BUgcoin strikes back

[felipehermanns]

Hashrate going down? I see there is only 33% today.   

[1715152871]

1715152871

[1715152871]

1715152871

[1715152871]

1715152871

[1715152871]

1715152871

[Holliday]

Ok.   But when Ghash had 51%, the situation quickly corrected itself , which is evidence to the contrary of what you're saying.

The fact that they even let it get there is ridiculous. I wouldn't call the correction "quick" either. First we needed steady outrage from the users to get them to pull their heads out of their asses. And this had all happened before with DeepBit!

I would say that "Actual miners" are the ones providing the hashing, not the pool.  Semantics aside, they haven't given up their vote at all as they can choose whatever pool they want.  If you're suggesting that they not moving to a new pool out of convenience, you are making an assumption, but to whatever degree it is true, you could say the same thing about the large number of node operators still on core.

Again, they introduced trust to a system that requires none. I don't know how you can spin that as being a positive, but whatever... preconceived notions...

[jonald_fyookball]

  but whatever... preconceived notions...

and you don't have any?

[Holliday]

  but whatever... preconceived notions...

and you don't have any?

I'm not here trying to spin that adding trust to a system which requires none is a positive or that those doing it are making smart decisions.

I'm not the one ignoring past actions and saying, "This time it's different."

[jonald_fyookball]

  but whatever... preconceived notions...

and you don't have any?

I'm not here trying to spin that adding trust to a system which requires none is a positive or that those doing it are making smart decisions.

I'm not the one ignoring past actions and saying, "This time it's different."

I do think choosing a pool that supports a miner's scaling solution preference IS a little different than otherwise, and I'm not intentionally trying to spin anything,
just expressing my opinions.

But whatever, this conversation has run its course.  You have yourself a nice day, sir.

[hardtime]

I more or less thought the bug in the code was going to be and lead to the end of BTU as we know it and I thought we'd be saying a lot of these big chinese mining companies (others too) start to back out. But I guess they're going to be sticking with BTU intil the end, they're probably going to stay with Ver and BTU through thick and thin, this being the thick.

If Ver is able to get more miners on board with BTU and kink out the bugs that BTU has in its code and make sure nothing like this comes to light again through peer reviewing of the code (fixing) and so on, I think they may be able to hard-fork without issue. As they seem to have already garnered a pretty good / close amount to 51 percent which is needed.

I just really hope Bitcoin as a whole can survive through this, please VER?

[European Central Bank]

I more or less thought the bug in the code was going to be and lead to the end of BTU as we know it and I thought we'd be saying a lot of these big chinese mining companies (others too) start to back out. But I guess they're going to be sticking with BTU intil the end, they're probably going to stay with Ver and BTU through thick and thin, this being the thick.

by continuing to signal it keeps the pressure on. it doesn't cost them anything extra to signal, apart from the actual price spiralling downwards of course, so the stalemate will probably continue.

they have alot of money. maybe they can spend that on coming up with code that works.

[LittleBitFunny]

I more or less thought the bug in the code was going to be and lead to the end of BTU as we know it and I thought we'd be saying a lot of these big chinese mining companies (others too) start to back out. But I guess they're going to be sticking with BTU intil the end, they're probably going to stay with Ver and BTU through thick and thin, this being the thick.

If Ver is able to get more miners on board with BTU and kink out the bugs that BTU has in its code and make sure nothing like this comes to light again through peer reviewing of the code (fixing) and so on, I think they may be able to hard-fork without issue. As they seem to have already garnered a pretty good / close amount to 51 percent which is needed.

I just really hope Bitcoin as a whole can survive through this, please VER?

Peer reviewing is only going to be between people who are evidently incompetent because BU is still keeping the code closed source.  It doesn't matter whether they intend to open it in the future, if they're not willing to open it to peer review from people who can notice giant bugs before they matter then they don't deserve to be trusted with something as big and potentially delicate as Bitcoin.

[muyuu]

I despair that there are true Bitcoiners (not shills trying to fuck up the system from inside) who truly believe this is a good idea. It boggles the mind.

[jonald_fyookball]

I despair that there are true Bitcoiners (not shills trying to fuck up the system from inside) who truly believe this is a good idea. It boggles the mind.

It's not that BU has such a great team or bug free code... its a catalyst to get consensus for bigger blocks, with MULTIPLE implementations supporting it.

If you don't want bigger blocks and want Core's roadmap of 'maybe you'll get a tiny bit of on chain scaling with segwit while we transform Bitcoin into a settlement network' then I can see why you don't like what is happening.

[Wind_FURY]

. I dont trust BU dev they're not skillled enough.
 

and yet miners are choosing their software over Core anyway.  What does that tell you?

It tells a whole lot that it doesnt take the better team of developers to be chosen by the miners. Politics is in play here and quite possible greed too. But we get it, whoever wins, wins. The losing side must accept peacefully for the sake of the community.

[jonald_fyookball]

. I dont trust BU dev they're not skillled enough.
 

and yet miners are choosing their software over Core anyway.  What does that tell you?

It tells a whole lot that it doesnt take the better team of developers to be chosen by the miners. Politics is in play here and quite possible greed too. But we get it, whoever wins, wins. The losing side must accept peacefully for the sake of the community.

WHAT you code is more important than who is coding it.

[Wind_FURY]

. I dont trust BU dev they're not skillled enough.
 

and yet miners are choosing their software over Core anyway.  What does that tell you?

It tells a whole lot that it doesnt take the better team of developers to be chosen by the miners. Politics is in play here and quite possible greed too. But we get it, whoever wins, wins. The losing side must accept peacefully for the sake of the community.

WHAT you code is more important than who is coding it.

Yes exactly that. Let us make a poll. What is better the Core software or the Bitcoin Unlimited software?

And naturally the better team will usually come up with better code compared to the inferior and incompetent team. To be clear and fair, I am not saying the BU developers are. I mean that generally.

[jonald_fyookball]

And naturally the better team will usually come up with better code compared to the inferior and incompetent team. 

You can have better coders who happen to be coding the wrong thing.  "What" they are coding depends on the visionary of the project.
Core is mostly coding what Blockstream wants (lets just all admit that)...and their agenda is as little on chain scaling as possible.

BU team's vision is on chain scaling.

So they are coding totally different things, and that is a separate aspect from the skills of the developers.

[metropolia]

What are the real thing to decide the BU or SW? The nodes version or hash power? I see SW is dominant on nodes, but BU is dominant in hashpower.

[Holliday]

What are the real thing to decide the BU or SW? The nodes version or hash power? I see SW is dominant on nodes, but BU is dominant in hashpower.

The economic majority decides.

[metropolia]

What are the real thing to decide the BU or SW? The nodes version or hash power? I see SW is dominant on nodes, but BU is dominant in hashpower.

The economic majority decides.

Yes, economy decides the result. I saw people said BU needs 75% signaling, and SegWit needs 95% signaling, so this "signaling" is hash power, is it right or wrong?

[Holliday]

What are the real thing to decide the BU or SW? The nodes version or hash power? I see SW is dominant on nodes, but BU is dominant in hashpower.

The economic majority decides.

Yes, economy decides the result. I saw people said BU needs 75% signaling, and SegWit needs 95% signaling, so this "signaling" is hash power, is it right or wrong?

Yes, pool operators include information in the blocks they create in order to signal their support of a specific proposal.

[Wind_FURY]

And naturally the better team will usually come up with better code compared to the inferior and incompetent team.  

You can have better coders who happen to be coding the wrong thing.  "What" they are coding depends on the visionary of the project.
Core is mostly coding what Blockstream wants (lets just all admit that)...and their agenda is as little on chain scaling as possible.

For me personally, off the chain scaling always more sense to for Bitcoin. There is much more possibilites if we do it that way. But I am not saying it is perfect. It will have its own problems.

BU team's vision is on chain scaling.

So they are coding totally different things, and that is a separate aspect from the skills of the developers.

I get that and respect it. But it will never mean that the reason why the miners are following them is because they are better or their code is better. Politics and the need for control is one of the main reasons or maybe the main reason.

[Iranus]

What are the real thing to decide the BU or SW? The nodes version or hash power? I see SW is dominant on nodes, but BU is dominant in hashpower.

The hash power decides if BU happens, but if it does happen then the economic majority decides whether the new coin is successful.

SegWit is different though as it's not creating a new coin.  A lot of people are running outdated Core nodes which don't support BU or SegWit, but when the hash power supports SegWit it'll happen and the economic majority will not have the decision in the same sense.