The BUcoin chinese-funded trojan horse exposed

[BillyBobZorton]

https://cointimes.tech/2017/03/statenationattack/

Good, great article actually, that shows how this is all an attack to control bitcoin. As if we didn't have enough problems with mining centralization, it's clear how this will only get worse after Jihan will control up to 80% of the network along with McAffee. The Ver-Jihan-McAffee-Coinbase connection, it's all there.

But we have the nuclear button that they didn't see coming, and this can be implemented without changing any fundamental protocol rules as opposed to the vapid idea of the "Emergent consensus". So Jihan, if you keep fucking around, all of your ASIC machines will be worth nothing soon. Your choice.

[1713558310]

1713558310

[1713558310]

1713558310

[1713558310]

1713558310

[1713558310]

1713558310

[manselr]

The best part is seeing George of BitFury aggressively threatening people to lawsuit them if the PoW algo is changed.
Who he pretends to lawsuit? the CEO of Bitcoin? lol, what a prick.
He could do that under BUcoin because they will have a president and secretary lol, but not with bitcoin.

[chopstick]

You kids must be stoned out of your minds.

Core = Hillary Clinton

BU = rising populist leader

BU is coming whether you like it or not

[Sundark]

The most interesting part of this article is this statement:

"Seems like the bitcoin community is in civil war and you don't invest in a country’s currency that is about to go in civil war imo."

I wish we bitcoin community to unite and end this civil war already. How hard it is to come up with viable solution?!
Do miners really want to destroy bitcoin just because they can't accept any form acceptable compromise?

[chopstick]

Core created this situation in the first place by refusing to remove a 5.5 year old outdated artificial 1mb limit and forcing a pre-mature "fee market" which wasn't needed and forcing the rise of altcoins.

Don't blame the miners, the miners are the only ones with the power to fix this situation. As Satoshi intended.

[jonald_fyookball]

https://cointimes.tech/2017/03/statenationattack/

Good, great article actually, 

It's a bunch of screenshots of tweets... not what I would call a good article.
Makes no coherent point.

How is this a 'trojan horse' -- Bitcoin Unlimited is extremely clear on what it wants.
If an economic majority support it, it will get it...and it won't be an attack
even though those who disagree with the majority will label it as such.

If anything , segwit is the trojan horse, promising neat features
and scalability but really it will deliver code unmanagability, crippling,
and entrenchment.

[Variogam]

But we have the nuclear button that they didn't see coming, and this can be implemented without changing any fundamental protocol rules as opposed to the vapid idea of the "Emergent consensus". So Jihan, if you keep fucking around, all of your ASIC machines will be worth nothing soon. Your choice.

What do you mean?  If you stop following chain with most proof of work as defined in first Satoshi client, you wont use Bitcoin anymore.

[cellard]

But we have the nuclear button that they didn't see coming, and this can be implemented without changing any fundamental protocol rules as opposed to the vapid idea of the "Emergent consensus". So Jihan, if you keep fucking around, all of your ASIC machines will be worth nothing soon. Your choice.

What do you mean?  If you stop following chain with most proof of work as defined in first Satoshi client, you wont use Bitcoin anymore.

The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime. Because of that, I wanted to design it to support every possible transaction type I could think of.  

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.

A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me.  It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in.  If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version.

I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.

"Emergent Consensus" is obviously a drastic change in the way the protocol works. Looks like satoshi wouldn't have liked this hardfork scenario we are seeing.

[jonald_fyookball]

"Emergent Consensus" is obviously a drastic change in the way the protocol works. 

Greg Maxwell would like you to believe its a drastic change, but it's not.

It's simple, logical, and in line with the white paper as far as nodes voting on new rules.  And apparently its even been done before when various nodes had limits of 500kb, 750kb, or 1mb.

[Iranus]

No valid points in the article, just a collection of hyperbolic unsubstantiated claims about BU which are backed up by other people's opinions unless they make what they say correct.

Blatantly cherry-picked information in an attempt to get confirmation biased Core supporters to check out their blog.

[Variogam]

But we have the nuclear button that they didn't see coming, and this can be implemented without changing any fundamental protocol rules as opposed to the vapid idea of the "Emergent consensus". So Jihan, if you keep fucking around, all of your ASIC machines will be worth nothing soon. Your choice.

What do you mean?  If you stop following chain with most proof of work as defined in first Satoshi client, you wont use Bitcoin anymore.

The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime. Because of that, I wanted to design it to support every possible transaction type I could think of. 

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.

A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me.  It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in.  If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version.

I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.

"Emergent Consensus" is obviously a drastic change in the way the protocol works. Looks like satoshi wouldn't have liked this hardfork scenario we are seeing.

No, BU is completly compatible with Satoshi client version 0.1. Both have 32 MB message size limits. Thats why I told you need to be compatible with first Satoshi client to be considered Bitcoin, and thank you for supporting my view to be in agreement with Satoshi.

As for the other quotes, even Satoshi understood more Bitcoin implemetations can emerge because Bitcoin is open source code afterall, and for Core client to be dominant in free market, it must deliver what Bitcoin users want beter than any other implementations. What we see now is free market at work, because Core dont deliver onchain scalling, users shifting from Core. And users are not just nodes, there are much more users using SVP wallets.

BTW there is estimated around 100.000 small home miners, and obviously they are pissed when some Core developers starting to talk about PoW change. Im small miner as well, thats why I dont trust Core anymore.

[AngryDwarf]

The best part is seeing George of BitFury aggressively threatening people to lawsuit them if the PoW algo is changed.
Who he pretends to lawsuit? the CEO of Bitcoin? lol, what a prick.

BitFury is currently the biggest SegWit signaller. I wonder if that will change?

I guess the lawsuit would be against the Blockstream gate keepers of the bitcoin improvement process. Don't fancy his chances on that one, so they will have to point their hashpower elsewhere.

[Karartma1]

Satoshi didn't have a 1MB limit in it. The limit was originally Hal Finney's idea.  Both Satoshi and I objected that it wouldn't scale at 1MB. Hal was concerned about a potential DoS attack though, and after discussion, Satoshi agreed.  The 1MB limit was there by the time Bitcoin launched. But all 3 of us agreed that 1MB had to be temporary because it would never scale.

Several attempted "abuses" of the blockchain under the 1MB limit have proved Hal right about needing the limit at least for launching purposes.  A lot of people wanted to piggyback extraneous information onto the blockchain, and before miners (and the community generally) realized that blockchain space was a valuable resource they would have allowed it.  The blockchain would probably be several times as big a download now if that limit hadn't been in place, because it would have a lot of random 1-satoshi transactions that exist only to encode information for altcoins etc.

At this point I don't think random schmoes who would allow just any transaction are getting a  lot of blocks. The people who have made a major investment in hashing power are doing the math to figure out which tx are worthwhile to include because block propagation time (and therefore the risk of orphan blocks) is proportional to block size. So at this point I think blockchain bloat as such is no longer likely to a problem, and the 1MB limit is no longer necessary.  It has been more-or-less replaced by a profitability limit that motivates people to not waste blockchain bandwidth, and miners are now reliably dropping transactions that don't pay fees.  

A temporary restriction is becoming the most interesting dogma of the crypto world. Cryddit left the stage, Satoshi also, Hal is no longer with us.
Three of the most ingenious devs agreed on what should have been a temporary mean.
Where do we go from there?
I do not support neither Core nor BU nor anything else but it's time to find a solution to this.

[romero121]

You kids must be stoned out of your minds.

Core = Hillary Clinton

BU = rising populist leader

BU is coming whether you like it or not

At the same if it comes too it won't sustain long gaining a long lasting trust of the miners as well the user base. It's just as an copy made out of bitcoin. Bitcoin grew experimentally, BU tries to rectify based on bitcoin's experience and trying to get the trust which is something a foolish attitude.

[jonald_fyookball]

Satoshi didn't have a 1MB limit in it. The limit was originally Hal Finney's idea.  Both Satoshi and I objected that it wouldn't scale at 1MB. Hal was concerned about a potential DoS attack though, and after discussion, Satoshi agreed.  The 1MB limit was there by the time Bitcoin launched. But all 3 of us agreed that 1MB had to be temporary because it would never scale.

Several attempted "abuses" of the blockchain under the 1MB limit have proved Hal right about needing the limit at least for launching purposes.  A lot of people wanted to piggyback extraneous information onto the blockchain, and before miners (and the community generally) realized that blockchain space was a valuable resource they would have allowed it.  The blockchain would probably be several times as big a download now if that limit hadn't been in place, because it would have a lot of random 1-satoshi transactions that exist only to encode information for altcoins etc.

At this point I don't think random schmoes who would allow just any transaction are getting a  lot of blocks. The people who have made a major investment in hashing power are doing the math to figure out which tx are worthwhile to include because block propagation time (and therefore the risk of orphan blocks) is proportional to block size. So at this point I think blockchain bloat as such is no longer likely to a problem, and the 1MB limit is no longer necessary.  It has been more-or-less replaced by a profitability limit that motivates people to not waste blockchain bandwidth, and miners are now reliably dropping transactions that don't pay fees.  

A temporary restriction is becoming the most interesting dogma of the crypto world. Cryddit left the stage, Satoshi also, Hal is no longer with us.
Three of the most ingenious devs agreed on what should have been a temporary mean.
Where do we go from there?
I do not support neither Core nor BU nor anything else but it's time to find a solution to this.

Great thread, one of the smartest guys around (Death and Taxes) knew where this was all going 2 years ago.

Curious why you don't support BU.  What your main beef with it?

[Lauda]

If you ask any BTU fanatic about this, they'd outright say that it's not even a distant possibility whilst stating that Blockstream is controlled by banks. Now, it is clear which *side* (or at least part of said side) listens to reason and which side represents Jehovah's witnesses.

You kids must be stoned out of your minds.

Core = Hillary Clinton

BU = rising populist leader

BU is coming whether you like it or not

This is the prime example of what I was referring to by my statement. If you don't think that said theory has a *fair* chance of being true, then you are very much deluded in your own beliefs beyond repair.

It's simple, logical, and in line with the white paper as far as nodes voting on new rules.  And apparently its even been done before when various nodes had limits of 500kb, 750kb, or 1mb.

'Emergent destruction' is everything but "simple", "logical" and in line with the white paper.

[chopstick]

Truth hurts doesn't it, Lauda?

But go on, keep telling me how hardforks are "contentious" and "dangerous" and how Roger Ver is the anti-christ.

[franky1]

The best part is seeing George of BitFury aggressively threatening people to lawsuit them if the PoW algo is changed.
Who he pretends to lawsuit? the CEO of Bitcoin? lol, what a prick.
He could do that under BUcoin because they will have a president and secretary lol, but not with bitcoin.

blockstream CEO adam back

blockstream CTO gmaxwell.

im guessing with gmaxwell being the moderator of bitcoin discusssion and also part of the acceptance of features that get added to core. you cant really hide cores puppet string masters..

kind of funny
oh and if you want to pretend blockstream have nothing to do with it. then the "president of core" Wladimir J. van der Laan

[Wind_FURY]

https://cointimes.tech/2017/03/statenationattack/

Good, great article actually, 

It's a bunch of screenshots of tweets... not what I would call a good article.
Makes no coherent point.

How is this a 'trojan horse' -- Bitcoin Unlimited is extremely clear on what it wants.
If an economic majority support it, it will get it...and it won't be an attack
even though those who disagree with the majority will label it as such.

If anything , segwit is the trojan horse, promising neat features
and scalability but really it will deliver code unmanagability, crippling,
and entrenchment.

I agree, where was the trojan horse in the article? I find Peter Todd's comment the most interesting and the response from Bitfury to be funny and very threatened at the same time.

Can Bitfury sue the Core developers if a POW upgrade occurs? Do they have a legal basis for it?

[franky1]

if core think the only thing should be core.. decentralisation and diversity is already lost.

oh. and core better stop making LN in Go.. as its just not Core.
hell. core should kill off KNots too.
while there at it they should also kill off Fibre aswell.. as they are not Core.
oh and kill off BTCC, as they are not using core.

they are variants with differing code/features.

see the hypocrisy?

seems the rule is if not BLOCKSTREAM approved its no good
the real trojan horse starts crawling out