Why not treat BU as Alt?

[dinofelis]

Because the Bitcoin Unlimited is a fork from the bitcoin itself. It's mean if that will disrupt the crypto community.
We do not need the Bitcoin Unlimited coin. It will be worthless in the future.

Well, if I were in charge of Unlimited I would start it off as a fresh alt and forget forking completely. Their blockchain could start in a similar way to Clams, take an image of every BTC balance and start from there.

That is exactly what a hard fork is about: take the balances of the previous coin, and apply a different protocol.

[1715009430]

1715009430

[1715009430]

1715009430

[1715009430]

1715009430

[1715009430]

1715009430

[1715009430]

1715009430

[1715009430]

1715009430

[RawDog]

SegWit is the Alt.
BU is the original Satoshi Bitcoin


Please don't forget that again.

[danherbias07]

Are we getting divided because of this?
I though bitcoin unlimited is just like Bitcoin Core but with better services not an altcoin.
So why are we getting worried about this. Why take it as an altcoin? It doesn't really have a value right?

I dont really know why there is a war here about being the altcoin thing.
I just referred to what I read here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_Unlimited

Bitcoin Unlimited (BU) is a full node software client for the bitcoin network. Compared to the Bitcoin Core client hard-coding the block size limit to 1 megabyte, from which it is forked, Bitcoin Unlimited removes the limit, allowing the users to determine the block size by consensus.

I dont really know the deeper part of it but I just used my English understanding.

[aso118]

I dont get it.
I have read so much yet I cant still understand.
They say it is an altcoin but alts should have a price right?
Some say it is part of bitcoin, if that is the case then there should not be a price for this or else they will be a competitor.
If they will get their profits through bitcoin only then I can't say they are an alt but more like an option to transact.
Which is it really? Can someone make it clear?

The problem is there will be 2 coins - and the market will decide which one it will attribute more value too.
If people find that BTU implementation suits them, its value might be more than BTC.

[RawDog]

I dont get it.
I have read so much yet I cant still understand.
They say it is an altcoin but alts should have a price right?
Some say it is part of bitcoin, if that is the case then there should not be a price for this or else they will be a competitor.
If they will get their profits through bitcoin only then I can't say they are an alt but more like an option to transact.
Which is it really? Can someone make it clear?

The problem is there will be 2 coins - and the market will decide which one it will attribute more value too.
If people find that BTU implementation suits them, its value might be more than BTC.

Bitcoin Unlimited is 'BTC' - the real bitcoin.

Bitcoin Core is  'BALT' - bullshit alt

Don't let SegWit have the label 'BTC'.  They can change their fucking label too.  People who don't follow the details will mistakenly think 'BTC' is the real or original bitcoin.  BU is the original bitcoin and should take the BTC label.  SegWit is a wild deviation from the original protocol and is the alt coin

[d5000]

But the reason why I would like to see a "BU altcoin" is that it would be a way to test it thoroughly "in the wild". As many Core supporters (including me) have doubts that its consensus will work as expected, it would be the opportunity to the BU team to show that it works well.

cough testnet cough

run it on testnet.. oh look now you have your own separate network to test it in the wild

No, I'm not referring to bugs or so. I'm referring to the Emergent Consensus model. How would it behave in the wild, what incentives would it offer to miners to increase or decrease block size, etc.

That could only be tested in an environment where real money is involved. Likely there will be much manipulation, above all in the initial stage, but perhaps something usable could be the outcome if both parties don't play too unfair.

[Carlton Banks]

No, I'm not referring to bugs or so. I'm referring to the Emergent Consensus model. How would it behave in the wild, what incentives would it offer to miners to increase or decrease block size, etc.

That could only be tested in an environment where real money is involved. Likely there will be much manipulation, above all in the initial stage, but perhaps something usable could be the outcome if both parties don't play too unfair.

Indeed.

And has the BU testnet simulated it's (now confirmed) intention to re-org/orphan attack the Bitcoin blockchain? I wonder why not

[exadex.org]

The Bitcoin company BitGo made a statement on how they would treat BTU when it comes to a hard fork:

BitGo considers any hard fork which is rolled out without industry-wide consensus, and therefore splits the network, to be an altcoin, not Bitcoin itself. This is irrespective of how much hash power the forked coin may have.

You can find the whole statement on https://blog.bitgo.com/bitgos-approach-to-handling-a-hard-fork-71e572506d7d#.1alajkzg7

I really recommend to read it.