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

[BillyBobZorton]

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.

[1715191932]

1715191932

[1715191932]

1715191932

[pedrog]

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.

[jonald_fyookball]

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.

so anything not Blockstream/core is 'overtaking' the project?   And we should ignore Satoshi's clear statement in the whitepaper that nodes can vote on rules with their processing power?

The only 'trying to overtake via hard fork' is the backdoor UASF , which is probably the brainchild of Greg Maxwell.

[calkob]

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.

No matter how much we disagree with the whole BU thing, i am still so surprised at the amount it has got from proper bitcoiners.  It really worries me that the community is broken and it what will unite us again.

[gentlemand]

No matter how much we disagree with the whole BU thing, i am still so surprised at the amount it has got from proper bitcoiners. 

Amount of what? No one should ever put much faith in node counts or the amount of noise a small number of people make. That goes for every camp.

[FiendCoin]

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.

No matter how much we disagree with the whole BU thing, i am still so surprised at the amount it has got from proper bitcoiners.  It really worries me that the community is broken and it what will unite us again.

When you got VERY vocal paid shills like jonald_fyookball, it seems worse than it is. This guy spends all day defending BTU and pushing Roger and Jihan's agenda.

[Carlton Banks]

No matter how much we disagree with the whole BU thing, i am still so surprised at the amount it has got from proper bitcoiners.

Amount of what? No one should ever put much faith in node counts or the amount of noise a small number of people make. That goes for every camp.

So if you're the "impartial voice of reason", as you frequently cast yourself, you're presumably waiting for... what? exactly? Before you tell us your reasonable-middle-ground position? Because you never have one.

Tell us what you think, because it's a little pointless just to keep stepping in deriding everyone like you're somehow above it all, and yet so aloof that you've got nothing that's actually pertinent or useful to add either

[Variogam]

No matter how much we disagree with the whole BU thing, i am still so surprised at the amount it has got from proper bitcoiners.  It really worries me that the community is broken and it what will unite us again.

When you got VERY vocal paid shills like jonald_fyookball, it seems worse than it is. This guy spends all day defending BTU and pushing Roger and Jihan's agenda.

How much Bitcoin community is divided can be seen on many tweets. It hurts my mind when reading the tweet comments. I see many BlockStream supporters posting frequently as well, so by your logic they are paid shills as well ?

BTW the blog post is just garbage, the author dont understand how open source software works.

[Iranus]

This is a pretty weak attempt to discredit BU.  You (or at least this article) are arguing that BU is a "robbery" despite the fact that it's clearly just an alteration to Bitcoin's open source code.  It's not a robbery of Bitcoin because not only are they (obviously) not actually taking any Bitcoin in the literal sense, they are just using the name that has rightfully continued to be used for all changing versions of the same currency over time.

[Usainbot]

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.

so anything not Blockstream/core is 'overtaking' the project?   And we should ignore Satoshi's clear statement in the whitepaper that nodes can vote on rules with their processing power?

The only 'trying to overtake via hard fork' is the backdoor UASF , which is probably the brainchild of Greg Maxwell.

I think the miner will vote with their hashing power. That is more fair than the so called UASF.

[jonald_fyookball]

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.

No matter how much we disagree with the whole BU thing, i am still so surprised at the amount it has got from proper bitcoiners.  It really worries me that the community is broken and it what will unite us again.

When you got VERY vocal paid shills like jonald_fyookball, it seems worse than it is. This guy spends all day defending BTU and pushing Roger and Jihan's agenda.

thanks.

I just care about my Bitcoin investment.

Sorry if I find it problematic to massively hedge myself by buying ethers and moneros.  I actually want Bitcoin to keep its utility.

[sanas]

Is there a date for the possible launch of a hardfork?

[dinofelis]

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

That's nevertheless exactly what ethereum did.  The old project, ETC, has a new name, and the "alt coin", the forked-away coin, kept the name ethereum.  Most probably because the overtake was done by the centralized core team, and it got the biggest part of the market cap.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

Is there a date for the possible launch of a hardfork?

75% miner consensus has to be reached first, long ways off.

http://nodecounter.com/#bitcoin_classic_blocks

Doesn't have half that right now.

[arklan]

Is there a date for the possible launch of a hardfork?

as far as i am aware, no. but i am by no means an authority, or even well informed...

[cryptodancer]

BU has taken a reputation hit, on top of exchanges considering it as an altcoin. This will all blow over, miners are just milking the tx fees as long as they can before the inevitable upgrade to SegWit.

[gentlemand]

This will all blow over, miners are just milking the tx fees as long as they can before the inevitable upgrade to SegWit.

I don't believe that. The opposing elements are becoming ever more dug in and there's enough of them on both sides to continue the stalemate. The question is whether the most important element by far, them users, somehow manages to assert their will.

[Yakamoto]

BU has taken a reputation hit, on top of exchanges considering it as an altcoin. This will all blow over, miners are just milking the tx fees as long as they can before the inevitable upgrade to SegWit.

I don't know how close we are to Segwit, but I guess you're probably right as to there being a ton of milking of fees going on with miners right now, and that's why there aren't serious pushes one way or the other yet.

I'm kind of curious if that will change anytime soon or if there will be a sudden move to changing the block sizes.

[dinofelis]

BU has taken a reputation hit, on top of exchanges considering it as an altcoin. This will all blow over, miners are just milking the tx fees as long as they can before the inevitable upgrade to SegWit.

As they are the entities deciding on the upgrade, I don't understand your logic.  Miners will decide in any case, because they build the block chain users can, if they wish, download with their nodes.  Miners have not the slightest bit of interest in adopting segwit.  They don't have much interest in adopting BU, except for one thing: a miner that can mine a bigger block than his competitor, can reap in extra fees.  However, his competitor has to be willing to build on his bloc, also reaping in a bigger bloc and more fees.... except that if they accept too many of them, they release the pressure on the fee market and their fees will go down.
So, for a miner to switch to BU, he is torn between different strategies
1) accept his neighbour's big bloc, build on it, and reap in more fees (for the moment)
  -> advantage: more transactions and hence more fees ;
  -> disadvantage: fluidifying bitcoin transactions, releasing pressure on the fee market
  -> risk that this bigger double bloc will be orphaned by peer miners

2) reject his neighbour's big bloc, and build on a previous bloc
  -> advantage: keeping pressure on the fee market
  -> risk that most miners will accept the bigger bloc and his new bloc will be orphaned
  -> possibility to keep doing so, and produce an alternative chain, the former bitcoin chain

So, long-term thinking miners are against any relief on the fee market, and want transactions in general to be difficult to get through ; however, they have to comply to the wishes of the majority of miners.  It is best to follow the majority.  But if the majority is not clear, one can decide to fork to keep the small chain with its lucrative pressured fee market.

If miners are not too stupid, they will only pay enough lip service to BU to make other consensus hopes idle ; but they will limit lip service to BU so that it will not become reality, because for miners, desperate users not getting their transactions through is the most lucrative fee market they can imagine.

[Arcteryx]

I think it should be because it is an attempt to defame and manipulate the true blockchain with this deformed version of it's successful contribution to all that use bitcoin.
It is certainly a huge attempt to destroy the blockchain and all that it has tried to accomplish for the past 8 years.