Vinny Lingham - Bitcoin Unlimited (BTU) will be an Alt Coin, BTC will crash

[andyatcrux]

Nowhere did he say BTC would crash, no matter how much you would like to use him for you noob sockpuppet FUD account. The fork would make his prediction of $3000 this year less likely. "Crash hard" , mmmkay.

Edit: for the record, I do not support Bitcoin Unlimited, I just think the rhetoric of the subject line is more inflammatory than need be.

[1715078029]

1715078029

[1715078029]

1715078029

[1715078029]

1715078029

[pereira4]

Price will be ruined due to Core dragging their feet over a block size increase and generally fucking around prioritising technical perfection over actual usefulness and being totally unwilling to compromise. This is why alts are rapidly gaining on BTC.

If a fork causes Bitcoin to crash hard, then frankly, it deserves to, since this can happen at any point in the future.

Two coins would be the best solution at this time. All current hodlers have coins on both chains. One chain can scale on chain, be actually used as a payment system, the other chain can play at being digital gold and pray that lightning network is somehow better than on chain payments.

At least with a fork current hodlers will own both the gold and the payment network. No fork means an altcoin will eat Bitcoin's payment network market share.

A fork should make everybody happy. Except Vinny, who needs to cry some more.

The blocksize increase is segwit, tell the miners to signal the fucking thing already.

After segwit is adopted, we can raise the blocksize in a safer way since segwit addresses certain problems.

The problem is, even if we upgrade it to 2MB, they will soon demand more.

[Killerpotleaf]

Price will be ruined due to Core dragging their feet over a block size increase and generally fucking around prioritising technical perfection over actual usefulness and being totally unwilling to compromise. This is why alts are rapidly gaining on BTC.

If a fork causes Bitcoin to crash hard, then frankly, it deserves to, since this can happen at any point in the future.

Two coins would be the best solution at this time. All current hodlers have coins on both chains. One chain can scale on chain, be actually used as a payment system, the other chain can play at being digital gold and pray that lightning network is somehow better than on chain payments.

At least with a fork current hodlers will own both the gold and the payment network. No fork means an altcoin will eat Bitcoin's payment network market share.

A fork should make everybody happy. Except Vinny, who needs to cry some more.

The blocksize increase is segwit, tell the miners to signal the fucking thing already.

After segwit is adopted, we can raise the blocksize in a safer way since segwit addresses certain problems.

The problem is, even if we upgrade it to 2MB, they will soon demand more.

BTW soon BU members will vote on a SegwitHF BUIP

[FiendCoin]

Nowhere did he say BTC would crash, no matter how much you would like to use him for you noob sockpuppet FUD account. The fork would make his prediction of $3000 this year less likely. "Crash hard" , mmmkay.

Edit: for the record, I do not support Bitcoin Unlimited, I just think the rhetoric of the subject line is more inflammatory than need be.

From Vinny's article "33% less almost immediately after a Hard Fork due to reduced network effects"

Now shut the fuck up and go away until you can learn to read and contribute something useful to the conversation.

Edit: Also from Vinny "If there was a fork and Roger wanted to pump Bitcoin Unlimited, he could literally dump all his Bitcoin (BTC) holdings into the market. I don’t want to even guess what 300,000+ coins being moved in a short space of time would do to prices, especially after a contentious hard fork where new money investors would already be on the sidelines."

[Ted E. Bare]

Bitcoin Unlimited support peaked at approximately 33% and is decreasing, see:
https://coin.dance/blocks
At this moment in time there will not be a hard fork.

[btcbug]

Refresh my memory... is it Nodes or Miners that has to hit the 75% threshold for BU or 95% for SegWit?

Also, Roger Ver stands to lose the most out of a hard fork that is clearly split. So to me, I can't really see a true contentious hard fork happening. Isn't that why they put a 75%/95% threshold? So that essentially, everyone goes one way or the other?

[manselr]

Bitcoin Unlimited is 49% Roger Ver and %49 Jihan Wu, the remaining %2 are paid shills and naive idiots.

[andyatcrux]

Nowhere did he say BTC would crash, no matter how much you would like to use him for you noob sockpuppet FUD account. The fork would make his prediction of $3000 this year less likely. "Crash hard" , mmmkay.

Edit: for the record, I do not support Bitcoin Unlimited, I just think the rhetoric of the subject line is more inflammatory than need be.

From Vinny's article "33% less almost immediately after a Hard Fork due to reduced network effects"

Now shut the fuck up and go away until you can learn to read and contribute something useful to the conversation.

Edit: Also from Vinny "If there was a fork and Roger wanted to pump Bitcoin Unlimited, he could literally dump all his Bitcoin (BTC) holdings into the market. I don’t want to even guess what 300,000+ coins being moved in a short space of time would do to prices, especially after a contentious hard fork where new money investors would already be on the sidelines."

Okay, I concede.  Given a history of flash crashes up to 80% down though, I initially absorbed that stat as less of a "hard crash" then a major correction. But given the Ver factor, I can see the calamity in Lingham's prediction. I just had a knee-jerk reaction to your OP, but I apologize for reducing you to a sockpuppet noob like that. I agree that BU is bad for Bitcoin, and seeing people state the cases against it is good. However, fanning the flames of fear seems counterproductive. Just my opinion.

Bitcoin Unlimited (BTU) will be a worthless Altcoin, BTC will bounce back.

[FiendCoin]

Nowhere did he say BTC would crash, no matter how much you would like to use him for you noob sockpuppet FUD account. The fork would make his prediction of $3000 this year less likely. "Crash hard" , mmmkay.

Edit: for the record, I do not support Bitcoin Unlimited, I just think the rhetoric of the subject line is more inflammatory than need be.

From Vinny's article "33% less almost immediately after a Hard Fork due to reduced network effects"

Now shut the fuck up and go away until you can learn to read and contribute something useful to the conversation.

Edit: Also from Vinny "If there was a fork and Roger wanted to pump Bitcoin Unlimited, he could literally dump all his Bitcoin (BTC) holdings into the market. I don’t want to even guess what 300,000+ coins being moved in a short space of time would do to prices, especially after a contentious hard fork where new money investors would already be on the sidelines."

Okay, I concede. I apologize for reducing you to a sockpuppet noob like that.

Thank you. I know I have been a loud mouth about BTU but someone has to counter the paid shills around here.

[notme]

BU does not want a contentious fork.  It is just a tool to allow larger blocks without requiring the blessing of self-appointed bitcoin priests.  Miners will only utilize the tool when the market is ready to have larger blocks.  They are not dumb enough to shoot themselves in the foot.  There is no magic threshold that will trigger a hard fork.

If you actually want to understand BU and not just parrot the unfounded attacks on it, check out the BU subfourm on the forum where the idea was hatched back in 2015: https://bitco.in/forum/forums/bitcoin-unlimited.15/

Start threads, ask questions, find out what BU actually is.  If you are right that is is bad, you'll be able to attack it much better once you understand it.

[FiendCoin]

BU does not want a contentious fork.  It is just a tool to allow larger blocks without requiring the blessing of self-appointed bitcoin priests.  Miners will only utilize the tool when the market is ready to have larger blocks.  They are not dumb enough to shoot themselves in the foot.  There is no magic threshold that will trigger a hard fork.

If you actually want to understand BU and not just parrot the unfounded attacks on it, check out the BU subfourm on the forum where the idea was hatched back in 2015: https://bitco.in/forum/forums/bitcoin-unlimited.15/

Start threads, ask questions, find out what BU actually is.  If you are right that is is bad, you'll be able to attack it much better once you understand it.

Thanks for your forum link.

I don't parrot unfounded attacks on BTU. Check my post history and you will find the criticisms I levy against BTU are indisputable even by the paid shills.

[Miz4r]

BU does not want a contentious fork.  It is just a tool to allow larger blocks without requiring the blessing of self-appointed bitcoin priests.  Miners will only utilize the tool when the market is ready to have larger blocks.  They are not dumb enough to shoot themselves in the foot.  There is no magic threshold that will trigger a hard fork.

Yeah let's all just trust the miners to behave nicely. Just what Bitcoin needs, to trust a bunch of centralized Chinese miners to do the right thing... You say BU does not want a contentious fork, but there is nothing at all in their code that will guarantee this. They have made no safety precautions at all and nobody has any clue when the fork will activate and whether it will be safe when it does. Considering the recent bugs coming from the BU camp I do not trust them at all. The Core team is a billion times better and I'm getting really tired hearing about all the bullshit conspiracy theories surrounding Core from people who have no clue what they're talking about. Obviously we can expect this from people who are ignorant about Bitcoin and want to see it fail, but it's very disappointing to see real passionate Bitcoin fans fall for this. I would like to see bigger blocks too but I prefer doing it in a safe and responsible way and that's exactly what Core is doing. But people are impatient or have begun wearing tin foil hats and now we have this whole mess with BU. And they're even blocking a blocksize increase themselves by being against SegWit which is even more ridiculous. Stop the irrational Core hate already and start thinking.

[notme]

BU does not want a contentious fork.  It is just a tool to allow larger blocks without requiring the blessing of self-appointed bitcoin priests.  Miners will only utilize the tool when the market is ready to have larger blocks.  They are not dumb enough to shoot themselves in the foot.  There is no magic threshold that will trigger a hard fork.

Yeah let's all just trust the miners to behave nicely. Just what Bitcoin needs, to trust a bunch of centralized Chinese miners to do the right thing... You say BU does not want a contentious fork, but there is nothing at all in their code that will guarantee this. They have made no safety precautions at all and nobody has any clue when the fork will activate and whether it will be safe when it does. Considering the recent bugs coming from the BU camp I do not trust them at all. The Core team is a billion times better and I'm getting really tired hearing about all the bullshit conspiracy theories surrounding Core from people who have no clue what they're talking about. Obviously we can expect this from people who are ignorant about Bitcoin and want to see it fail, but it's very disappointing to see real passionate Bitcoin fans fall for this. I would like to see bigger blocks too but I prefer doing it in a safe and responsible way and that's exactly what Core is doing. But people are impatient or have begun wearing tin foil hats and now we have this whole mess with BU. And they're even blocking a blocksize increase themselves by being against SegWit which is even more ridiculous. Stop the irrational Core hate already and start thinking.

If you don't trust the majority of miners, Bitcoin is DOA.

I would love to be able to get behind SegWit, but I can't support such a large change that has never been live on a network with tokens that have actual value.  Test nets don't count since there is nothing to be gained by disclosing a vulnerability when you could wait for it to go live and short the market.

I don't hate core, but they have burned some bridges by promising a blocksize increase within 3 months of segwit release and then failing to deliver it (https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.y441c9e2f points 2 and 3).  They could regain some support if they would deliver on that now, even if it is very late.

Trust me when I say I've thought more about the issue of scaling than most people on this forum.  I would appreciate it if you didn't assume I was mindless just because I hold different opinions than you.

[notme]

BU does not want a contentious fork.  It is just a tool to allow larger blocks without requiring the blessing of self-appointed bitcoin priests.  Miners will only utilize the tool when the market is ready to have larger blocks.  They are not dumb enough to shoot themselves in the foot.  There is no magic threshold that will trigger a hard fork.

If you actually want to understand BU and not just parrot the unfounded attacks on it, check out the BU subfourm on the forum where the idea was hatched back in 2015: https://bitco.in/forum/forums/bitcoin-unlimited.15/

Start threads, ask questions, find out what BU actually is.  If you are right that is is bad, you'll be able to attack it much better once you understand it.

Thanks for your forum link.

I don't parrot unfounded attacks on BTU. Check my post history and you will find the criticisms I levy against BTU are indisputable even by the paid shills.

I read the first page of your post history and just saw a bunch of misunderstanding and anger.

[FiendCoin]

BU does not want a contentious fork.  It is just a tool to allow larger blocks without requiring the blessing of self-appointed bitcoin priests.  Miners will only utilize the tool when the market is ready to have larger blocks.  They are not dumb enough to shoot themselves in the foot.  There is no magic threshold that will trigger a hard fork.

If you actually want to understand BU and not just parrot the unfounded attacks on it, check out the BU subfourm on the forum where the idea was hatched back in 2015: https://bitco.in/forum/forums/bitcoin-unlimited.15/

Start threads, ask questions, find out what BU actually is.  If you are right that is is bad, you'll be able to attack it much better once you understand it.

Thanks for your forum link.

I don't parrot unfounded attacks on BTU. Check my post history and you will find the criticisms I levy against BTU are indisputable even by the paid shills.

I read the first page of your post history and just saw a bunch of misunderstanding and anger.

There's no misunderstanding just being vocal and speaking up against the BTU shills, that's where my anger lies. As far as posts go you need to look further back for my thoughts on BTU, I make a lot of posts )

Edit: Just posted my thoughts on BTU supporters, check that out if you want.

[notme]

BU does not want a contentious fork.  It is just a tool to allow larger blocks without requiring the blessing of self-appointed bitcoin priests.  Miners will only utilize the tool when the market is ready to have larger blocks.  They are not dumb enough to shoot themselves in the foot.  There is no magic threshold that will trigger a hard fork.

If you actually want to understand BU and not just parrot the unfounded attacks on it, check out the BU subfourm on the forum where the idea was hatched back in 2015: https://bitco.in/forum/forums/bitcoin-unlimited.15/

Start threads, ask questions, find out what BU actually is.  If you are right that is is bad, you'll be able to attack it much better once you understand it.

Thanks for your forum link.

I don't parrot unfounded attacks on BTU. Check my post history and you will find the criticisms I levy against BTU are indisputable even by the paid shills.

I read the first page of your post history and just saw a bunch of misunderstanding and anger.

There's no misunderstanding just being vocal and speaking up against the BTU shills, that's where my anger lies. As far as posts go you need to look further back for my thoughts on BTU, I make a lot of posts )

Edit: Just posted my thoughts on BTU supporters, check that out if you want.

I've got better things to do than to go scrounging through your posts.  That last post was a bunch of ad hominem BS.  You are attacking a made up straw man "BU supporter" that doesn't actually exist and then slinging some insults.

[Clement Kaliyar]

Bitcoin Unlimited is 49% Roger Ver and %49 Jihan Wu, the remaining %2 are paid shills and naive idiots.

That is the reality and Roger Ver is trying hard to take over the bitcoin but the code is filled with vulnerabilities and one of the main vulnerability attackers trying to fuck them up will use the null pointer and the assert statement which can literaly close the application and that is what happened recently. and it shows their programing skills .

[FiendCoin]

BU does not want a contentious fork.  It is just a tool to allow larger blocks without requiring the blessing of self-appointed bitcoin priests.  Miners will only utilize the tool when the market is ready to have larger blocks.  They are not dumb enough to shoot themselves in the foot.  There is no magic threshold that will trigger a hard fork.

If you actually want to understand BU and not just parrot the unfounded attacks on it, check out the BU subfourm on the forum where the idea was hatched back in 2015: https://bitco.in/forum/forums/bitcoin-unlimited.15/

Start threads, ask questions, find out what BU actually is.  If you are right that is is bad, you'll be able to attack it much better once you understand it.

Thanks for your forum link.

I don't parrot unfounded attacks on BTU. Check my post history and you will find the criticisms I levy against BTU are indisputable even by the paid shills.

I read the first page of your post history and just saw a bunch of misunderstanding and anger.

There's no misunderstanding just being vocal and speaking up against the BTU shills, that's where my anger lies. As far as posts go you need to look further back for my thoughts on BTU, I make a lot of posts )

Edit: Just posted my thoughts on BTU supporters, check that out if you want.

I've got better things to do than to go scrounging through your posts.  That last post was a bunch of ad hominem BS.  You are attacking a made up straw man "BU supporter" that doesn't actually exist and then slinging some insults.

Hurt feelings? I can understand, however, what I say about China is 100% true and indisputable. A vote of BTU is a vote for China centralization, plain and simple.

[Amph]

why, if they are listing it as an alt, it would distrupt the value of bitcoin? no-sense, it would be treated simply as a new alt with its pump and dump

most likely people(those that bought below $1000 of course) are selling as an excuse to caause a panic sellign and buy cheap coin

i see this bad trend in bitcoin, where every time a bad news come there is a big manipulation to cause fud in the market and make bitcoin cheaper, susually a pump happen after this

this make me think that bitcoin is simply not mature enough, a strong currency should not be affected by silly news like this, ever...

[york780]

News like a fork is the worse thing that can happen to bitcoin, its normall that it gets affected