day would do wonders for Bitcoin! Extremely beneficial for decentralization (you know, the very thing that gives Bitcoin value).

if off chain scaling is used, where does all that transaction data go? 

For starters, Bitcoin isn't valuable because of TPS, it's valuable because of the unique properties decentralization provides.

Next, if scaling is done off chain, then the "scaled" transaction data is... wait for it... off chain. They are aggregated on an additional layer which can be removed should the need arise.

[Holliday]

Can you imagine having or processing over 100 million transactions everyday the benefits it would bring to the space.

Ya, 25 GB added to the block chain every day would do wonders for Bitcoin! Extremely beneficial for decentralization (you know, the very thing that gives Bitcoin value).

[ ] You understood the context he was writing in. (Hint: LN)


Rico

Yep, my mistake.

[sportis]

Unfortunately these are the worst news I could listen. Personally speaking, I do not care so much about the price as the future of the currency because people give value to bitcoin and not miners. I wonder under what logic Jihan Wu went into this decision. Obviously, if the price collapses money will be losen not only by the users but also from miners too because their operating costs are constant. Therefore, Jihan is very risky and played "all in" or is too sure that segwit supporters will not have time to react and finally will accept his movement. In addition, the publication of UASF played a significant role to antpool's decision.

[blanket]

What are the chances they (BU) actually get to the 60%-70% that's required to activate?

Yes, Antpool is a huge player in the game. Outside of them though, I don't see many big names supporting Unlimited. Miners, exchanges, nodes,..really anyone outside of a selectly small group of people.

[jonald_fyookball]

Can you imagine having or processing over 100 million transactions everyday the benefits it would bring to the space.

Ya, 25 GB added to the block chain every day would do wonders for Bitcoin! Extremely beneficial for decentralization (you know, the very thing that gives Bitcoin value).

if off chain scaling is used, where does all that transaction data go? 

For starters, Bitcoin isn't valuable because of TPS, it's valuable because of the unique properties decentralization provides.

Next, if scaling is done off chain, then the "scaled" transaction data is... wait for it... off chain. They are aggregated on an additional layer which can be removed should the need arise.

I would disagree that TPS doesn't make Bitcoin valuable because high TPS = widespread use, which one of the key characteristsics (in addition to fungibilitiy, portability, etc) that make something valuable as money. Iow, its 'utility'.  But we can agree to disagree on that if you like.

I was hoping you can tell me more about the off chain solutions since you seem to know something.   I guess my question would be:  If its stored somewhere off chain, who is storing it, who is securing it, and if its not miners, isn't that a trusted third party, which is a form of centralization?

[AngryDwarf]

Here is one article on LN:

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-building-a-bidirectional-payment-channel-1464710791/

Might be useful to open a channel for small payments. I wouldn't want all my bitcoin held on a channel, so more on-chain block capacity is required.

I'd hate to be a LN coder. The consequences of a bug could be horrendous.

[Holliday]

I would disagree that TPS doesn't make Bitcoin valuable because high TPS = widespread use, which one of the key characteristsics (in addition to fungibilitiy, portability, etc) that make something valuable as money. Iow, its 'utility'.  But we can agree to disagree on that if you like.

I would say the reason Bitcoin has value is because it offers something that other solutions don't offer. In my mind, that's censorship-proof transactions and a seize-proof store of value. We have these things thanks to decentralization. It's not simply "utility", it's unique utility. Sure, we can each have our opinion about this, but that is probably going to frame the entire debate.

I was hoping you can tell me more about the off chain solutions since you seem to know something.   I guess my question would be:  If its stored somewhere off chain, who is storing it, who is securing it, and if its not miners, isn't that a trusted third party, which is a form of centralization?

Sorry, you'll have to look elsewhere. I've never researched those things because I don't care. Every transaction does not need to be censorship-proof as long as the option exists. I'm willing to pay handsomely and wait a long time to append the block chain because I place a very high value on the properties decentralization affords. That's why I would rather err on the side of decentralization, even if it harms adoption. If people want cheap micro-transactions, and that can be arranged by adding a layer on top of Bitcoin that can be removed should the need arise, who am I to complain, and why should I care if those "coffee" purchases aren't censorship-proof?

Life is about trade-offs. Everything can't be all things to everyone! Imagining that we can have censorship-proof micro-transactions for sub-pennies with a system that requires full nodes to maintain a ledger which must record every transaction since it's creation is absurd to me!

[jonald_fyookball]

I would disagree that TPS doesn't make Bitcoin valuable because high TPS = widespread use, which one of the key characteristsics (in addition to fungibilitiy, portability, etc) that make something valuable as money. Iow, its 'utility'.  But we can agree to disagree on that if you like.

I would say the reason Bitcoin has value is because it offers something that other solutions don't offer. In my mind, that's censorship-proof transactions and a seize-proof store of value. We have these things thanks to decentralization. It's not simply "utility", it's unique utility. Sure, we can each have our opinion about this, but that is probably going to frame the entire debate.

I was hoping you can tell me more about the off chain solutions since you seem to know something.   I guess my question would be:  If its stored somewhere off chain, who is storing it, who is securing it, and if its not miners, isn't that a trusted third party, which is a form of centralization?

Sorry, you'll have to look elsewhere. I've never researched those things because I don't care. Every transaction does not need to be censorship-proof as long as the option exists. I'm willing to pay handsomely and wait a long time to append the block chain because I place a very high value on the properties decentralization affords. That's why I would rather err on the side of decentralization, even if it harms adoption. If people want cheap micro-transactions, and that can be arranged by adding a layer on top of Bitcoin that can be removed should the need arise, who am I to complain, and why should I care if those "coffee" purchases aren't censorship-proof?

Life is about trade-offs. Everything can't be all things to everyone! Imagining that we can have censorship-proof micro-transactions for sub-pennies with a system that requires full nodes to maintain a ledger which must record every transaction since it's creation is absurd to me!

See the bolded part above.  This is what concerns me (and others) when it comes to the scaling debate.  When we, for example, restrict the transaction throughput, the option to be censorship proof  may no longer exist at a reasonable price.

 

[digaran]

If BU can successfully fork and becomes the majority I will sell my cloud mining shares and exit from hashnest.

[Holliday]

as long as the option exists.

See the bolded part above.  This is what concerns me (and others) when it comes to the scaling debate.  When we, for example, restrict the transaction throughput, the option to be censorship proof  may no longer exist at a reasonable price.

Well, as I said, I'm ready to err on the side of decentralization (as I perceive it). So, I can only argue from that point of view. I'd say we are no-where-close to going beyond a reasonable price yet you have people crying bloody murder!

The early block subsidy has, in my opinion, spoiled a lot of users. They are used to not having to pay for security because the inflation did it for them. Well... the coins had to be dispersed somehow, and now it's time to start moving away from the block subsidy to a direct cost to the user. If we wait longer, we will just have a larger group of people ready to cry bloody murder and it will be even more painful.

[BigBoom3599]

as long as the option exists.

See the bolded part above.  This is what concerns me (and others) when it comes to the scaling debate.  When we, for example, restrict the transaction throughput, the option to be censorship proof  may no longer exist at a reasonable price.

Well, as I said, I'm ready to err on the side of decentralization (as I perceive it). So, I can only argue from that point of view. I'd say we are no-where-close to going beyond a reasonable price yet you have people crying bloody murder!

The early block subsidy has, in my opinion, spoiled a lot of users. They are used to not having to pay for security because the inflation did it for them. Well... the coins had to be dispersed somehow, and now it's time to start moving away from the block subsidy to a direct cost to the user. If we wait longer, we will just have a larger group of people ready to cry bloody murder and it will be even more painful.

It's nowhere near time to start thinking about fees as the only block reward... that's just an excuse for bitcoin not scaling .  It's still more than 100 years until miners fully rely on tx fees, but for the sake of argument, let's say the block reward would only be fees right now. Bitcoin could probably scale up to 2MB blocks tomorrow and the fees would drop by, maybe, 20%?. Because blocks would instantly be full again, this means more money for the miners, lower fees and faster confirmation times for the users and more adoption of the bitcoin network -> higher price... Worth it IMO.

[cjmoles]

So, wait a minute....If this results in a bitcoin fork will my coin immediately double if I am using the Bitcoin Unlimited client when this happens? I know my ethereum holding's doubled....The ETH chain preserved it's value but the ETC chain, while still maintaining some value, dropped.  I sold my ETC immediately for ETH so I gained....But, what might happen here?  Should we be prepared by running both clients, just in case?

from what i've understood, there can only be one chain not two or three or whatever, every other chain which isn't the main chain will be n altcoin, if this new chain will have a value, that is another story

if they reach the needed % for their consensus, that chain will be the enw bitcoin, as the majority of miners will solve new block for that chain, and exchange and merchants will be forced to use that fork

but now that i think aout it what would happen if exchange and merchant will remain with the original chain?

Well, when Ethereum forked, the exchanges supported both chains in the fork.  So, those who were prepared had the opportunity to dump the lesser supported chain and double their holdings....There was only a brief window in which profit could be maximized because the non-sanctioned chain quickly lost value...Where there is a possibility of profiting off of a situation, there will be people committing extra brain cells to the task  <--- Believe that!