Why BU should be correctly classified as an attempted robbery of BTC, not a fork

[iamTom123]

As a very ordinary Bitcoin owner (heck I only own some), I find this debate sometimes beyond my comprehension as I am not technically-inclined though I am really trying to catch up. It is sad that all of these debates and accusations and counter-accusations are hurting Bitcoiners all over the globe. What I actually realized is that we are bringing the very core of human nature into Bitcoin. Nothing has changed, actually. We remain to be greedy, divided and manipulative. This is just my opinion and there is no need to rant over this.

[kiklo]

Why Bitcoin Unlimited should be correctly classified as an ‘attempted robbery’ of Bitcoin, not a fork

https://medium.com/@Coinosphere/why-bitcoin-unlimited-should-be-correctly-classified-as-an-attempted-robbery-of-bitcoin-not-a-9355d075763c#.r5f6ui934

An excellent article that describes how trying to overtake the name of a project via hard fork is unheard of and nonsense.

Looks like BUcoiners can't accept if they fork they will be an altcoin.

Hmm,
That is a load of Bullshit, everyone has been almost begging BTC Core /BlockStream for Months to just Fix the transactions capacity issue with something the miners could agree too and drop their segwit/LN takeover attempt at BTC. But they have done nothing , so the Unlimited guys are stepping up to fix it.

If unlimited has the Longer chain with the most difficulty , buddy they are bitcoin, get used to it.
You want to pick NITWITCOIN instead with it's offchain corrupt banking structure , feel free, but Offchain banking with deadwit & LN is the Alt coin, because they are the weaker & shorter chain.


 

[cryptodancer]

Food for thought:
https://twitter.com/desantis/status/842919995717926912

BU is apparently not just about block size.

[alani123]

I think that it'd be ublikely for BU to receive overwhelming support over the next period of time and hence it is destined to fade away just as XT did. The non-organic support it receives at the moment will simply not be sustained as supporters see that it is not catching on and start moving onto doing better things with their time and hashrate.

[kiklo]

I think that it'd be ublikely for BU to receive overwhelming support over the next period of time and hence it is destined to fade away just as XT did. The non-organic support it receives at the moment will simply not be sustained as supporters see that it is not catching on and start moving onto doing better things with their time and hashrate.

https://coin.dance/blocks

BTU Support  32.6%
Deadwit        29.2%

Deadwit is the one most favored to fade away.
Deadwit needs 95% to activate

BTU only needs 55% minimum for 2 weeks to activate, 
They will probably wait til it is 65%, but it is doable at 55%.

 

[pereira4]

The article is crap and tries to induce in error less savvy readers.

There are a lot of bitcoin forks, litecoin and dogecoin are examples of such forks the same way Joomla! is a fork of Mambo, Bitcoin Unlimited is a protocol upgrade.

In bitcoin development what is called a fork, hard or soft, is different from what the author is trying to compare with.

BTW, the same claim can be made about the changes Bitcoin Core team is trying to introduce.

You don't know shit about bitcoin. You don't get to say what is and isn't a protocol upgrade. BUcoin introduces a deep protocol change with something demonstrated to not work called EC. satoshi was against getting his software forked for a reason.

A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me.  It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in.  If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version.  If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version.  This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.

I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.

The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime.  Because of that, I wanted to design it to support every possible transaction type I could think of.  The problem was, each thing required special support code and data fields whether it was used or not, and only covered one special case at a time.  It would have been an explosion of special cases.  The solution was script, which generalizes the problem so transacting parties can describe their transaction as a predicate that the node network evaluates.  The nodes only need to understand the transaction to the extent of evaluating whether the sender's conditions are met.

The script is actually a predicate.  It's just an equation that evaluates to true or false.  Predicate is a long and unfamiliar word so I called it script.

The receiver of a payment does a template match on the script.  Currently, receivers only accept two templates: direct payment and bitcoin address.  Future versions can add templates for more transaction types and nodes running that version or higher will be able to receive them.  All versions of nodes in the network can verify and process any new transactions into blocks, even though they may not know how to read them.

The design supports a tremendous variety of possible transaction types that I designed years ago.  Escrow transactions, bonded contracts, third party arbitration, multi-party signature, etc.  If Bitcoin catches on in a big way, these are things we'll want to explore in the future, but they all had to be designed at the beginning to make sure they would be possible later.

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.
 The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

satoshi qualified BUcoin literally as a "menace to the network".

All exchanges already spoke: BUcoin will be an altcoin, they all will support the BTC token for Core, your BUchina will never be BTC. I will enjoy dumping BTU or BTE or whatever is called for more BTC.

[aarturka]

All exchanges already spoke: BUcoin will be an altcoin, they all will support the BTC token for Core, your BUchina will never be BTC. I will enjoy dumping BTU or BTE or whatever is called for more BTC.

I'm also going to increase my amounts of bitcoins this way. Maybe in first hour there'll be chance to even double it 

[Xester]

Why Bitcoin Unlimited should be correctly classified as an ‘attempted robbery’ of Bitcoin, not a fork

https://medium.com/@Coinosphere/why-bitcoin-unlimited-should-be-correctly-classified-as-an-attempted-robbery-of-bitcoin-not-a-9355d075763c#.r5f6ui934

An excellent article that describes how trying to overtake the name of a project via hard fork is unheard of and nonsense.

Looks like BUcoiners can't accept if they fork they will be an altcoin.

The BUcoiners as you term them will have no other choice but to accept the fact that their efforts will turn into a new altcoin and that is BTU. If they cannot accept it then they should just accept the propositions of the core developers to finally get on with the consensus. But if they just accept it then they must work hard so that BTU will also meet success on the long run.

[kiklo]

satoshi qualified BUcoin literally as a "menace to the network".

All exchanges already spoke: BUcoin will be an altcoin, they all will support the BTC token for Core, your BUchina will never be BTC. I will enjoy dumping BTU or BTE or whatever is called for more BTC.

And Satoshi is dead so he is not as smart as you think he was.

BTC will also die , if the transactions issue is not fixed.

Have you bothered to count the lines of code, segwit is a bigger change than anything unlimited has done.

The design of PoW coins itself defines that the miners have control of BTC , not the exchanges.
If you have a problem with that , you are going to have to remove the PoW code from BTC and add something NEW.  


 

FYI:
I dub BTC core coin, SegPal , Might as well just use Paypal, both are offchain.

[franky1]

The design of PoW coins itself defines that the miners and nodes have control of BTC ,
 not the exchanges. who are only a couple dozen of the 7000
If you have a problem with that , you are going to have to remove the PoW code from BTC and ban atleast 3000 nodes and add something NEW

FTFY

[paul gatt]

Like you said, it really is a very excellent article, it clearly states the current state and manifestation of bitcoin. Everything is said clearly. I like it so much, let's share it with everyone. Of course, BU is making a lot of changes with bitcoin, its value is falling sharply, the bitcoin market is in trouble, it even loses alt altogether like ETH. Allow me to say that it lost to other coin, because in markets, ETH is extremely developed, it can overcome bitcoin at any time. Meanwhile, bitcoin has fallen into the troubles of innovation. This is bad

[franky1]

im laughing at the article.. it actually debunks itself..

No project seems to have any history of the forkers stealing the forkee’s name nor property, no matter the circumstance. Yes, even when large amounts of funding were involved.
..
Plenty of these projects felt that their parent “sold out” or “lost its way,” just like those who have lost their faith in Bitcoin’s core developers today. Did they impersonate them?

There is simply no precedence for a fork stealing it’s parents name. When they steal the parent’s marketshare or customer base, it is because they, as separate entities, out perform their parents, not pretend to be them.

There is no precedence for this attitude anywhere in the world of open source development that I can find

where does:
BU, xt, classic, nbitcoin, bitcoinj, bitcoinruby, btcd, ever suggest that they are stealing "core"
i have not seen any brand called core2.0... thus debunked..

bitcoin is an open project.. there have for years been many brands running on the network.
so where is the proof that other brands are stealing "CORE" brand.

core actually rewrote their entire codebase recently and the other brands have not followed that. thats cores problem. the other diverse brands have not followed core

so you cant even claim they are stealing code. even though the code is opensource and licenced to be allowed to be used.

so the "attempted theft of "core" is debunked.

and then separately if you think only core "own" bitcoin.. you are fooled by the notion, by which your then pulled into the corporate agenda of core wanting dominance and centralism

[Iranus]

Why is everyone afraid of BU that much? It is not a robbery, it is a perfectly legal upgrade.

If the community decides to go with BU, then that's it. If you don't like what BU offers, you can still use your oldschool core code.

It shouldn't be forced on us, it's just a matter of choice and people should be given the chance to choose between Bitcoin unlimited and core Bitcoin.

This comment means nothing, you're just loudly agreeing with Pettuh.  If the miners decide to go with BU (miners should rightfully have the decision) then there will be a hard fork and there will be a new BUcoin.

I don't think you quite understand the way that this works though.  When the hard fork happens, you will get the exact amount in your BUcoin that you had in Bitcoin and still keep the Bitcoin.  So you will have both coins, therefore even if democratically the miners decide to go with BU you will still be able to use your old Bitcoin and people don't like BU then its price will fall and Bitcoin will still be the prominent coin, which seems increasingly likely to happen now that most major exchanges have agreed to list BUcoin as an altcoin and process their withdrawals in Bitcoin.

[Wind_FURY]

I think that it'd be ublikely for BU to receive overwhelming support over the next period of time and hence it is destined to fade away just as XT did. The non-organic support it receives at the moment will simply not be sustained as supporters see that it is not catching on and start moving onto doing better things with their time and hashrate.

I disagree. XT did not have the support like what Bitcoin Unlimited is enjoying right now. Look at the charts of the growing support for BU and the diminishing support for Core. The trend has never been clearer. If BU reaches 50%, which I think it will, if the current trend continues, then it would be good to research more about replay attacks and what steps to do to ensure that you will receive your share of BTU.

[jaybny]

Why Bitcoin Unlimited should be correctly classified as an ‘attempted robbery’ of Bitcoin, not a fork

https://medium.com/@Coinosphere/why-bitcoin-unlimited-should-be-correctly-classified-as-an-attempted-robbery-of-bitcoin-not-a-9355d075763c#.r5f6ui934

An excellent article that describes how trying to overtake the name of a project via hard fork is unheard of and nonsense.

Looks like BUcoiners can't accept if they fork they will be an altcoin.

I agree - and here is a poison pill to stop the robbery

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1833046.0

[European Central Bank]

I disagree. XT did not have the support like what Bitcoin Unlimited is enjoying right now. Look at the charts of the growing support for BU and the diminishing support for Core. The trend has never been clearer. If BU reaches 50%, which I think it will, if the current trend continues, then it would be good to research more about replay attacks and what steps to do to ensure that you will receive your share of BTU.

the actual signalling for segwit has held very steady which means it's real. this unlimited run up is a moon shot that needs to capture the attention of more people in a short space of time for it to actually happen.

i don't believe it can sustain itself, especially as more players pick their code apart, come up with alternate proposals or come out against it.

and if it did look like it really was gonna be a reality i think many would pull back from that. it's easy to make a pose. it's harder to risk everything.

[xskl0]

Why Bitcoin Unlimited should be correctly classified as an ‘attempted robbery’ of Bitcoin, not a fork

https://medium.com/@Coinosphere/why-bitcoin-unlimited-should-be-correctly-classified-as-an-attempted-robbery-of-bitcoin-not-a-9355d075763c#.r5f6ui934

An excellent article that describes how trying to overtake the name of a project via hard fork is unheard of and nonsense.

Looks like BUcoiners can't accept if they fork they will be an altcoin.

Yes, an altcoin but the original coin will still existing as a store of value at least.

[Wind_FURY]

I disagree. XT did not have the support like what Bitcoin Unlimited is enjoying right now. Look at the charts of the growing support for BU and the diminishing support for Core. The trend has never been clearer. If BU reaches 50%, which I think it will, if the current trend continues, then it would be good to research more about replay attacks and what steps to do to ensure that you will receive your share of BTU.

the actual signalling for segwit has held very steady which means it's real. this unlimited run up is a moon shot that needs to capture the attention of more people in a short space of time for it to actually happen.

Are you saying that support for Bitcoin Unlimited is not real? The hashing power provided by the miners speak for itself. Check the charts online on Core and BU, they are both real. Segwit activation has plateaued while BU is trending.

i don't believe it can sustain itself, especially as more players pick their code apart, come up with alternate proposals or come out against it.

BU appeals to the miners more than Segwit and the Lightning Network. I do not think they are very concerned much with the code because they have shown that they are willing to split the blockchain in 2. The actions they have taken show it.

and if it did look like it really was gonna be a reality i think many would pull back from that. it's easy to make a pose. it's harder to risk everything.

I think the same but that is still a maybe.