BU an actual threat?

[cjmoles]

You can look at ETH hard fork as an example, network splitted into ETH & ETC while ETH have gained value and ETC is dying. But as an ETH holder you will have both ETH and ETC, so all of them are in profit after hard fork.

Same can go with bitcoin and BTC (core) may remain as large network while BTU may stay as just another altcoin. As a bitcoin holder we will get some free BTU  

as a far as i know that is wrong, network didn't split in ETH and ETC, ETC was made before the split from other users that were not in agreement with ETH decision to do a hard fork

ETC 100% a new altcoin nothing to do with ETH if not for the same algorithm user and same parameters, there wasn't any split, they just created another chain because of the split, see the difference...

Again, you are wrong.  ETH/ETC was/is a hard fork.  There is no more perfect example of a hard fork.  One group of people wanted to "change the rules" the other group did not.  So they went their separate ways on separate block chains.  That is the definition of a hard fork.

BurtW setting the record straight again.  I doubled (or there about) my investment with the Eth hardfork by being prepared to dump the non-supported chain in a timely manner.....

This is my question here for you BurtW: if I have my btc on the exchanges, should I move them to an address that I control if I want to take advantage of the fork in the event it occurs?  Is that a question I should ask the exchanges?  Or, should I do that no matter what, just to be sure my position is optimized?  I have a feeling we're going to fork and I want to get the most out of it.

(I more or less know the answer....but just trying to double check and get some objective feedback)

[1714114940]

1714114940

[1714114940]

1714114940

[franky1]

BU (and other non-core implentations) have been running for 2 years
made no threats, no demands, have no over zealous banning mechanisms.. it is just plodding along allowing the network to rmain diverse and have a choice of independence that is not core dictated.

several other implementations are compatible too. making it not a threat to bitcoin because these independent implementations are not going to activate unless they know that both pools and nodes want it.

hence why so far they have not activated anything contentiously... (because they have already been offered a split, but refused)

so there are no user threats, no blackmails no deadlines due to bu or other non-core implementations. just open choice. if it doesnt activate, it doesnt activate.. if it does its because the majority chose it.

simple

however its core with the zealous banscores, the bip9 orphan triggers and tier topology of upstream filters, the UASF threat the change of PoW threat. the actively pushing the fee war up by removing reactive fee estimate to average fee.. removing priority. all to then bribe users with discounts

so while core get sh*t scared that they could lose their tier network control and have to possibly join consensus of an equal playing field of consensus. or.. their preference trigger their own split.

core just hope to scream doomsdays and poke the bear/rock the boat to make it seem like core are the victims of their own splitting away..

much like core gave pools the vote and now playing victim card of "the pools control the vote" and now "we must starve the pools by taking their PoW lunch from them unless they vote for us"(blackmail)

all while dynamic implementations are just plodding along allowing the network to rmain diverse and have a choice of independence that is not core dictated.

[coolcoinz]

It looks like BU is going to happen no matter what. Exchanges already allow traders to buy BU for more than $200, is pretty cheap than BTC itself. There's considerable amount of volume particularly on bitfinex, its going to be more than what its price later as I can see.

I don't think its a threat to BTC though, its going to be like ETH and ETC.

This is a speculative that is basically allowing people to bet on the BU by investing money in it. Ver and all the BU supporters will have a lot of money invested and are hoping to multiply their fortunes with this move.
Is it a threat? I think it is, because we don't know if it can handle the traffic and security as our old core did. What if it doesn't and makes Bitcoin more unreliable and prone to hacks?

[franky1]

Again, you are wrong.  ETH/ETC was/is a hard fork.  There is no more perfect example of a hard fork.  One group of people wanted to "change the rules" the other group did not.  So they went their separate ways on separate block chains.  That is the definition of a hard fork.

hard BILATERAL SPLIT fork

google: --oppose-dao-fork

lets even quote cores immortal lord and master

What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.

I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--

too many people think that soft = 1 thing and hard =1 thing.
but infact you can have splits done by going soft or hard.
but infact you can have controversy done by going soft or hard.
but infact you can have concensus done by going soft or hard.

but the propaganda machine just talks and wants to think of soft best case scenario and hards worse case, to fit a scenario of the narrator

but this should clear it up

clarity

soft and hard is simply:
soft: pool only vote
hard: nodes and pools vote

below these umbrella terms is what could happen.. in both hard and soft it can either continue as one chain. or bilateral split
softfork: consensus - >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: small 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: controversial - >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: long big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: bilateral split - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

hardfork: consensus - >94% nodes, then >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: controversial - >50% nodes, then >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: bilateral split - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

[Kprawn]

ETH/ETC was/is a hard fork.  There is no more perfect example of a hard fork.  One group of people wanted to "change the rules" the other group did not.  So they went their separate ways on separate block chains.  That is the definition of a hard fork.

But we keep forgetting that Ethereum was forked 4 times in total and only that one emergency fork after the DAO disaster caused community to split.
It was more of a rollover fix that real fork anyway. Another example - Monero: this altcoin had few forks and none of them caused any panic or problems.
We have problem only with forks in the Bitcoin and Ethereum communities, forks of altcoins are implemented seamlessly.

I think the BTC Core and BTC Unlimited fork is a bit more serious than both the Ethereum and Monero fork. We are talking about a major coin

with a huge market cap and a lot of businesses and merchants that would have to chose sides. The people behind this strategy have thought

out this way in advance and they knew this would hurt Bitcoin. 

[cjmoles]

ETH/ETC was/is a hard fork.  There is no more perfect example of a hard fork.  One group of people wanted to "change the rules" the other group did not.  So they went their separate ways on separate block chains.  That is the definition of a hard fork.

But we keep forgetting that Ethereum was forked 4 times in total and only that one emergency fork after the DAO disaster caused community to split.
It was more of a rollover fix that real fork anyway. Another example - Monero: this altcoin had few forks and none of them caused any panic or problems.
We have problem only with forks in the Bitcoin and Ethereum communities, forks of altcoins are implemented seamlessly.

I think the BTC Core and BTC Unlimited fork is a bit more serious than both the Ethereum and Monero fork. We are talking about a major coin

with a huge market cap and a lot of businesses and merchants that would have to chose sides. The people behind this strategy have thought

out this way in advance and they knew this would hurt Bitcoin. 

Yes, the altcoin forks are easier to manage because their communities are smaller, their market capital isn't as relevant, and many of the altcoin networks are controlled by insiders who hold large stakes and work in collusion to manipulate their communities.  The Bitcoin Network is robust with a comparatively huge market capitalization which cannot be easily manipulated without conflict.

[BurtW]

It looks like BU is going to happen no matter what. Exchanges already allow traders to buy BU for more than $200, is pretty cheap than BTC itself. There's considerable amount of volume particularly on bitfinex, its going to be more than what its price later as I can see.

I don't think its a threat to BTC though, its going to be like ETH and ETC.

That is funny.  So now you think the hard fork has already happened and/or is inevitable just because some people are willing to gamble on it?  People will gamble on anything.

[Technicality]

it won't actually represent any loss of value

Codswallop. It would possibly trigger a complete loss of trust in all cryptocurrencies. Nobody would ever be quite sure again whether what they were putting money into would split and crater given the right levels of agitation.

If it had been an orderly and mutually supported move towards Unlimited then that would be dandy but that's not how it's playing out.

I don't know about that.  People would still be holding their original Bitcoin, so maybe they'd be okay just ignoring the HF and continuing.  It might be less accessible for newcomers but that doesn't mean that people will lose trust in cryptocurrencies in general.

[gentlemand]

I don't know about that.  People would still be holding their original Bitcoin, so maybe they'd be okay just ignoring the HF and continuing.  It might be less accessible for newcomers but that doesn't mean that people will lose trust in cryptocurrencies in general.

Bitcoin, let alone anything else, is still in the extreme sceptic phase for most of the world. The only way you convince more people that it's here to stay is by remaining progressive, unified and dependable.  

If it splinters into a myriad of screechy chains all changing PoW, dumping and 51%ing each other then that looks like just another failed project to everyone who already believed that anyway.

BTC still has an awful lot to prove and that goes just as much for the people who are already involved in it, let alone future arrivals.

As Mr W pointed out above, an ETH style split would be a dream scenario but there's too much money and power on the line for that. Everyone will be scratching each others' eyes out for that one chain.

[epitome]

You can look at ETH hard fork as an example, network splitted into ETH & ETC while ETH have gained value and ETC is dying. But as an ETH holder you will have both ETH and ETC, so all of them are in profit after hard fork.
Same can go with bitcoin and BTC (core) may remain as large network while BTU may stay as just another altcoin. As a bitcoin holder we will get some free BTU  

Bitcoin will stay with the core and the shell parties will be exposed pretty soon and it is not that simple as an ETH hard fork,it has a different meaning than ETH and bitcoin is different than that and the implications if there is a split will be huge,you really cannot accept a code filled with bugs and so BU is actually not a threat,it will be a different protocol if they force things.

[Carlton Banks]

If it splinters into a myriad of screechy chains all changing PoW, dumping and 51%ing each other then that looks like just another failed project to everyone who already believed that anyway.

Again, get your story straight

You were saying "I welcome a PoW change to oust the miners acting in bad faith" something like 20 minutes ago.

Obviously a PoW change is a severe move, but your average Bitcoin wallet does not have terms and conditions where you agree to preserve the wellbeing of a bunch of strangers in a far off land making money hand over fist.

I assume that possibility would only be rolled out if there was a move from a group of miners that explicitly harmed everyone else, in which case I'd welcome it.

[calkob]

  I have only just started reading a little about BU. It seems to me that this is being blown out of proportion. Whichever party wins seems to just indicate the majority of the market will shift that direction, and whether BU takes over or BTC remains dominant won't really matter much.

    For your rank and file bitcoin user, it won't actually represent any loss of value, it just seems to be a power play of the ultra rich. Even if hash power is concentrated in fewer hands, a 51% attack would still be prevented by simple self interest. Am I missing something?

At this time i would say there is currently a 25% chance that BU will fork the network, for security they need to wait untill they have a definite majority and they have even said that they will wait until at least 75%.

[BurtW]

This is my question here for you BurtW: if I have my btc on the exchanges, should I move them to an address that I control if I want to take advantage of the fork in the event it occurs?  Is that a question I should ask the exchanges?  Or, should I do that no matter what, just to be sure my position is optimized?  I have a feeling we're going to fork and I want to get the most out of it.

(I more or less know the answer....but just trying to double check and get some objective feedback)

First, I don't think any of these major changes are going to happen.  

Second, I keep my BTC on my own Trezor hardware wallet - I do not trust any exchanges.

Third, if Bitcoin splits into two (BTCa, BTCb) then I expect that most exchanges will offer the service of converting your pre-fork BTC into separate BTCa and BTCb coins and I would take advantage of that service to convert my BTC into BTCa and BTCb at the exchange then bring back both coins to my Trezor - unless I sell one to increase my holdings of the other.

[BurtW]

 I have only just started reading a little about BU. It seems to me that this is being blown out of proportion. Whichever party wins seems to just indicate the majority of the market will shift that direction, and whether BU takes over or BTC remains dominant won't really matter much.

    For your rank and file bitcoin user, it won't actually represent any loss of value, it just seems to be a power play of the ultra rich. Even if hash power is concentrated in fewer hands, a 51% attack would still be prevented by simple self interest. Am I missing something?

At this time i would say there is currently a 25% chance that BU will fork the network, for security they need to wait untill they have a definite majority and they have even said that they will wait until at least 75%.

Funny, at this time i would say there is currently a 0.00025% chance that BU will fork the network.  Did you pull your number out of your ass?  I just pulled that number out of mine.

[bittraffic]

I think there is no BU later. There will be no splitting for it will only show them how clouded their judgement if they are going to really implement it all. If they do then I guess there really is no ETF later on and we're all be right where we are still after the next 10 years.

[South Park]

You can look at ETH hard fork as an example, network splitted into ETH & ETC while ETH have gained value and ETC is dying. But as an ETH holder you will have both ETH and ETC, so all of them are in profit after hard fork.

Same can go with bitcoin and BTC (core) may remain as large network while BTU may stay as just another altcoin. As a bitcoin holder we will get some free BTU 

But the circumstances are completely different the fork of ETH and ETC happen at a point in time where the two coins were young enough, if a hard fork happened in bitcoin at this stage of its life it could become a disaster since the value of bitcoin will crash also if investors lose their faith in bitcoin then they will lose their faith in other alts and we will see a major crash in all of them.

[semaforo]

   Thanks for the comments, this is helping me understand a little more.

I still remain unconvinced that this as serious as some are making it out to be, seems more like some fanatical opportunists trying to make a quick buck and the media jumping on the bandwagon in order to get more ad revenue on their websites.

[slaveforanunnak1]

You can look at ETH hard fork as an example, network splitted into ETH & ETC while ETH have gained value and ETC is dying. But as an ETH holder you will have both ETH and ETC, so all of them are in profit after hard fork.

Same can go with bitcoin and BTC (core) may remain as large network while BTU may stay as just another altcoin. As a bitcoin holder we will get some free BTU  

But the circumstances are completely different the fork of ETH and ETC happen at a point in time where the two coins were young enough, if a hard fork happened in bitcoin at this stage of its life it could become a disaster since the value of bitcoin will crash also if investors lose their faith in bitcoin then they will lose their faith in other alts and we will see a major crash in all of them.

This! God BU is  cancer!

[semaforo]

You can look at ETH hard fork as an example, network splitted into ETH & ETC while ETH have gained value and ETC is dying. But as an ETH holder you will have both ETH and ETC, so all of them are in profit after hard fork.

Same can go with bitcoin and BTC (core) may remain as large network while BTU may stay as just another altcoin. As a bitcoin holder we will get some free BTU  

But the circumstances are completely different the fork of ETH and ETC happen at a point in time where the two coins were young enough, if a hard fork happened in bitcoin at this stage of its life it could become a disaster since the value of bitcoin will crash also if investors lose their faith in bitcoin then they will lose their faith in other alts and we will see a major crash in all of them.

This! God BU is  cancer!

    After looking at the issue in depth a little more, I am also leaning in this direction. It appears to me that BU represents a win-lose, in which a small number of individuals stand to gain greatly from the loss of many people. It seems to me a more measured approach is in order, it doesn't seem the situation really requires such drastic action as the BU proponents are suggesting.

     A leadership position makes it very difficult to please everyone, but really unity is more in order. It certainly seems to me that most of the BU supporters don't really have as deep an understanding of the bitcoin protocol as the core.