Bitcoin Unlimited

[Hullo]

A joint venture of big exchanges already took stand against this hard fork so need to be worry about this. This unlimited version will be treated like an altcoin and current BTC wont get effected by this.

[1714037367]

1714037367

[iamnotback]

Bitcoin Unlimited is doomed now that I've shown it is based on faulty math. This is fundamental and the entire concept of unlimited block size is flawed. Once the market digests my revelation, there will be dumping of mining nodes for Bitcoin Unlimited. Roger Ver you really need to get better peer review of the projects you support. You are making so many YUGE technical errors and promulgating incorrect technical information. Shame on you.

[FractalUniverse]

of course its good.actualy more than just good they are in fact the same core bitcoin instrument, only the second one is 250 dollars cheaper now.
free money on the table

current prices at bitfinex - looks like BCC and BCU are overvalued as they add up to more than actual BTC price. but as soon as there will be margin trading available for them they will probably get closer to reality. or bcu price drops even more, will be interesting.

BTC/USD: 999
BCC/USD: 718
BCU/USD: 294

edit> actualy i got cool trade idea now:) selling short BTCUSD and buying BCCUSD could be safe trade. I have to think it through.

oh yeah its good idea dude  

[vlom]

would it be like ETH - ETC?

if you have BTC you will automatically have the same amount of lets call it BTC-U?

[miayama]

Bitcoin unlimited can create real chaos in the market. If you conduct a hardfork, then this should not lead to the creation of two chains, Bitcoin must switch to a new protocol without separation.

[dinofelis]

Bitcoin Unlimited is doomed now that I've shown it is based on faulty math. This is fundamental and the entire concept of unlimited block size is flawed. Once the market digests my revelation

This is an illusion.  Markets don't digest mathematical revelations. 

I think that the problem with the analysis is that you don't know the elasticity of the demand for transactions.  The mathematics makes the assumption of fees independent of the pressure on the fee market.  But the game is much more complicated than that: you have miners that set their own secret limits on the blocs on which they will build, and the blocs they will try to orphan, while they have their own other secret limits on the blocs they will make themselves.

In your math, you presume that network transaction time is important, but for the moment, this is not the case.  By the time it is the case, that it, by the time that blocs will be so big that it is network capacity that limits time, and not the mining time itself, bitcoin will probably be gone since long.  Because miners have mutual interest in improving the network links between them.  If they put 100 GB/s optical links between their nodes, before transmission times become important as compared to their own average bloc mining times (multiples of 10 min), you get an idea of the bloc sizes we're talking about !

As long as bloc transmission times are small as compared to local bloc finding times, network resources do not play a significant role.   What plays a much bigger role is the (in)elasticity of user demand for transactions.

The battle will be a complex dynamics of secret orphaning sizes and own sizes.   There's a contradictory force: own advantage, which is to MAKE bigger blocs, and collective advantage, which is to make smaller blocs, and trying to guess how big is the chance that by you orphaning a big bloc, you are in fact making an orphaned bloc yourself on top of it, or you will inspire others to join you.

In other words, totally undefined consensus   Big fun.  That said, most probably, there will be simply a slow divergence in the bloc size that is generally accepted ; miners may now and then try a few bigger ones, and if they get accepted, this becomes the new size, so essentially the fee market gets relaxed. 

Most probably, they will make 1 MB blocs for a while, then some will try 1.1 MB blocs.  If that passes, most will make 1.1 MB blocs, until some try 1.2 MB blocs.  And so on.  One will most probably not come back down.  So during times of high transaction rates, the bloc sizes will increase because miners are greedy, and then this new limit will stay there until there's another campaign of spam, moving the bloc limits so high that it usually doesn't matter.

[dinofelis]

would it be like ETH - ETC?

if you have BTC you will automatically have the same amount of lets call it BTC-U?

Yes.  On exchanges, that's not clear, but on chain, yes.

[iamnotback]

Bitcoin Unlimited is doomed now that I've shown it is based on faulty math. This is fundamental and the entire concept of unlimited block size is flawed. Once the market digests my revelation

This is an illusion.  Markets don't digest mathematical revelations.

Let's put that to a test right now. I am going to refute you and let's see if the market is paying attention, because miners damn well better be paying attention.

Perhaps you haven't noticed that before I made my shocking math post, the Bitcoin price was declining, since I made my post then the BTC price has risen 5% and miner support for BU has declined. I think the market is paying attention and that is why I am following up with more explanation (when I should be sleeping instead because it is 2:30am where I am and I am on medications).

I think that the problem with the analysis is that you don't know the elasticity of the demand for transactions.  The mathematics makes the assumption of fees independent of the pressure on the fee market.  But the game is much more complicated than that: you have miners that set their own secret limits on the blocs on which they will build, and the blocs they will try to orphan, while they have their own other secret limits on the blocs they will make themselves.

One thing is very clear, and that all those strategies were already in play. What unlimited block sizes bring that is new is they hand another club membership tool for the large pools and mining farms to use against those who don't adhere to their cartel.

In your math, you presume that network transaction time is important, but for the moment, this is not the case.

But it is instantly the case when the block size is unlimited and transaction fees can be as small as any level of spam one wants to incentivize (or even miners paying themselves the transaction fees so they can spam the other miners will huge block sizes with the disproportionate profits going to those with more hashrate, faster propagation, and secret signing agreement cartels).

The battle will be a complex dynamics of secret orphaning sizes and own sizes.   There's a contradictory force: own advantage, which is to MAKE bigger blocs, and collective advantage, which is to make smaller blocs, and trying to guess how big is the chance that by you orphaning a big bloc, you are in fact making an orphaned bloc yourself on top of it, or you will inspire others to join you.

Incorrect. I refer you to the research on optimal mining strategies. You are behind the curve of the current knowledge of the experts in the field.

If Bitcoin Unlimited is able to create blocks Core won't accept, then it becomes an alt and everybody sells it to buy BTC. Same as for ETC dumped to buy ETH.

Everybody who waited to dump ETC was a loser, so FOMO effect will take hold again.

BU is deadman walking. Probably won't even make it to HF based on my recent technical posts.

[dinofelis]

Perhaps you haven't noticed that before I made my shocking math post, the Bitcoin price was declining, since I made my post then the BTC price has risen 5% and miner support for BU has declined. I think the market is paying attention and that is why I am following up with more explanation (when I should be sleeping instead because it is 2:30am where I am and I am on medications).

You *really* believe that ?  
First of all, nobody believes really that BU will activate, no ?  Of course 1 MB blocs are with us for ever, and BU only serves to keep Segwit away.  No miner in his right mind would push BU for real.  So I don't see how your analysis of why BU would be bad for miners, would have the slightest bit of influence, as BU won't happen.  Miners never intended that. They always knew it was bad for them. The god-given present of 1MB blocks, put in for reason or by clumsy mistake, is not going to be wasted.

You also see this, BTW, because in your examples you talk about network delay effects.  But as I pointed out, these only start making an effect on mining if the network delays become not negligible to the mining time taken to obtain a bloc.  We are talking about hundreds of GB blocs here, because we are talking about average bloc finding times of ten minutes.  If you have several GB/s links (which, as a miner, is perfectly affordable), you'd need to make spam blocs of tens or hundreds of GB before your network delay effects start playing a role.  That's not reasonable. 

So before unlimited blocs start making the slightest bit of advantage for a cartel of miners, they would have lost out because of the low fees that a relaxed fee market would bring. 

No, miners like small blocs with hard limits.  They are not going to throw away that great gift from Satoshi.

[dinofelis]

One thing is very clear, and that all those strategies were already in play.

How can that be if all blocs are now 1 MB ?  How can there be strategies in place with orphaning blocs with sizes you do not like if they are all equal to the maximum size ?

[iamnotback]

One thing is very clear, and that all those strategies were already in play.

How can that be if all blocs are now 1 MB ?  How can there be strategies in place with orphaning blocs with sizes you do not like if they are all equal to the maximum size ?

Size of blocks is the not the only way to play those sort of games. Withholding blocks with a delay is equivalent (i.e. a form of selfish mining). I am not going to cover all the details and scenarios now and relate it all to your discombobulated post. Sorry I've got higher priority work to do, than arguing with people who think they are making a point but don't realize they are not. I suggest you study all the research first, before attempting to get into a detailed discussion with me. I did (or at least much of it).

[electronicash]

BCU is definitely cheaper but i don't think it will suddenly burst, it could be dragged below 200 later when a troll suddenly find their way to create a fud of their own. i'm not a supporter of any, i'd rather be moving to a not divided coin. look where ETC now, there not even a single thing is going on in there except the Chinese exchange creating an app which until now it had never been released.

[Blawpaw]

I don't think that BTU will ever happen. This is just FUD. I don't think miners will abandon the biggest and strongest network and risk losing all the value BTC already has

[iamnotback]

Perhaps you haven't noticed that before I made my shocking math post, the Bitcoin price was declining, since I made my post then the BTC price has risen 5% and miner support for BU has declined. I think the market is paying attention and that is why I am following up with more explanation (when I should be sleeping instead because it is 2:30am where I am and I am on medications).

You *really* believe that ?

Is it just luck to often be in the right place at the opportune time?

[dinofelis]

Perhaps you haven't noticed that before I made my shocking math post, the Bitcoin price was declining, since I made my post then the BTC price has risen 5% and miner support for BU has declined. I think the market is paying attention and that is why I am following up with more explanation (when I should be sleeping instead because it is 2:30am where I am and I am on medications).

You *really* believe that ?

Is it just luck to often be in the right place at the opportune time?

 

My point is: in this world, only very few understand the kind of subtleties you are addressing.  And those that understand it, knew already that BU was not going to happen - maybe not for the same reasons than your analysis, but there are many reasons why BU is not going to happen as long as bitcoin has its brand name of first mover.  There are hundreds of reasons.  So your sophisticated extra reason, only comprehensible for a very small fraction of people, and a still smaller fraction of influencial people voting in the market, could not have any significant market influence.

BU is not going to happen, but not because it is erroneous.  Your debunking of DASH didn't stop the market from appreciating it.  Markets don't follow rational arguments full of maths, but cheap propaganda.  Your propaganda is of bad quality, sorry 

[iamnotback]

Your debunking of DASH didn't stop the market from appreciating it.

Dash doesn't have a market. It is allegedly a couple of guys working for Evan Inc. running accounts at the major exchanges buying and selling from themselves. It is a greater fool pyramid scheme.

You even stated that no one with large size dared tried to enter that market without a deal with Evan Inc.. So that tells you Roger Ver is in bed with the alleged "fraud" (aka dis-aggregate non-market) or he didn't buy much Dash.

[andyatcrux]

Your debunking of DASH didn't stop the market from appreciating it.

Dash doesn't have a market. It is allegedly a couple of guys working for Evan Inc. running accounts at the major exchanges buying and selling from themselves. It is a greater fool pyramid scheme.

You even stated that no one with large size dared tried to enter that market without a deal with Evan Inc.. So that tells you Roger Ver is in bed with the alleged "fraud" (aka dis-aggregate non-market) or he didn't buy much Dash.

For this very reason, Evan Inc. can in theory push the "market" as high as they want. I think they will be cautious about surpassing 1 Billion USD though, for fear of drawing the ire of the SEC.

[iamnotback]

For this very reason, Evan Inc. can in theory push the "market" as high as they want.

Except if they grow the pyramid too fast and can't sustain those who want to cash out:

In order for it to dump, someone must own a lot of Dash. Does anyone own a lot except insiders?

it won't be dumped.  BU will soon be created, DASH will be the first choice to put their money into and the more you have right now the more profit you get. thats what you get when you join dash this time and not a year after. because by then, you'd be buying dash 5x more than what is it today.

More likely is PIVX at $2-5. Most everyone can afford a masternode at 10-20 cents a coin and you don't have to reward a few instaminers.

The Dash pyramid scheme will continue to have an advantage in FOMO over any aggregate freer market, until the base of the pyramid can't grow fast enough to allow the earlier buyers to cash out:

Your debunking of DASH didn't stop the market from appreciating it.

Dash doesn't have a market. It is allegedly a couple of guys working for Evan Inc. running accounts at the major exchanges buying and selling from themselves. It is a greater fool pyramid scheme.

You even stated that no one with large size dared tried to enter that market without a deal with Evan Inc.. So that tells you Roger Ver is in bed with the alleged "fraud" (aka dis-aggregate non-market) or he didn't buy much Dash.

[iamnotback]

@miscreanity, even if your $988 is violated and we move lower, it could still be an accurate channel if we view BTU+BTC as a combined price. We may end up getting BTU for free which we can trade for BTC. However, it appears BTU is not going to add the necessary replay attack prevention in order to get listed on the exchanges. BTU appears to understand that their coin will be sold off as an inferior altcoin if they add replay attack prevention. Seems like they are already admitting defeat and acting desperate maniacal now.

Although nobody likes the current problem with the 1MB blocks, an unlimited blocksize is not a viable technological solution. Sorry but incompetents aren't going to be trusted to lead Bitcoin. Roger Ver and Julian Wu are not competent enough to pull off what they attempted.

[dinofelis]

Your debunking of DASH didn't stop the market from appreciating it.

Dash doesn't have a market. It is allegedly a couple of guys working for Evan Inc. running accounts at the major exchanges buying and selling from themselves. It is a greater fool pyramid scheme.

Yes, I agree, but I'm convinced that they do have greater fools flooding in now.  Much, much less than the numbers would let you believe (that is the centralized market manipulation), but they are flooding in nevertheless.  Otherwise, their game would be useless.  These games are never useless.  The first players always make a lot of money, and the mass of fools, well, gets fooled.