BU + segwit

[jubalix]

Can we not have code that does both?

Can some one answer this, why would it not satisfy both parties?

why could BU people not accept segwit code as this seem to just make the block size more efficient and Segwit people accept BU as this just allows block size to be larger

Are not Segwit and BU solutions orthogonal to each other for the most part and so can both exist in a mutually beneficial manner?

Can some one address this?

EDIT::Can there be a client that allows users to select eg whether they want their transactions dealt with by various aspects so mitigate some arguments by both sides? eg say on chain, lightning network etc etc. Sort of like I want my money to goto this bank or that bank even though its the same banking system?

[aarturka]

SegWit has already block size increase. But Jihan and Ver and their chinese miners puppets just want to control bitcoin not to increase block size. There's no possible compromise, no more debate we should just ignore and discard them and procede with UASF.
 Bitcoin future is at stake and if Bitcoin fails all alts will follow, people wont believe in crypto

[dinofelis]

I think the real point is that miners don't want any of this.  They don't want segwit and they don't want BU, because in both cases, the pressure on the fee market diminishes.   So I think they divide their preferences sufficiently so that nothing can happen.  Which is most lucrative for them.

[dinofelis]

Bitcoin future is at stake and if Bitcoin fails all alts will follow, people wont believe in crypto

My opinion is the opposite.  If bitcoin fails, all of the speculation will leave crypto, and we finally can use it without 100-fold blown up market caps and have competing technologies instead of this old, clunky design of bitcoin.  With no dominant crypto, with dying coins every day, and new coins every other day, with tiny market caps each of them, and small user communities, USING it.

[TastyChillySauce00]

SegWit has already block size increase. But Jihan and Ver and their chinese miners puppets just want to control bitcoin not to increase block size. There's no possible compromise, no more debate we should just ignore and discard them and procede with UASF.
 Bitcoin future is at stake and if Bitcoin fails all alts will follow, people wont believe in crypto

it's just kinda odd that few people could affect bitcoin whereas bitcoin is decentralised from the start and it's mean that none could make the centralised power over it.
It's indirectly affecting the miners' earning I suppose, due to the HF could threaten the current rate, nevertheless they still join the BU.

[Juggy777]

As logical and good it may sound, it is unlikely to happen. The miners sadly do not care about block size all they want is control and high fees. They want to influence the price and take away the decentralised features, they want to rule it and it's sad that the community is weakly giving it up to them. The community should have fought back but no why would we. We don't want segwit or bu. And if we don't take a stand now, it will be too late.

[AgentofCoin]

Can we not have code that does both?
Can some one answer this, why would it not satisfy both parties?
why could BU people not accept segwit code as this seem to just make the block size more efficient and Segwit people accept BU as this just allows block size to be larger
Are not Segwit and BU solutions orthogonal to each other for the most part and so can both exist in a mutually beneficial manner?
Can some one address this?

Segwit allows for optimization which gives a scaling side effect while keeping the basic status quo and network decentralized.
BU allows for direct increase of on-chain scaling which give more power to miners and centralizes the network.

They are both opposites.
Each are killing blows to the others "world view" (bitcoin world).

Personally, I believe that decentralization is our only purpose and where the value comes from.
There is no other system in the world currently that does what Bitcoin does.
The world doesn't need another Paypal.

[Killerpotleaf]

SegWit has already block size increase. But Jihan and Ver and their chinese miners puppets just want to control bitcoin not to increase block size. There's no possible compromise, no more debate we should just ignore and discard them and procede with UASF.
 Bitcoin future is at stake and if Bitcoin fails all alts will follow, people wont believe in crypto

miners cant be trusted with producing blocks that the network will accept?

please go ahead and do a UASF

S stands for Safe right? or was it Sotf?

[Killerpotleaf]

we will have both... we have not voted on it yet, but i'm pushing for it have been for a long time.

[dinofelis]

Segwit allows for optimization which gives some scaling while keeping the basic status quo and network decentralized.
BU allows for direct increase of on-chain scaling which give more power to miners and centralizes the network.

This is the official propaganda.  Segwit calls for centralisation through a banking layer on top of bitcoin, the lightning network.  BU implements dynamic block sizes.  

The totally ridiculous argument that BU would centralize, is that non-mining nodes, which have nothing to say in bitcoin, contrary to all the propaganda that tells the opposite, would need somewhat better network connections and bigger hard disks.  But bitcoin is a *proof of work* consensus system, not a *count of node* consensus system, so no matter if there are many, or few, non mining nodes, the only true consensus mechanism in bitcoin is delivered by miners: proof of work.  And that is inevitably centralizing.  

The people making decisions in bitcoin are the mining pools: they decide what blocks to build, according to what protocol, on which other blocks.  They decide of the choice of transactions and on all the rest.  Strictly speaking, if you have 51% of the hash power, you can decide all you want in bitcoin.  Well, here they are:

https://blockchain.info/pools

Count the number of deciders that need to collude to reach 51%.  THIS is bitcoin's centralisation.  Not the poor guys installing nodes in their basement that do not mine.  These are nothing but proxy servers to the chain that these people decide to make.

So at this moment, bitcoin is decentralized over 5 entities for a small majority.  9 entities if you need 75% majority.  Put 5 people in a room, and you decide with small margin.  Put 9 people in a room, and they decide with 75% majority.

That's bitcoin's centralization.

I know the propaganda tells you otherwise, nodes blah blah blah.  It ain't so.  Bitcoin is an oligarchy of less than 10 people.  But they do their jobs correctly.   Because bitcoin is a proof-of-work consensus system, and proof of work is in the hands of less than 10 people.

The miners' hardware aren't in their hands, true.  But the miners' hardware is not deciding upon which blocks to build, according to what protocol.  They only sell hashes to the pools.

[AgentofCoin]

Segwit allows for optimization which gives some scaling while keeping the basic status quo and network decentralized.
BU allows for direct increase of on-chain scaling which give more power to miners and centralizes the network.

This is the official propaganda.  Segwit calls for centralisation through a banking layer on top of bitcoin, the lightning network.  BU implements dynamic block sizes.  

The totally ridiculous argument that BU would centralize, is that non-mining nodes, which have nothing to say in bitcoin, contrary to all the propaganda that tells the opposite, would need somewhat better network connections and bigger hard disks.  But bitcoin is a *proof of work* consensus system, not a *count of node* consensus system, so no matter if there are many, or few, non mining nodes, the only true consensus mechanism in bitcoin is delivered by miners: proof of work.  And that is inevitably centralizing.  

The people making decisions in bitcoin are the mining pools: they decide what blocks to build, according to what protocol, on which other blocks.  They decide of the choice of transactions and on all the rest.  Strictly speaking, if you have 51% of the hash power, you can decide all you want in bitcoin.  Well, here they are:

https://blockchain.info/pools

Count the number of deciders that need to collude to reach 51%.  THIS is bitcoin's centralisation.  Not the poor guys installing nodes in their basement that do not mine.  These are nothing but proxy servers to the chain that these people decide to make.

So at this moment, bitcoin is decentralized over 5 entities for a small majority.  9 entities if you need 75% majority.  Put 5 people in a room, and you decide with small margin.  Put 9 people in a room, and they decide with 75% majority.

That's bitcoin's centralization.

I know the propaganda tells you otherwise, nodes blah blah blah.  It ain't so.  Bitcoin is an oligarchy of less than 10 people.  But they do their jobs correctly.   Because bitcoin is a proof-of-work consensus system, and proof of work is in the hands of less than 10 people.

The miners' hardware aren't in their hands, true.  But the miners' hardware is not deciding upon which blocks to build, according to what protocol.  They only sell hashes to the pools.

You must be a moron, a troll, or a propagandist.
Network centralization is different than miner centralization.
There could be one miner in the whole world, who couldn't do jack if
the network denied his larger blocks. What I stated is correct. You are a noob.

I'm mostly independent and only care about a decentralized network into the future.
Almost every word you stated above is spin and gibberish that has no basis in what I stated.

[jacaf01]

There is no need for BU, there have already proven they are incompetent, they are self serving people with no good intention at heart for Bitcoin, just imagine all miners was running BU code when the bug was detected, the price would have tumble by now. What you people just do understand is that SegWit makes so many things possible. LN network is more than 8MB capacity when implemented and many more that will be implemented when SW is passed

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

With a second layer, all the things I love about bitcoin vanish.

If you control the flow of money, you have power.

Remember when Visa, MC, and PayPal stopped processing donations to Snowden's living expense and legal defense fund?

There was nothing illegal about donating, but they didn't want you to so they didn't let you.

Right now, British banks look to see who is buying a lot of contraceptives and giving that information to police in case a lot of contraceptives are being bought for sex work.

Shouldn't the purchase of contraceptives, whether it is a small amount or large amount, be private?

With a second layer that we have to use for transactions, you can bet your ass both of those kinds of things will happen with Bitcoin too.

A second layer puts a private company in control over the flow of your money and that power will be abused, it always is abused.

Bitcoin will survive but Satoshi's vision will be dead.

[CraigWrightBTC]

BU + segwit are still debating and still there are not solution for all of comunity of bitcoin,
 I hope debating ending because as comunity of bitcoin we must make sure
bitcoin has good future and growing to more better than righ now, long life and can be used as currency.

[AgentofCoin]

With a second layer, all the things I love about bitcoin vanish.
If you control the flow of money, you have power.
Remember when Visa, MC, and PayPal stopped processing donations to Snowden's living expense and legal defense fund?
There was nothing illegal about donating, but they didn't want you to so they didn't let you.
Right now, British banks look to see who is buying a lot of contraceptives and giving that information to police in case a lot of contraceptives are being bought for sex work.
Shouldn't the purchase of contraceptives, whether it is a small amount or large amount, be private?
With a second layer that we have to use for transactions, you can bet your ass both of those kinds of things will happen with Bitcoin too.
A second layer puts a private company in control over the flow of your money and that power will be abused, it always is abused.
Bitcoin will survive but Satoshi's vision will be dead.

Lol. What company is going to run the second layers?
Do you even know what second layers are?

Are you talking about third party second layers?
Are you aware some of the proposed second layers will be anon?

BTW Satoshi's true dream died when someone started using GPUs and then ASICs.
So talking about second layers being the problem is 8 years too late.

[dinofelis]

You must be a moron, a troll, or a propagandist.
Network centralization is different than miner centralization.
There could be one miner in the whole world, who couldn't do jack if
the network denied his larger blocks.

Yes, you fall for that erroneous propaganda.  If you would think for yourself, you would be able to understand why that is totally flawed as an idea.  

If there is only one miner in the whole world, there is only one block chain, right ?  Nobody else is able to make another block chain, right ?  Because you need a lot of proof of work to make one.

Now, tell me, that single sole block chain made by the sole miner doesn't suit you.  The whole network "denies" its blocks. So what is "the whole network" now doing ?  Nothing.  No transactions get processed.  No wallets update.  You cannot put coins on an exchange, you cannot withdraw them, nothing.   All nodes came to a standstill.  

So if you are a user, you have the choice of accepting the sole block chain that is being made, or not having a block chain at all.  Bet that you will adapt your node to accept the sole block chain that is around.  Bet that exchanges will do the same.  And in order to get it, you better connect directly to the miner's node infrastructure, if most of your peer nodes came to a grinding halt.

If there's one miner, that makes a block chain according to his wishes, you have no choice but to use it, or to leave the coin all together and all your addresses on it.

I know that's not what the propaganda tells you, but think for yourself, and find a hole in this reasoning.

That's why it is called "consensus by proof of work", not by "number of nodes".

[dinofelis]

With a second layer, all the things I love about bitcoin vanish.

If you control the flow of money, you have power.

Remember when Visa, MC, and PayPal stopped processing donations to Snowden's living expense and legal defense fund?

There was nothing illegal about donating, but they didn't want you to so they didn't let you.

Indeed, the second layer is banking.

[AgentofCoin]

You must be a moron, a troll, or a propagandist.
Network centralization is different than miner centralization.
There could be one miner in the whole world, who couldn't do jack if
the network denied his larger blocks.

Yes, you fall for that erroneous propaganda.  If you would think for yourself, you would be able to understand why that is totally flawed as an idea.  

If there is only one miner in the whole world, there is only one block chain, right ?  Nobody else is able to make another block chain, right ?  Because you need a lot of proof of work to make one.

Now, tell me, that single sole block chain made by the sole miner doesn't suit you.  The whole network "denies" its blocks. So what is "the whole network" now doing ?  Nothing.  No transactions get processed.  No wallets update.  You cannot put coins on an exchange, you cannot withdraw them, nothing.   All nodes came to a standstill.  

So if you are a user, you have the choice of accepting the sole block chain that is being made, or not having a block chain at all.  Bet that you will adapt your node to accept the sole block chain that is around.  Bet that exchanges will do the same.  And in order to get it, you better connect directly to the miner's node infrastructure, if most of your peer nodes came to a grinding halt.

If there's one miner, that makes a block chain according to his wishes, you have no choice but to use it, or to leave the coin all together and all your addresses on it.

I know that's not what the propaganda tells you, but think for yourself, and find a hole in this reasoning.

That's why it is called "consensus by proof of work", not by "number of nodes".

You fail because you are trying to make points that are not valid to real world situations.
If a single miner did come about, then Bitcoin is done and everyone goes to a new coin.
So this example is worthless.

Pose an example that is worthy of discussion.

BTW "consensus by proof of work" was defined when miners and validators were a single entity.
Your definition of it, stopped appling to Bitcoin when GPUs and ASICs came about.

What is actually occurring now is "proof of work block building reliant on node network consensus".

[dinofelis]

Lol. What company is going to run the second layers?
Do you even know what second layers are?

LN hubs, to be effective, have to be very big hubs with a lot of little customers connected to them with their small channels.  In other words, banking nodes with a lot of capital to use as collateral on their customers' links, and inter-bank links.  Big financial groups.  

In the LN you have a huge economy of scale if you can put in a lot of collateral.  

In fact, the LN will centralize even faster than the proof of work because the economies of scale are more important.

[AgentofCoin]

Lol. What company is going to run the second layers?
Do you even know what second layers are?

LN hubs, to be effective, have to be very big hubs with a lot of little customers connected to them with their small channels.  In other words, banking nodes with a lot of capital to use as collateral on their customers' links, and inter-bank links.  Big financial groups.  

In the LN you have a huge economy of scale if you can put in a lot of collateral.  

In fact, the LN will centralize even faster than the proof of work because the economies of scale are more important.

Can you cite the documentation that you must be referring to.
Banking nodes may exist in this future world obviously, but where is it that the system is reliant upon them.
Please provide your sources.

So as I stated, what company is going to run the second layers?
You are talking about Lightning Network. That is one proposed idea for second layers.