When will BTC vs. BU be decided?

[Castreat]

if i wasn't 100% sure before that there will be NO FORK, i am 100% sure now.
i just read this myself on the wall observer topic so i am going to share it here also.
https://i.imgur.com/V9OK6Wt.png
https://twitter.com/f2pool_wangchun/status/846266755391512577

with this we are sure that F2Pool which is one of the biggest mining pools out there, is not going to support BU and without them and many other miners who are not with them, we can safely add BU to Classic and XT and Unlimited,...

and as far as price is concerned we can expect $1200 pretty soon.

Some miners will support the BU. So they will move out of F2pool. We will find out in the next few weeks.

[SONG GEET]

we can safely add BU to Classic and XT and Unlimited,...

and as far as price is concerned we can expect $1200 pretty soon.

-> Yes BU can be considered as failed attempt to fork healthy bitcoin network, started with spam transactions to create hypothetical block size problem.

-> Bitcoin have already started to pump hard, so i expect price to reach over $1200 within next week.  

[shannen87]

we can safely add BU to Classic and XT and Unlimited,...

and as far as price is concerned we can expect $1200 pretty soon.

-> Yes BU can be considered as failed attempt to fork healthy bitcoin network, started with spam transactions to create hypothetical block size problem.

-> Bitcoin have already started to pump hard, so i expect price to reach over $1200 within next week.  

Within this week it will scale back to $800, mark my words.

[JimboToronto]

Within this week it will scale back to $800, mark my words.

Marked.

[uki]

Within this week it will scale back to $800, mark my words.

Marked.

It would be a nice buying opportunity. Just bring it on!

[york780]

we can safely add BU to Classic and XT and Unlimited,...

and as far as price is concerned we can expect $1200 pretty soon.

-> Yes BU can be considered as failed attempt to fork healthy bitcoin network, started with spam transactions to create hypothetical block size problem.

-> Bitcoin have already started to pump hard, so i expect price to reach over $1200 within next week.  

Within this week it will scale back to $800, mark my words.

no, we brokenthe bearish 1000$ line. So up we go.

[DeathAngel]

Why are you guys saying BU is dead? Don't get me wrong I support Core & hope BU does die but they still maintain & sizeable hashrate & number of nodes yes?

[shannen87]

we can safely add BU to Classic and XT and Unlimited,...

and as far as price is concerned we can expect $1200 pretty soon.

-> Yes BU can be considered as failed attempt to fork healthy bitcoin network, started with spam transactions to create hypothetical block size problem.

-> Bitcoin have already started to pump hard, so i expect price to reach over $1200 within next week.  

Within this week it will scale back to $800, mark my words.

no, we brokenthe bearish 1000$ line. So up we go.

Wave 5 is up to $1080-1100 then back to $759-800 before he hit a new ATH only IF there is no HF. Because a HF will mean even $300 prices.

[HabBear]

Is it really? If they're both bitcoin why is there concern that people will flee bitcoin for BU? Why are there questions about how people will get coins on the BU blockchain? If it's a competition between which is going to continue on in the future they must be separate entities fighting for the same name.

If BU and Core are both bitcoin...what's trading when I go to Blockchain.info? Is it BTC Core or BU? Are there separate exchanges for BU?

If they're both bitcoin then no one should be concerned...obviously that's not happening right now.

BU is bitcoin.  It's BU vs Core, not BU vs BTC.    

BU and Core both are both bitcoin right now, so it's unfair to call the one bitcoin and the other not.

In fact BU even has more hashrate, so if anything, BU is the real bitcoin right now.

Instead of a fork, creating (what sounds like) a separate currency. Why can't we all agree to halt trading for 48 hours or a week to allow the capability for greater blocksize to be coded in...i.e., increase the pipes to allow greater flow. Then after the agreed upon timeframe the exchanges open back up and transactions can resume.

[zimmah]

Is it really? If they're both bitcoin why is there concern that people will flee bitcoin for BU? Why are there questions about how people will get coins on the BU blockchain? If it's a competition between which is going to continue on in the future they must be separate entities fighting for the same name.

If BU and Core are both bitcoin...what's trading when I go to Blockchain.info? Is it BTC Core or BU? Are there separate exchanges for BU?

If they're both bitcoin then no one should be concerned...obviously that's not happening right now.

BU is bitcoin.  It's BU vs Core, not BU vs BTC.    

BU and Core both are both bitcoin right now, so it's unfair to call the one bitcoin and the other not.

In fact BU even has more hashrate, so if anything, BU is the real bitcoin right now.

Instead of a fork, creating (what sounds like) a separate currency. Why can't we all agree to halt trading for 48 hours or a week to allow the capability for greater blocksize to be coded in...i.e., increase the pipes to allow greater flow. Then after the agreed upon timeframe the exchanges open back up and transactions can resume.

None of that is needed.

You can change the code without needed to halt trade.

You can even write a rule like:

From block 500,000 onwards, blocksize will be 4MB.

[uki]

Is it really? If they're both bitcoin why is there concern that people will flee bitcoin for BU? Why are there questions about how people will get coins on the BU blockchain? If it's a competition between which is going to continue on in the future they must be separate entities fighting for the same name.

If BU and Core are both bitcoin...what's trading when I go to Blockchain.info? Is it BTC Core or BU? Are there separate exchanges for BU?

If they're both bitcoin then no one should be concerned...obviously that's not happening right now.

BU is bitcoin.  It's BU vs Core, not BU vs BTC.    

BU and Core both are both bitcoin right now, so it's unfair to call the one bitcoin and the other not.

In fact BU even has more hashrate, so if anything, BU is the real bitcoin right now.

Instead of a fork, creating (what sounds like) a separate currency. Why can't we all agree to halt trading for 48 hours or a week to allow the capability for greater blocksize to be coded in...i.e., increase the pipes to allow greater flow. Then after the agreed upon timeframe the exchanges open back up and transactions can resume.

None of that is needed.

You can change the code without needed to halt trade.

You can even write a rule like:

From block 500,000 onwards, blocksize will be 4MB.

Absolutely true and I bet that many people around knew that.
It is one of these easy stories that drop the market two floors down, when necessary.
I expected this story, or a similar one, to pop up again after the next leg up. And again, it will create a shitstorm for couple of days only to ignite a drop, with no real effect on Bitcoin development.

[AlexM]

Every single thing on this planet changes, upgrades, whatever name it.
Why not accept BU? Because some folks are going to lose the capita?
Why don't they thing that we need faster, cheaper BTC transactions in the future?
For me it's 100% normal to switch to BU like in a decade we must change to the new BU version 2 and going on...

BU will never be accepted by the community because it is a centralized company trying to do a hostile takeover of Bitcoin. Core are a volunteer bunch of developers (some of whom are paid by MIT and Blockstream) but any developer can volunteer to work for core and help make Bitcoin better. BU want in install a president of Bitcoin, not all the code they release is reviewed, not all the code they release if visible for anyone to see, and all developers are paid employees. So if BU ever manages to take over the Bitcoin chain, Bitcoin will lose 90+% of its value within 2 years, people will move to independent alts. Who wants a company managing Bitcoin?

So Core developers have released an update called Segwit to improve scaling. This should allow about twice as many transactions as currently allowed and fixes a known bug, but it paves the way for lightning networks which will provide off blockchain transactions for some Bitcoins transactions that are instantaneous and should cost less than 1-5 cents.

Segwit has already been tested and released, it needs support from miners. They are worried about Lightning network so most are not supporting it and many are supporting BU instead.
BU's bigger blocks can also mean smaller blocks, the miners decide on the blocksize, so in theory they could vote for smaller blocks and thus higher fees. Whilst BU promise lower fees. The other issue with larger block is the larger the block the more decentralized the miners become. If the blocksize went much larger quickly only data centres would be able to mine as no one else would have the bandwidth or storage needed. If the blocksize were to hit 4mb in the next year or 2 then the whole of Austrialia and Africa would be unable to process the data needed to mine due to bandwidth. So that is 2 continents without any possible mining.

Larger block sizes still has some merit but BU has none.  If you are after speed, and cheap fees going offchain with LN is the way forward, and Segwit is needed to get to LN.

BU is not dead, and if it dies someone will come along and try and fork Bitcoin.

Last point this is all or nothing. If there is a hard fork to BU then BU has to spend all of its resources killing off the Core chain (they have a $100m kitty for doing this). BU have to do this as if they let a core version of Bitcoin survive everyone will use it. BU is paid internet trolls in USA and a few Trump supporters mixed in with some big Chinese miners (who may be trying to kill Bitcoin on behalf of the Chinese government, or may just be greedy.)

[Castreat]

Every single thing on this planet changes, upgrades, whatever name it.
Why not accept BU? Because some folks are going to lose the capita?
Why don't they thing that we need faster, cheaper BTC transactions in the future?
For me it's 100% normal to switch to BU like in a decade we must change to the new BU version 2 and going on...

BU will never be accepted by the community because it is a centralized company trying to do a hostile takeover of Bitcoin. Core are a volunteer bunch of developers (some of whom are paid by MIT and Blockstream) but any developer can volunteer to work for core and help make Bitcoin better. BU want in install a president of Bitcoin, not all the code they release is reviewed, not all the code they release if visible for anyone to see, and all developers are paid employees. So if BU ever manages to take over the Bitcoin chain, Bitcoin will lose 90+% of its value within 2 years, people will move to independent alts. Who wants a company managing Bitcoin?

So Core developers have released an update called Segwit to improve scaling. This should allow about twice as many transactions as currently allowed and fixes a known bug, but it paves the way for lightning networks which will provide off blockchain transactions for some Bitcoins transactions that are instantaneous and should cost less than 1-5 cents.

Segwit has already been tested and released, it needs support from miners. They are worried about Lightning network so most are not supporting it and many are supporting BU instead.
BU's bigger blocks can also mean smaller blocks, the miners decide on the blocksize, so in theory they could vote for smaller blocks and thus higher fees. Whilst BU promise lower fees. The other issue with larger block is the larger the block the more decentralized the miners become. If the blocksize went much larger quickly only data centres would be able to mine as no one else would have the bandwidth or storage needed. If the blocksize were to hit 4mb in the next year or 2 then the whole of Austrialia and Africa would be unable to process the data needed to mine due to bandwidth. So that is 2 continents without any possible mining.

Larger block sizes still has some merit but BU has none.  If you are after speed, and cheap fees going offchain with LN is the way forward, and Segwit is needed to get to LN.

BU is not dead, and if it dies someone will come along and try and fork Bitcoin.

Last point this is all or nothing. If there is a hard fork to BU then BU has to spend all of its resources killing off the Core chain (they have a $100m kitty for doing this). BU have to do this as if they let a core version of Bitcoin survive everyone will use it. BU is paid internet trolls in USA and a few Trump supporters mixed in with some big Chinese miners (who may be trying to kill Bitcoin on behalf of the Chinese government, or may just be greedy.)

If the Core implements big block, there is no need for the Unlimited. I think Core should be more open.

[elebit]

Let's be very clear about a few basic facts:

Every single thing on this planet changes, upgrades, whatever name it. Why not accept BU?

BU is a copy of Bitcoin as it was two years ago, with some changes on top of that. That is not an upgrade

Bitcoin upgrades with every new version. Segwit is an upgrade to the protocol itself. Throwing away two years work is not a good idea even if you think the development team must be replaced.

BU is bitcoin. It's BU vs Core, not BU vs BTC.

No, it's not. Why would you even say that? There are a bunch of competing Bitcoin implementations. And then there is BU.

It's (BU) vs (Bitcoin Core + btcd + libbitcoin + whatever custom stuff the big exchanges use).

Every major Bitcoin implementation must support a new feature before we can use it in a safe way so no one loses their money.

If the Core implements big block, there is no need for the Unlimited. I think Core should be more open.

Core is an open development project. Anyone can suggest improvement, and if you pass peer review and convince other developers that the idea holds water, you are free to implement it. BU wants to replace that with a team of salaried developers. Right now it looks like two salaried developers and zero salaried QA.

Some big blockers supports BU because of the possibility that it might lead to bigger blocks (which nobody has shown how that would work in practice), but the miners support it because they think they have (more) leverage over the two salaried developers in question than they have over the current open source project.

So, no, bigger blocks in Bitcoin Core would perhaps dissuade a handful of people to support BU but the miner support would still be there. They would still want to rip out the last two years of work and replace it with their own developments. This is increasingly clear since Bitcoin will unlock a blocksize increase with segwit, but now BU argues against that increase because it was made by "tainted" developers. That must take an impressive amount of cognitive dissonance for a big blocker.

[Qartada]

There's no decision date and there will never be a decision date.  Unfortunately, it's pretty unpredictable, and this uncertainty is partially what resulted in some of the dumps.

[hase0278]

There's no decision date and there will never be a decision date.  Unfortunately, it's pretty unpredictable, and this uncertainty is partially what resulted in some of the dumps.

There might not be no decision date but we know ourselves that the probability of this decision being decided soon is quite not that likely to happen. I think before it is decided, we will experience more bullish movements on the bitcoin market, some pump and a dump after until the final decision is made. Before that happens, it is a really good opportunity to take advantage of the pumps and dumps that will happen although it can be risky but it is worth watching.  

[Clement Kaliyar]

You can't just safely add BU with Classic and XT when it has 38% support. It's just 13% shy of a 51% attack.
It's possible for something like this to happen again.
It's safe to say that neither side will reach its consensus target, so it will be interesting to see how things unfold in the coming months.

It is true that BU had a lot of momentum and followers a couple of weeks back and even peopl who are not aware of the technical stuff behind it were blindly following what BU was preaching but their hollow codes proved that they cannot be trusted but they are still trying hard for a 51% attack and they claim that they have allocated funds for that,we can only wait and see the end result.

[HabBear]

If it's so easy to add greater capacity to Bitcoin, why the f*ck is this debate and controversy so widespread? BU must not matter then...according to you guys.

Instead of a fork, creating (what sounds like) a separate currency. Why can't we all agree to halt trading for 48 hours or a week to allow the capability for greater blocksize to be coded in...i.e., increase the pipes to allow greater flow. Then after the agreed upon timeframe the exchanges open back up and transactions can resume.

None of that is needed.

You can change the code without needed to halt trade.

You can even write a rule like:

From block 500,000 onwards, blocksize will be 4MB.

Absolutely true and I bet that many people around knew that.
It is one of these easy stories that drop the market two floors down, when necessary.
I expected this story, or a similar one, to pop up again after the next leg up. And again, it will create a shitstorm for couple of days only to ignite a drop, with no real effect on Bitcoin development.

[Hazir]

Why are you guys saying BU is dead? Don't get me wrong I support Core & hope BU does die but they still maintain & sizeable hashrate & number of nodes yes?

Because it seems that BU will forever be supported by that ~37% with no hope of reaching 51% hash power.
That makes BU pretty much dead concept and with SegWit constantly supported by ~30% we reached a perfect stalemate situation here.

[hase0278]

Why are you guys saying BU is dead? Don't get me wrong I support Core & hope BU does die but they still maintain & sizeable hashrate & number of nodes yes?

Because it seems that BU will forever be supported by that ~37% with no hope of reaching 51% hash power.
That makes BU pretty much dead concept and with SegWit constantly supported by ~30% we reached a perfect stalemate situation here.

Well I guess it might stay that way forever but I really hope that it wouldn't end as a stalemate and one side wins. I support segwit between the two but it doesn't matter to me whichever side wins because the community decided it and after all we will profit even if the one or the other wins. Therefore it is a win/win to segwit supporters.