[POLL] SegWit (BTC) vs Bitcoin Unlimited (BTU): Which Would You Choose?

[Slark]

I am more inclined to belive in SegWit because it is more safe approach and this solution offer backward compatibility which BU lacks.
Whatever happens and whoever wins, BTC community should swallow stupid pride and support the winner.
The least thing we want is to have two versions of Bitcoin running simultaneously.

[1713617272]

1713617272

[1713617272]

1713617272

[1713617272]

1713617272

[rico666]

Can't we have both? Segwit and block increase?

I would vote for it, but SegWit 1st, then block increase. Let it even be hardcoded in the protocol (XXX blocks after SegWit activation, increase blocksize to Y). Else I vote for the nuclear option -> PoW change.


Rico

[numismatist]

One remark though; the miners are trying to tell us that BTC will be finished, because the majority of the mining power will join BTU. This is BULLSHIT. The truth is, the miners will eat their word if necessary and swiftly join the currency with higher price. They do it for the money and they have hardware investment debts to repay. So the only one who will REALLY decide which of the new currencies will prosper, are the USERS.

So here is another opinion, of a user of sorts.

We don't matter. We usually follow the biggest hashrate, flabbergasted by big numbers. Whoever features moar ASICS will catch us. Plain simple.

This powerstruggle between developers, exchange site operators, miners clearly leaves out what joe public would want to experience.

[Chikito]

I think Bitcoin Unlimited will change cryptocurrency well, after 9 years of bitcoin began updating and solve problems in bitcoin themselves, and nine years is a long time to collect data, and establish a system that can live much longer. I believe bitcoin unlimited would be better than some of the current technology.

[squatz1]

I'd have to say that I'd rather go with Segwit even with all the times that the devs being too close to blockstream and so on, I still feel that they're the best set of people to actually help the bitcoin network with their scaling solution.

I feel as if BTU is just going to be a way for the majority of miners (Chinese) and Ver to be able to fight to make some crazy money off of hard forking bitcoin if they're able to hit the magic number of 51 percent, or more around 70 if they want to actually do it without an issue.

I just don't like the centralized aspect of BTU, I don't feel thats what Bitcoin has and ever should stand for.

SEGWIT!

[franky1]

I'd have to say that I'd rather go with Segwit even with all the times that the devs being too close to blockstream and so on, I still feel that they're the best set of people to actually help the bitcoin network with their scaling solution.

I feel as if BTU is just going to be a way for the majority of miners (Chinese) and Ver to be able to fight to make some crazy money off of hard forking bitcoin if they're able to hit the magic number of 51 percent, or more around 70 if they want to actually do it without an issue.

I just don't like the centralized aspect of BTU, I don't feel thats what Bitcoin has and ever should stand for.

SEGWIT!

you do know that the BU code is ok to work with a dozen differing brands to stick to a PEER open and diverse network.
but blockstream(core) want segwit code to set themselves up as the upper TIER main network auditors of the blockchain and have everything non-core as the down-stream filtered second class nodes.
core also have all the excessive ban hammering and orphaning code,(bip9 and UASF) not the other way round.
its core that bypassed hard(node and pool) and just went with soft(pool only).
and even this week core want to go a step further by now threatening to move away from PoW if pools dont vote segwit.
pretty much removing community choice and instead using threats.


non-core dynamic nodes want hard(node AND pool) consensus..
so dont blame pools for having the only vote for segwit.. core gave them that privilege over segwit..

where as the dynamics, IS a node and pool required vote so pools cannot alone force dynamics
core also removed reactive fee estimates and replaced it with average (meaning no drop in fee when a block demand is low because the price is spread out over many blocks average. thus not helping lower fee's when demand suddenly drops.
core removed priority, and raised the minimum spend.
oh and the real clincher

non-core nodes(real baseblock increase) that want dynamics are using real consensus hard(node and pool) so even if pools got to x%.. the nodes still are needed to approve it. so all this 'chinese miners are forcing the issue', only applies to segwits activation/non-activation.. due to core decision to give pools the only vote for segwit.

but dynamics needs node approval too. so pools cant just force dynamics.. pools need nodes there too, otherwise you will see alot of orphans and alot of pool timewasting making blocks that never get added to blockheight if nodes are not there to support it.

non-core implementations set no deadlines or made threats of banning the network.
if any implementation wants to support dynamics without downloading a specific brand they can use their own favourite and just add a few lines of code, yep even core can tweak a few lines and be dynamic compatible..
but segwit is a complete rewrite so anyone wanting segwit has a bigger job to rewrite to be segwit compatible and then be thrown into "its not peer reviewed your team are cramp" war game.(unless you enslave urself and just use their code like a good little sheep they want you to be)

[gentlemand]

We don't matter. We usually follow the biggest hashrate, flabbergasted by big numbers. Whoever features moar ASICS will catch us. Plain simple.

This powerstruggle between developers, exchange site operators, miners clearly leaves out what joe public would want to experience.

If one iteration smells like a heap of shit but brute forces its way into the lead with a combo of hashing power, ninja PR and deep pockets, it's still not going to last if the majority detests it.

And your vote is to either sell or buy. That's a far more powerful signal than moaning on Twitter.

[Darkbot]

you do know that the BU code is ok to work with a dozen differing brands to stick to a PEER open and diverse network.
but blockstream(core) want segwit code to set themselves up as the upper TIER main network auditors of the blockchain and have everything non-core as the down-stream filtered second class nodes.
core also have all the excessive ban hammering and orphaning code,(bip9 and UASF) not the other way round.
its core that bypassed hard(node and pool) and just went with soft(pool only).
and even this week core want to go a step further by now threatening to move away from PoW if pools dont vote segwit.
pretty much removing community choice and instead using threats.


non-core dynamic nodes want hard(node AND pool) consensus..
so dont blame pools for having the only vote for segwit.. core gave them that privilege over segwit..

where as the dynamics, IS a node and pool required vote so pools cannot alone force dynamics
core also removed reactive fee estimates and replaced it with average (meaning no drop in fee when a block demand is low because the price is spread out over many blocks average. thus not helping lower fee's when demand suddenly drops.
core removed priority, and raised the minimum spend.
oh and the real clincher

non-core nodes(real baseblock increase) that want dynamics are using real consensus hard(node and pool) so even if pools got to x%.. the nodes still are needed to approve it. so all this 'chinese miners are forcing the issue', only applies to segwits activation/non-activation.. due to core decision to give pools the only vote for segwit.

but dynamics needs node approval too. so pools cant just force dynamics.. pools need nodes there too, otherwise you will see alot of orphans and alot of pool timewasting making blocks that never get added to blockheight if nodes are not there to support it.

non-core implementations set no deadlines or made threats of banning the network.
if any implementation wants to support dynamics without downloading a specific brand they can use their own favourite and just add a few lines of code, yep even core can tweak a few lines and be dynamic compatible..
but segwit is a complete rewrite so anyone wanting segwit has a bigger job to rewrite to be segwit compatible and then be thrown into "its not peer reviewed your team are cramp" war game.(unless you enslave urself and just use their code like a good little sheep they want you to be)

Bla Bla Bla Bla, here we have another day with uber troll Franky1, the PAID SHILL co-worker from RogerCoin camp.

[franky1]

Bla Bla Bla Bla, here we have another day with uber troll Franky1, the PAID SHILL co-worker from RogerCoin camp.

lol im actualy independant, thats why peple have failed to pigeon hole me.
im all for dynamics and a peer network..
i detest cores corporate tier network owned by blockstream and the other DCG invested corporations

BU is not the only implementation that wants dynamics. so you have failed because you think its just a BU verses core debate.

its a community of many independent implementations on a peer network vs the blockstream tier control

i do however find that you cant rebuttal the context of my post, but instead just throw out an insult or empty rebuttle, thinking that it disproves what i have said.

empty arguments are boring. try to disprove the context of the message next time.

[Variogam]

I preffer selling BlockStream coins (whatever symbol and name they get) in exchange for Bitcoins. But I use Coinbase and they going to stop trading for a day until it is clear who the winner is and only allows Bitcoin trades after this. So I guess I will need to find other exchange to sell the BlockStream coins if someone going to be crazy enought to buy coins for minority chain.

[vnvizow]

Where's the option to do nothing lol? If a hardfork is forced on those two options alone then I'd just abandon ship

[pennywise]

Well, I see the poll started to show results. The poll is eager for more votes, but it's better than nothing.

I guess some do not vote because they want the third option - get out of bitcoin and adopt a different currency. I must confess that I am not interested in who goes out, but in those that stay in. I am curious which of two forked currencies to buy and it seems the writing is on the wall, pardon, in the poll  

Since the market will favor BTC over BTU, I will not hesitate to put my resources in the BTC. If I would be filling the shoes of bitcoin core team and all the miners that aren't favorable of segwit would be at least temporarily out of the blockchain I want to change, I would make it really damn sure I seize the oportunity and enforce the segwit soft fork. Hell, once I am there, I would also push through the lightning network and finish the damn thing. Because if something is killing us, it's the damn gradualism.

[Lauda]

Can't we have both? Segwit and block increase? 

Yes, but not right now (neither is it necessary). I'd expect a block size increase somewhere down the road.

Honestly I hate miners that is so picky and bypass low tx fees and let it rot to oblivion which I think can be solved by future update if Segwit will be given a chance and implemented.

Someone has been feeding false information in the miners' face, stating that:" Segwit == LN == loss of on chain TX fees". This is known as a slippery slope fallacy. This is *one* of the reasons for which they are either supporting the wrong proposal or doing nothing.

Bla Bla Bla Bla, here we have another day with uber troll Franky1, the PAID SHILL co-worker from RogerCoin camp.

lol im actualy independant, thats why peple have failed to pigeon hole me.
-snip-

If you were independent, you'd be criticizing both Core & BTU. However, you end up ranting about Core && Blockstream while subtly praising BTU. I wonder why that is.

[Carlton Banks]

I'd expect a block size increase somewhere down the road.

I wouldn't

Until geo-political tensions calm down (governments stop turning their internet into Great Firewall styled intranets, governments don't look like they're set to start even more military conflicts globally, the threat of major terrorist attacks begins to subside), then it's a stupid, stupid way of handling it.


If there's any risk that average speeds and latencies across the global internet could be degraded, blocksize increases are crazy, especially considering that several true on-chain scaling options exist and do not carry those risks.

Sure that means more development work, but it's win-win if we go that route, we would have the kind of transaction capacity on the Bitcoin network that could both survive and perhaps even help to end major 21st century world warfare. What's not to like, eh Lauda?