Need help understanding BU

[ziggy2]

Thank you Danny. Actually your comments seem much more understable  (to a non expert eye) than previous ones... It is reassuring that some basic principles on which the BTC was built can be and remain understandable by users.

[LoyceV]

Hmmm... The poor "average user" who asks : "what happens to my BTC?" must feel really puzzled...Too bad that even the BTC experts cannot agree on how the BTC system works.  

I'm using Bitcoin for more than 2 years now, and I've known about it pretty much from the start ^{(the regrets are real there)}, and it's still confusing me. I'm not an expert, I'm a user. I've also noticed many users don't really understand the basics of Bitcoin, from fees to unconfirmed transactions.
In my opinion as a user: transactions are either too slow, or too expensive, and "the ones in charge" disagree on how to proceed from here, up to the point that "rumors" of a hard fork are getting stronger. I also think this is damaging Bitcoin, other coins are pumping up, reducing Bitcoin's market share (as percentage of coin market cap).

Another thing that's confusing: the name "BTU"! Wiki:

The British thermal unit (Btu or BTU) is a traditional unit of heat; it is defined as the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit.

Please don't use this abbreviation for Bitcoin Unlimited! Call it BU, BTCU, BitU or UBTC, just not BTU.

Note that if Core decides that it is time for a 2 megabyte (or larger) block, Unlimited will NOT fork (unlike any legacy core nodes).  It is already prepared to automatically accept those 2 megabyte blocks just fine.  Meanwhile, anyone that doesn't upgrade their Core clients before the activation date for larger Core blocks will get left behind.

Why doesn't Core just do this? This discussion has been going on for too long already.

Further reading (CoinDesk): Bitcoin Exchanges Unveil Hard Fork Contingency Plan
I'm kinda excited to see what will happen. I just know something should happen to improve Bitcoin's user experience.

[Lauda]

That depends on what you mean by "activates".

Anyone can mine a larger bock right now on Bitcoin Core if they want to re-compile the code for themselves.  However, nobody would be dumb enough to waste all that hash power on a block that is just going to be rejected by the majority of the hash power.  The blockchain will mine a couple of blocks that are smaller than 1 megabyte and the large block will be abandoned.

Same is true of Unlimited right now.  Sure someone "could" start mining bigger blocks, but nobody would be dumb enough to waste all that has power on a block that is just going to be rejected by the majority of the hash power. And if they do, they're just wasting their own money and having no significant effect on the network or the blockchain.  Larger "Unlimited" blocks won't realistically happen until a miner feels confident that an overwhelming majority of the global hash power is willing to build on top of his block.  An overwhelming majority of the global hash power isn't going to be willing to mine on top of larger blocks until they are confident that the block reward will maintain it's value on the market (so they can pay their electric bills).  So, an "Unlimited fork" won't happen unless it is overwhelmingly supported by the entire bitcoin marketplace (in which case it will be the de-facto "real" bitcoin regardless of what anyone calls it.)

Well, by "activates" I want to say fork into their own chain. Those blocks would be accepted by the BU nodes and miners, but obviously not by the ones running Core or others that are enforcing the current consensus rules. I would not want to rely on the "nobody would be dumb enough" part. You are possibly not reading what they key supporters of BU are writing/doing (although reading this won't exactly make you smarter..).

Hmmm... The poor "average user" who asks : "what happens to my BTC?" must feel really puzzled...Too bad that even the BTC experts cannot agree on how the BTC system works. 

Actually, the experts can.

You can argue that the supermajority of experts have already decided how to move forward.

But there aren't very many experts posting to this forum or reddit. If those are your sources, then you are mostly getting propaganda from zealots and not technical knowledge from experts.

Definitely agreed. Unfortunately newbies tend to take their word for it, and that's why sometimes fighting fire with fire is necessary around here.

Please don't use this abbreviation for Bitcoin Unlimited! Call it BU, BTCU, BitU or UBTC, just not BTU.

It has already been decided. BTU altcoin.

Note that if Core decides that it is time for a 2 megabyte (or larger) block, Unlimited will NOT fork (unlike any legacy core nodes).  It is already prepared to automatically accept those 2 megabyte blocks just fine.  Meanwhile, anyone that doesn't upgrade their Core clients before the activation date for larger Core blocks will get left behind.

Why doesn't Core just do this? This discussion has been going on for too long already.

Unsafe at 2 MB without at least more constraints. Besides, Segwit is by far more superior than a 2 MB block size HF. There is no reason to do it.

[DannyHamilton]

I would not want to rely on the "nobody would be dumb enough" part.

You already are.

All bitcoin Core miners could start mining bigger blocks today if they wanted to.  Its a very small change to the source code and a quick compile.  The only reason they don't is because "nobody would be dumb enough".  Doig so would just create a block that would be ignored by the majority of the global hash power.  "Nobody would be dumb enough" is the ONLY reason that there aren't miners in Core already creating larger blocks.  As a matter of fact, then ENTIRE consensus system of bitcoin is built on the concept that "Nobody would be dumb enough" to break consensus without knowing that a significant majority will accept the new consensus.

You can argue that the supermajority of experts have already decided how to move forward.

Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on where you stand on various proposals) Bitcoin doesn't care what any particular self-proclaimed "expert" decides.  Bitcoin requires an overwhelming majority of users to agree.

Definitely agreed. Unfortunately newbies tend to take their word for it, and that's why sometimes fighting fire with fire is necessary around here.

The problem with a "pissing contest" is that no matter who "wins", everyone comes out smelling bad.

Please don't use this abbreviation for Bitcoin Unlimited! Call it BU, BTCU, BitU or UBTC, just not BTU.

It has already been decided. BTU altcoin.

Been decided?  By what world dominating authority?  FUD is FUD and propaganda is propaganda.  Trying to dress it up any other way is dishonest and just makes you look bad.

Unsafe at 2 MB without at least more constraints.

Unsafe how?  What makes 1 megabyte so magical that it is the "perfect" size while 2 megabytes is "unsafe"?  Is 900 kilobytes better?  How about 1.1 megabytes?  What is the exact correct magical size that bitcoin blocks SHOULD be right now, and why?  "Because that is the size it is" is not a valid argument for what the "right" size SHOULD be.

Besides, Segwit is by far more superior than a 2 MB block size HF. There is no reason to do it.

What's wrong with having both?  Why not SegWith with a 2 MB max block size?

[btvGainer]

Which online wallet support BU?I mean which of them will give equal amount of BU to BTC holders?.
What will happen to bitcoin kept in offline wallet?

[Lauda]

You already are.

All bitcoin Core miners could start mining bigger blocks today if they wanted to.  Its a very small change to the source code and a quick compile.  The only reason they don't is because "nobody would be dumb enough".  Doig so would just create a block that would be ignored by the majority of the global hash power.  "Nobody would be dumb enough" is the ONLY reason that there aren't miners in Core already creating larger blocks.  As a matter of fact, then ENTIRE consensus system of bitcoin is built on the concept that "Nobody would be dumb enough" to break consensus without knowing that a significant majority will accept the new consensus.

You make a fair point, but that's not what I was referring to. They seemingly want to fork at all cost, but whether or not this is just 'fear mongering' is yet to be seen.

Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on where you stand on various proposals) Bitcoin doesn't care what any particular self-proclaimed "expert" decides.  Bitcoin requires an overwhelming majority of users to agree.

That I am well aware of.

Been decided?  By what world dominating authority?  FUD is FUD and propaganda is propaganda.  Trying to dress it up any other way is dishonest and just makes you look bad.

Exchanges (or well a fair amount of them for now). They decide how they want to list the (alt)coin (or not, for that matter).

Unsafe how?  What makes 1 megabyte so magical that it is the "perfect" size while 2 megabytes is "unsafe"?  Is 900 kilobytes better?  How about 1.1 megabytes?  What is the exact correct magical size that bitcoin blocks SHOULD be right now, and why?  "Because that is the size it is" is not a valid argument for what the "right" size SHOULD be.

https://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=522
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yulwv/any_examples_of_the_10_minute_script_thats_a

What's wrong with having both?  Why not SegWith with a 2 MB max block size?

That would be an effective base size of 2 MB and the weight of 8 MB. The latter is likely the problem with that combination.

Which online wallet support BU?I mean which of them will give equal amount of BU to BTC holders?.

None so far.

What will happen to bitcoin kept in offline wallet?

Nothing.

[franky1]

Please don't use this abbreviation for Bitcoin Unlimited! Call it BU, BTCU, BitU or UBTC, just not BTU.

It has already been decided. BTU altcoin.

Been decided?  By what world dominating authority?  FUD is FUD and propaganda is propaganda.  Trying to dress it up any other way is dishonest and just makes you look bad.

not decided. just an idea proposal
and by whom

the closed door meeting of the VC receiving corporations of DCG - http://dcg.co/portfolio/
its getting too obvious

[franky1]

They seemingly want to fork at all cost,

"they" ?
they have been running for more than 2 years and have not pushed to split.
they have been running for more than 2 years and have not even pushed a deadline
they have been running for more than 2 years and have not pushed anything of the sort.

... but guess who is pushing

What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.

I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--

guess who does have an over zealous ban hammer
guess who does have a ban node and orphan block in their bip9
guess who does have a ban node and orphan block in their UASF

[DannyHamilton]

You make a fair point, but that's not what I was referring to. They seemingly want to fork at all cost, but whether or not this is just 'fear mongering' is yet to be seen.

Who is this "they" that you are referring to?  I'm running an Unlimited node, by I'm not interested in "forking at all cost".  For that matter, it isn't even possible for Unlimited (as currently written) to fork without AT LEAST 50% of the global hash power and they'd feel pretty dumb trying to fork at less than 60% (since the only thing they'd accomplish is the continuous orphaning of their blockchain).

Exchanges (or well a fair amount of them for now). They decide how they want to list the (alt)coin (or not, for that matter).

They can call it whatever they want, but they're going to look pretty silly trying to call bitcoin an altcoin if the overwhleming majority of the market is all using the bitcoin protocol as written in Bitcoin Unlimited.  If Unlimited forks at less than 80% AND the market still prefers Core, then Unlimited is an altcoin, and the market will decide how to differentiate between the two coins.  If Unlimited grows beyond 80% (or beyond 90%) of the hash power and the market prefers Unlimited, then the exchanges will quickly change their minds and call Unlimited "Bitcoin" and Core will become an altcoin. They can attempt to influence the market now with announcements, but in the end the exchanges will do whatever the majority of their users want them to.

Unsafe how?  What makes 1 megabyte so magical that it is the "perfect" size while 2 megabytes is "unsafe"?  Is 900 kilobytes better?  How about 1.1 megabytes?  What is the exact correct magical size that bitcoin blocks SHOULD be right now, and why?  "Because that is the size it is" is not a valid argument for what the "right" size SHOULD be.

https://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=522
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yulwv/any_examples_of_the_10_minute_script_thats_a

I'll take a look at those links, but right now anything that says that 1 megabyte is a magical exact number seems pretty disingenuous to me.

[Lauda]

Who is this "they" that you are referring to?

Have you not been talking to, or seen what is being written by e.g. Ver, Oliver, Jihan, etc.?

I'm running an Unlimited node, by I'm not interested in "forking at all cost".  

That is quite unfortunate, especially considering their latest major exploit incident.

For that matter, it isn't even possible for Unlimited (as currently written) to fork without AT LEAST 50% of the global hash power and they'd feel pretty dumb trying to fork at less than 60% (since the only thing they'd accomplish is the continuous orphaning of their blockchain).

As per code, it can't fork without at least 50%? I was not under the impression. I should look into that again.

They can call it whatever they want, but they're going to look pretty silly trying to call bitcoin an altcoin if the overwhleming majority of the market is all using the bitcoin protocol as written in Bitcoin Unlimited.

The minority supports BU..

I'll take a look at those links, but right now anything that says that 1 megabyte is a magical exact number seems pretty disingenuous to me.

Disagree. Segwit -> big blocks with linear hashing. Nobody is planning on staying at 1 MB.

[franky1]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yulwv/any_examples_of_the_10_minute_script_thats_a

this can be solved quite easily.
knowing its about the 20,000 blocksigops and 4,000tx sigops for 2seconds (8seconds at worse) which has mitigated the OLD fear already of just having no tx sigop limit at all...
old fear

This problem is far worse if blocks were 8MB: an 8MB transaction with 22,500 inputs and 3.95MB of outputs takes over 11 minutes to hash.

going to 2mb
and having 40,000 blocksigops and 4,000tx sigops

meaning someone CANNOT make 5tx of 8000sigops. but can make 10tx of 4000sigops. makes the timing
2mb: 2-8 seconds
1mb: 4-16 seconds

[franky1]

That is quite unfortunate, especially considering their latest major exploit incident.

not as bad as the leveldb exploit of 2013.

oh.. and diverse nodes of different codebases mitigated the BU exploit. so the actual effect was only a few nodes went offline.. and the network carried on unhindered.

now imagine if the network was core only... and core had a exploit that took core nods offline.. boom.

now do you see why diversity is good

[calkob]

Hi all,

I am trying to wrap my head around bitcoin unlimited. Assuming it does go through what happens to my BTC? Am I awarded the same amount of BTU as I have BTC? How does it work?

Thank you!

Basically the fork of any coin carries the history of previous transactions onto both coins.  so 10btc at any address will still be at that address after the fork on both chains.  so basically you double your bitcoin.  but i would guess that the price off bitcoin would at least drop by 50% to reflect this, maybe more.  you can then hold both and see what happens or sell the chain you think wont make it.  i did it with ETC sold the lot and Kept my ETH.

[Xester]

Thank you!

Just so I understand, if I have 10BTC and BTU hard forks would that mean that I now have 10BTC and 10 BTU? Ive tried to find this out via the FAQs.

That is correct. I have been reading some facts about BU and that the same thing that I understand from reading some articles and FaQ. But there is something that I want to ask if I have now for example 10BTC and 10 BTU then if I sell my 10 btc will my 10 btu will disappear also or it will retain. If it will retain and I can sell it then I will have double profit.

[Lauda]

But there is something that I want to ask if I have now for example 10BTC and 10 BTU then if I sell my 10 btc will my 10 btu will disappear also or it will retain.

If double replay protection exists, then if you sell your 10 BTC (or send to somewhere), your 10 BTU won't be sold/won't move.
If there is no replay protection, then someone can broadcast your BTC transaction onto the BTU chain, and your coins would also disappear from it.

If it will retain and I can sell it then I will have double profit.

Double profit? You need to read 'Economics for dummies'. The value of both coins will likely drop a lot, to the point where BTC + BTU price <= current BTC price.

this can be solved quite easily.
knowing its about the 20,000 blocksigops and 4,000tx sigops for 2seconds (8seconds at worse) which has mitigated the OLD fear already of just having no tx sigop limit at all...

No, that won't solve things besides disabling even more use-cases.

[Foxpup]

Who is this "they" that you are referring to?  I'm running an Unlimited node, by I'm not interested in "forking at all cost".  For that matter, it isn't even possible for Unlimited (as currently written) to fork without AT LEAST 50% of the global hash power and they'd feel pretty dumb trying to fork at less than 60% (since the only thing they'd accomplish is the continuous orphaning of their blockchain).

They didn't feel dumb when they forked with far less than 50%. Instead they tried to pass off the annihilation of their coins and the banning of most of their nodes from the network as "just one of those days". Though to be fair, they do seem to have a lot of "those days".

You used to be quite reasonable, so I'll give you fair warning: by running BU, you are very likely to lose your coins to a currently undiscovered or yet-to-be introduced bug. It's only a matter of time given the BU developers' aptitude or lack thereof.

[franky1]

this can be solved quite easily.
knowing its about the 20,000 blocksigops and 4,000tx sigops for 2seconds (8seconds at worse) which has mitigated the OLD fear already of just having no tx sigop limit at all...

No, that won't solve things besides disabling even more use-cases.

lol 20k blocksigops and 4k txsigops is already inplace since atleast v0.12... (maybe worth you reading the code once in a while)

the 40k blocksigops and 4k tx sigops. allows more transactions without risking quadratics. by keeping tx's at the same lean level as acceptable today.

lastly
who the hell needs to have thousands of input/outputs...

wait hang on. arnt you a advocate of bitcoin just being used as a settlement layer for LN.. if so, then knowing that LN is a 2in 2out
40k blocksigops and 200 txsigops more than enough for LN tx's and reducing the quadratic sigop timing to milliseconds /tx

[Rora]

Thanks for the response! Very interesting stuff.

To be clear. Noob here when it comes to this content. Assuming it does come to pass, how am I going to get my BTCU coins? Do I simply need to install the client? What do I need to do to get my coins? There really is not a lot of content to explain exactly what is going to happen if it does pass to us simpler minded folk.

Thank you for the help!

[jonald_fyookball]

Exchanges may denote Bitcoin unlimited as BTU if a network split happen but quite likely that will become the new ticker symbol for Bitcoin if it controls a majority of hashing power.  In any event, the market will decide.  The core "fanboys" really seem to be getting defensive