The correct way for BU to proceed..

[spartacusrex]

if Bitcoin Unlimited want a shot at the title, then IMHO this is the way forward.

Quick recap :

BU does not change the protocol, it is really a GUI change, and a couple of other 'minor programmatic' changes, that lets miners play with MAX_BLOCKSIZE.

they get 3 options :

1) Miner fully accepts the block, and builds on top of it.
2) Miner relays the block - but doesn't build on top of it.  Sees what happens, and joins in if enough other miners build on it.
3) Miner rejects the block.

Pretty simple actually. Elegant even..

So,

BU should be JUST a patch file. That's it. That can be run on the latest version of CORE.

Then when CORE release a new build, BU updates it's patch files.

So that BU is always running off the latest version. (This is tricky delicate code here)

--------

Sorry lads - branching and trying to compete with CORE on a programmatic level, is NOT going to work. Admit it. Move on. grow stronger from it.

Compete with CORE on an ideological level - and you may have a chance.

( I'd be curious to know how small those patch files would be - anyone ? )

[1714770502]

1714770502

[1714770502]

1714770502

[Xester]

if Bitcoin Unlimited want a shot at the title, then IMHO this is the way forward.

Quick recap :

BU does not change the protocol, it is really a GUI change, and a couple of other 'minor programmatic' changes, that lets miners play with MAX_BLOCKSIZE.

they get 3 options :

1) Miner fully accepts the block, and builds on top of it.
2) Miner relays the block - but doesn't build on top of it.  Sees what happens, and joins in if enough other miners build on it.
3) Miner rejects the block.

Pretty simple actually. Elegant even..

So,

BU should be JUST a patch file. That's it. That can be run on the latest version of CORE.

Then when CORE release a new build, BU updates it's patch files.

So that BU is always running off the latest version. (This is tricky delicate code here)

--------

Sorry lads - branching and trying to compete with CORE on a programmatic level, is NOT going to work. Admit it. Move on. grow stronger from it.

Compete with CORE on an ideological level - and you may have a chance.

( I'd be curious to know how small those patch files would be - anyone ? )

I am reading some articles and reviews on Bitcoin Unlimited and I was convinced by the fact that bitcoin unlimited has no future and will lead bitcoin to its demise. Further when Bitcoin Unlimited has surpassed Segwit on the consensus be a few votes the price of bitcoin declines and that is a sign that if Bitcoin Unlimited will be the one accepted many bitcoin holders will shift to other cryptocurrencies there is online.

[dinofelis]

BU main purpose: hold off segwit.

[franky1]

BU, classic, xt and a dozen other 'brands' are not PUSHING to destroy core or bitcoin.

they have been running for years and had made no attempt to split the network. they even laughed in gmaxwells face when gmaxwell asked them to split away.

they are not imposing any 'ban core nodes' or ban core pools/blocks. a 1mb block is still valid.

infact its core that want the split. but they want non-core to do the split, so that core can then play the victim card if things do not go favourably for core.

same is said with segwit, core bypassed a node vote and GAVE pools the vote. all so that core can take the glory if it succeeds or blame pools if it fails. rather then accept not everyone wants it. and either wait it out to see if moods change. or envision something else that the community may want.

core however have bip9 that can actually orphan blocks just because they are not segwit supported to force the blockcount. and are now introducing UASF(a hard unilateral split- once you untwist their silly buzzwords of pretending its 'soft') to force the node counts.

its standard bait and switch to hide their own faults by pointing fingers.

Core could easily add a GUI function so that users can change limits without needing devs 2year delays before offering spoonfed empty gestures in releases. allowing users to actually have decentralised control.

that way core can join the same level playing field as the other brands and all work with consensus. rather than trying to dig their own hole and try getting people to jump in while saying someone else is pushing them in.

anyway. there are many dynamic proposals. you just wont read about the non-core dynamic proposals much because they do not get passed the censership wall of the technical category of this forum, the mailing list and the BIPs listing. all of which are moderated by blockstream devs.

[paul gatt]

I really do not want BU to come out, it will bring a lot of income and income to the miners, but that is really detrimental to all the others, the trade bitcoin is typical. When BU arrives, a large number of btc appear each year, which results in a gradual decline in the value of bitcoin, and the bitcoin market can experience significant events. I object to BU. I hope people hold their stance, BU should not be formed.

[franky1]

BU main purpose: hold off segwit.

BU existed even before segwit was thought up...

[Kprawn]

BU main purpose: hold off segwit.

Nope, I am sitting on the wire between the two.... but I think Satoshi created Bitcoin in a way for nodes to decide what they want... for a reason.

Anyone is free to submit a competing implementation and if enough consensus could be reached, this will become "Bitcoin" ... So no matter who

are behind this, they still have the "Free Will" to submit their code. This is how it should be....  .... The longest chain, is Bitcoin. 

[manselr]

It's easy to post on internet forums about this or that, it's hard to maintain a software as sensitive as bitcoin and make it safe.

Go on github and code something if you think you can do better than core devs.

[dinofelis]

BU main purpose: hold off segwit.

Nope, I am sitting on the wire between the two.... but I think Satoshi created Bitcoin in a way for nodes to decide what they want... for a reason.

For Satoshi, nodes were miners.  If you are not a miner, it doesn't matter what you install.  Miners make the block chain, nodes can just copy it or not.

[franky1]

It's easy to post on internet forums about this or that, it's hard to maintain a software as sensitive as bitcoin and make it safe.

Go on github and code something if you think you can do better than core devs.

if core devs are independant then they should care more about bitcoin and less about the blockstream leadership. meaning dvs should PEER review all proposals.. and help fix bugs of all..(true independance)

but by staying with one brand they have set themselves up as a TIER not a PEER where proposals have been moderated by blockstream employees

Bitcoin Forum > Bitcoin > Development & Technical Discussion (Moderators: gmaxwell, achow101)
Child Boards
New Posts    Alternative clients
Moderators: gmaxwell, achow101

To post a message to all the [bitcoin-dv mailing list] list members, send email to bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org.

^ hazard a guess who moderates this

People wishing to submit BIPs, first should propose their idea or document to the mailing list. After discussion they should email Luke Dashjr <luke_bipeditor@dashjr.org>. After copy-editing and acceptance, it will be published here.

[hv_]

It's easy to post on internet forums about this or that, it's hard to maintain a software as sensitive as bitcoin and make it safe.

Go on github and code something if you think you can do better than core devs.

if core devs are independant then they should care more about bitcoin and less about the blockstream leadership. meaning dvs should PEER review all proposals.. and help fix bugs of all..(true independance)

but by staying with one brand they have set themselves up as a TIER not a PEER where proposals have been moderated by blockstream employees

Bitcoin Forum > Bitcoin > Development & Technical Discussion (Moderators: gmaxwell, achow101)
Child Boards
New Posts    Alternative clients
Moderators: gmaxwell, achow101

To post a message to all the [bitcoin-dv mailing list] list members, send email to bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org.

^ hazard a guess who moderates this

People wishing to submit BIPs, first should propose their idea or document to the mailing list. After discussion they should email Luke Dashjr <luke_bipeditor@dashjr.org>. After copy-editing and acceptance, it will be published here.

Thx

I did not even know that the bottleneck = centralization and control is that strong.

Who wonders about our situation still?

[digaran]

I have seen franky1 opposing Core and their agendas but I have never seen you actually proposing something other than saying it should be consensus.
Of course it is consensus if it wasn't then we would have seen SW activated 6 months ago already.

[Kprawn]

It's easy to post on internet forums about this or that, it's hard to maintain a software as sensitive as bitcoin and make it safe.

Go on github and code something if you think you can do better than core devs.

if core devs are independant then they should care more about bitcoin and less about the blockstream leadership. meaning dvs should PEER review all proposals.. and help fix bugs of all..(true independance)

but by staying with one brand they have set themselves up as a TIER not a PEER where proposals have been moderated by blockstream employees

Bitcoin Forum > Bitcoin > Development & Technical Discussion (Moderators: gmaxwell, achow101)
Child Boards
New Posts    Alternative clients
Moderators: gmaxwell, achow101

To post a message to all the [bitcoin-dv mailing list] list members, send email to bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org.

^ hazard a guess who moderates this

People wishing to submit BIPs, first should propose their idea or document to the mailing list. After discussion they should email Luke Dashjr <luke_bipeditor@dashjr.org>. After copy-editing and acceptance, it will be published here.

Franky, let's not beat around the bush. If you work for someone and they pay you to do something... then you do what they ask. It is as simple

as that. When Satoshi was around, Bitcoin was his baby and nobody had to pay him to do something. Now, Blockstream are paying their crew

to steer this ship and they are just doing what they are paid to do. Nobody will put that much time and effort into something for FREE.

Satoshi also opened this up to everyone, to steer the ship... if they come up with something that receives consensus... then they take the wheel.

[mankeen]

Any one when the fork happen ?

[horace08122]

It's easy to post on internet forums about this or that, it's hard to maintain a software as sensitive as bitcoin and make it safe.

Go on github and code something if you think you can do better than core devs.

if core devs are independant then they should care more about bitcoin and less about the blockstream leadership. meaning dvs should PEER review all proposals.. and help fix bugs of all..(true independance)

but by staying with one brand they have set themselves up as a TIER not a PEER where proposals have been moderated by blockstream employees

Bitcoin Forum > Bitcoin > Development & Technical Discussion (Moderators: gmaxwell, achow101)
Child Boards
New Posts Alternative clients
Moderators: gmaxwell, achow101

To post a message to all the [bitcoin-dv mailing list] list members, send email to bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org.

^ hazard a guess who moderates this

People wishing to submit BIPs, first should propose their idea or document to the mailing list. After discussion they should email Luke Dashjr <luke_bipeditor@dashjr.org>. After copy-editing and acceptance, it will be published here.

Franky, let's not beat around the bush. If you work for someone and they pay you to do something... then you do what they ask. It is as simple

as that. When Satoshi was around, Bitcoin was his baby and nobody had to pay him to do something. Now, Blockstream are paying their crew

to steer this ship and they are just doing what they are paid to do. Nobody will put that much time and effort into something for FREE.

Satoshi also opened this up to everyone, to steer the ship... if they come up with something that receives consensus... then they take the wheel.

You want to say that further improvements can not be without financial gain? But in fact many users bitcoin hope for good prospects in the future, right? Or all hopes are not essential.