Has Bitcoin Unlimited been tested extensively/properly?

[pooya87]

So my question is, Has this proposal (Bitcoin Unlimited) been tested properly?

I see every time there is a change, it is tested on the testnet. for example although i don't really follow these things that much, i have seen SegWit transactions on the Testnet. but i have never heard about testing BU on testnet?

did i miss it or was it tested differently?


(These days everywhere is filled with so much spam that i feel important matters are being forgotten! that is why as you see this is a self moderated topic to prevent trolling as much as possible.)

[AngryDwarf]

BU has it's own testnet network, has shown by the command line options.

Chain selection options:

Code:

-testnet
Use the test chain 
-chain_nol
Use the no-limit blockchain 

Note, this just indicates that testing of the BU block expansion consensus mechanism has likely had some testing performed on the -chain_nol version of testnet. This is not the same as extensive testing. There are some known issues which have been exploited in the live network and fixed. There are possibly a few more that need attention.

[OmegaStarScream]

I will take my chances and say no, because If they did, they would've find out about the crashing nodes bug[1] before someone use it to take all nodes down.

[1] http://www.coindesk.com/code-bug-exploit-bitcoin-unlimited-nodes/

[AngryDwarf]

I will take my chances and say no, because If they did, they would've find out about the crashing nodes bug[1] before someone use it to take all nodes down.

[1] http://www.coindesk.com/code-bug-exploit-bitcoin-unlimited-nodes/

Even the hackers needed the exploit pointing out to them.

[pooya87]

I will take my chances and say no, because If they did, they would've find out about the crashing nodes bug[1] before someone use it to take all nodes down.

well you are making a guess and that is not what i am looking for.
and besides finding a bug doesn't mean it was tested or not. bugs are found in any code that you write no matter how much you test it or not.

[HanSchultz]

I will take my chances and say no, because If they did, they would've find out about the crashing nodes bug[1] before someone use it to take all nodes down.

well you are making a guess and that is not what i am looking for.
and besides finding a bug doesn't mean it was tested or not. bugs are found in any code that you write no matter how much you test it or not.

The level of bugs found in the program suggest that it is not written by a professional who could have an impact on billions of dollars if a single code of line back fired and they proved that they are not capable in handling the issue and it has to show that their testing expertise is really poor or they are ignorant about the implications it can make in the economy with one wrong move.

[hv_]

any other comments on this?

A isolated test net is a nice thing for testing but we will all agree that this is no garantie to find all bugs even the very critical ones.

So finally BU runs already live in production mostly save and this is a real luxury and already an advantage over SW.

I m also sure that the big miners with their multi million investments have done their job here in depth and decided to go live. A risk is always their mostly correlated with change impact. Have you counted how many lines of code have been changed in SW? I fear we will see same bugs once SW might be executed in prod.

[LittleBitFunny]

I'm pretty sure that BU has not been tested as extensively as the more established Core team.  There's no obvious evidence that it has and the glaring bugs starting to come out are just proving that BU haven't got the robust code needed for such a major network.  Even if it has been tested well enough, it has to be completely clear and no one should be in any doubt.

[franky1]

I will take my chances and say no, because If they did, they would've find out about the crashing nodes bug[1] before someone use it to take all nodes down.

a few nodes went down but the network went on..
.. no bad isses of causing orphan drama or destroying transactions or double spends.

cant say the same thing about the leveldb bug of 2013

is core perfect:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues
^ seems not

[AngryDwarf]

Probably better asking the BU team what level of testing they have performed. Probably only going to get FUD answers here, TBH.

[Cryptorios]

BU nodes do not accept the longest chain if it disagrees with their idea of validity (e.g. block size), until that longest chain is a sufficient number of blocks ahead. This creates forks that will persist for up to an hour or even longer, and can be used for attacks. Many merchant systems currently use 1-3 confirms on Bitcoin and will either have to change that to a higher number or be easily attacked.

[jonald_fyookball]

BU nodes do not accept the longest chain if it disagrees with their idea of validity (e.g. block size), until that longest chain is a sufficient number of blocks ahead. This creates forks that will persist for up to an hour or even longer, and can be used for attacks. Many merchant systems currently use 1-3 confirms on Bitcoin and will either have to change that to a higher number or be easily attacked.

This is not what the OP is asking but I'm not sure this is entirely true.  I believe that in BU you set 2 different levels -- one is the limit you publicly vote on, the other is your nodes actual maximum (until it gets behind by enough blocks).  So the community has a good idea of the actual blocksize. 

[Lauren Smith]

Well no not yet. That is what bitcoin is a huge project. It is stretching to other places as a new form if currency and way to trade for things both physical and digital. It really is fun and profitable taking part in the bitcoin experiment. Though now it's less of an experiment and more of a reality. Each day we get closer and closer.