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

[franky1]

BU is not the one with the ban hammer. BU and MANY other implementations can all communicate all on the same level playing field.

BU would only activate with majority consent. meaning core if they dont play on the equal playing field with the rest of the community. then core will be the ones banning nodes.. no one else.



also it is
core that is trying its hardest to push for activation
core that ban certain nodes from being upstream if they activate
core that will orphan off and ban pools that have valid blocks but simply not be using a core brand of software
core that will treat anything not core as second class.

atleast get real with the facts. and admit who really is looking for domination

[1715143062]

1715143062

[1715143062]

1715143062

[Carlton Banks]

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.

What makes you think the users aren't represented in the debate? Why wouldn't the users be interested in expressing their thoughts and attitudes, when the value of their BTC assets are at stake?

This is a bizarre distinction you're creating, as if none of the people debating have anything at stake (BTC assets or otherwise).

[dinofelis]

BU would only activate with majority consent.

also BU is not the one with the ban hammer. BU and MANY other implementations can all communicate all on the same level playing field.

however it is
core that is trying its hardest to push for activation
core that ban certain nodes from being upstream if they activate
core that will orphan off and ban pools that have valid blocks but simply not be using a core brand of software
core that will treat anything not core as second class.

atleast get real with the facts. and admit who really is looking for domination

Don't worry.  Nothing will happen.  Segwit only activates with 95% consensus which will never be reached.  BU will only fork with 75% majority, which will not be achieved.  Bitcoin is bitcoin, and will not change.  What you have now, is what you will always have.

[AngryDwarf]

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.

If larger blocks provide greater utility value to bitcoin through increased transaction throughput, the value of bitcoin increases. So the value of the block subsidy increases, and the value of the transaction fees collected increases.

[dinofelis]

If larger blocks provide greater utility value to bitcoin through increased transaction throughput, the value of bitcoin increases. So the value of the block subsidy increases, and the value of the transaction fees collected increases.

Depends how much the market price moves up when more transactions are available.  At the moment, the fees make out about 15% of the miner revenue.  If the market price would move up by 15% with larger blocs, then this is in the advantage of miners (fees essentially to zero, only bloc reward).  But 3 years from now, there's another bloc halving ; and the fees are on the rise now.  So fees become more and more important, and they would probably drop to near-zero if the pressure on transactions were relieved.

The problem is that a hard fork will probably PLUMB the (BTU) price more than it will gain.  Segwit is to be avoided at all price for miners, because then, they can forget about the fee market for ever, if LN is successful.

[AngryDwarf]

If larger blocks provide greater utility value to bitcoin through increased transaction throughput, the value of bitcoin increases. So the value of the block subsidy increases, and the value of the transaction fees collected increases.

Depends how much the market price moves up when more transactions are available.  At the moment, the fees make out about 15% of the miner revenue.  If the market price would move up by 15% with larger blocs, then this is in the advantage of miners (fees essentially to zero, only bloc reward).  But 3 years from now, there's another bloc halving ; and the fees are on the rise now.  So fees become more and more important, and they would probably drop to near-zero if the pressure on transactions were relieved.

Which would be better than a loss of confidence in bitcoin, due to the artificially restricted capacity. Fees should not be that important for quite a while. Last one to leave, remember to switch the asics off.

[gentlemand]

Segwit is to be avoided at all price for miners, because then, they can forget about the fee market for ever, if LN is successful.

As far as I can tell an operating Lightning Network would mean a vast increase in on chain fees. Even if people kept coins in channels for a long time, there'd still be waves of others coming and going and each and every one of them needs to interact with the daddy chain at some point.

Or do you think we'd have places like Coinbase offering direct USD/LN interaction with barely any on chain transactions?

[mindrust]

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.

[Pettuh4]

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.

[Carlton Banks]

As far as I can tell an operating Lightning Network would mean a vast increase in on chain fees. Even if people kept coins in channels for a long time, there'd still be waves of others coming and going and each and every one of them needs to interact with the daddy chain at some point.

No.

Your logic is entirely wrong. LN aggregates multiple transactions together. Assuming that your "daddy chain interaction" description is valid (it's not), channels need 2 on-chain transactions, 1 for opening, 1 for closing. Simple arithmetic should be telling you that so long as you make 3 or more transactions before closing the channel, that's one less transaction than would have ended up on-chain. So it frees up space on-chain, and so does not take space away from it.


And you're even more wrong than you realise: the closing part may never need happen. The channel concept is flexible enough to allow the aggregated transactions to flow from one channel into a different channel.

In practice, this means that the more people on Lightning, the better connected they are to each other, no different to the internet itself or the regular Bitcoin network. As long as everyone co-operates (which is a big if of course), then BTC moved over Lightning can keep circulating through the Lightning Network forever.

Because of the necessity of good behaviour to allow that perpetuity, I think it's more likely to be used between people that trust each other strongly, and one's regular IRL brick & mortar stores are the best fit (they're not going anywhere fast, and need to uphold a good reputation as a result). Also, Lightning transactions defy the confirmation concept, because they're not waiting to be confirmed in a block. And instant clearing is exactly what bricks & mortar retailers want.

[cammymack]

Ok NOOB question but for all these bitcoin holders who haven't quite got their head around the fork..

Say for example I have BTC with a value of £6000 in total and after the fork the amount is split into two, BU and core coins.
Is it split into £3000 worth of BU and £3000 of CORE or is my coin total doubled? £6000 of each?

[gentlemand]

Ok NOOB question but for all these bitcoin holders who haven't quite got their head around the fork..

Say for example I have BTC with a value of £6000 in total and after the fork the amount is split into two, BU and core coins.
Is it split into £3000 worth of BU and £3000 of CORE or is my coin total doubled? £6000 of each?

Nothing to do with the GBP valuation. The amount of Bitcoins you have will be doubled because you'll have a carbon copy of Unlimited Bitcoins on the other chain. Both of them will exists side by side initially at least.

And they're almost certainly going to suddenly both be worth an awful lot less.

[Carlton Banks]

You're guaranteed 6.85 BTC on both chains at the current £ exchange rate. £6000 is not guaranteed.



I hope you understand Lightning better now, mandy

[cammymack]

Ok NOOB question but for all these bitcoin holders who haven't quite got their head around the fork..

Say for example I have BTC with a value of £6000 in total and after the fork the amount is split into two, BU and core coins.
Is it split into £3000 worth of BU and £3000 of CORE or is my coin total doubled? £6000 of each?

Nothing to do with the GBP valuation. The amount of Bitcoins you have will be doubled because you'll have a carbon copy of Unlimited Bitcoins on the other chain. Both of them will exists side by side initially at least.

And they're almost certainly going to suddenly both be worth an awful lot less.

Was worried that was the case. I just can't decide whether to exchange BTC for Ethereum.
Thanks banks and mandy

[gentlemand]

Was worried that was the case. I just can't decide whether to exchange BTC for Ethereum.
Thanks banks and mandy

Despite what the heat of squealing may imply, the possibility of a hard fork is a long, long way away at present.

If you really do want to diversify then putting that into something that rose threefold in the space of a few days isn't the most prudent choice but do what makes you happy.

[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.

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.

I would agree with you if there were no altcoins. Bitcoin is only so good as it is both safe and convenient. Users double every year apparently, so the status quo will only get worse, until people move on to something else.

Miners are important, but if bitcoin becomes slow and expensive, I wouldn't put my fiat in it, many wouldn't.  It would drop value and make mining and transaction verification less lucrative.

[FiendCoin]

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.

I would agree with you if there were no altcoins. Bitcoin is only so good as it is both safe and convenient. Users double every year apparently, so the status quo will only get worse, until people move on to something else.

Miners are important, but if bitcoin becomes slow and expensive, I wouldn't put my fiat in it, many wouldn't.  It would drop value and make mining and transaction verification less lucrative.

Sounds reasonable, however, if BTU were to split the blockchain (which is likely) it would devastate Bitcoin's value for the foreseeable future until a clear winner emerges from the split. Both sides would likely drop massive amounts of coins on each others chains trying to destroy the other. BTU users dropping their BTC in favor of more BTU and vice versa.

To sum it up, we're between stagnation and a hardfork both will lead to decreased value of Bitcoin and increased adoption of alt coins.

[aarturka]

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.

I've never seen that solid bitcoiner supports BTU. All BTU shills write, from time to time, that Bitcoin is dead, like rawdog or fyookball, some write that they are altcoiners like kiklo.
Andressen hearn and Ver are also constantly trying to ruin bitcoin price by posting their delusional ideas that bitcoin is a fail experiment and that Kraig is satoshi etc.

[Wind_FURY]

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.

It will not be as simple as declaring Bitcoin Unlimited is a protocol upgrade. Maybe if Core, the big blockers and the other developers come together and agree "BitcoinX" is the protocol upgrade, then yes. But if something is risking the chain to split in 2 then the divide will grow wider. How then can you say that it is a protocol upgrade? It is a fork.

[Sadlife]

 Is this hardwork will even occured? As long as the community is half decided i think this will never happen in many years.
I think the consensus is still at 30% or 50% ?
When will we stop arguing and debating and actually solve the problem. Some say that this hardfork will have an negative effect of bitcoin, why is it bad to hardfork bitcoin?