Am I missing something or is BTU at 45% of the network hash

[stdset]

Markets will have no choice but to accept the chain with more proof-of-work.

Apparently this noob doesn't know what is a harfork.

Developers will have to provide better simple and good on-chain solutions, respecting the path of Satoshi.

Engineers developing diesel engines must stop using common rail, turbocharging and other improvements developed in last several decades, we must respect the path of Rudolf Diesel.

[1714762316]

1714762316

[1714762316]

1714762316

[1714762316]

1714762316

[uchalkql]

Many new users download the first google result, and many take a lot of time to update software.
So it's FAR from true that many users don't want BU.

There are only 10% BU nodes today. And it's already been demonstrated that a majority of those are run by 1 person from the same cloud hosting service.

I am running core 0.14, but because of core don't care about users and don't update to 2(m3gaByt3s) and because of c3ns0rsh1p in this forum, I will download and use B1tcoin Unl1mit3d today.

Users have had the opportunity to switch to a 2MB blocksize client, twice. Users rejected it, twice.

I think many believed that core would eventually come to a consensus with miners and raise to 2MB.
And now many of them are realizing that this is not gonna happen.

[Carlton Banks]

Users rejected 2MB, twice.

Users, nodes and developers do not have any special authority on Bitcoin.

We'll see

[Oznog]

Apparently this noob doesn't know what is a harfork.

I suspect you think you're smarter than Satoshi.

Engineers developing diesel engines must stop using common rail, turbocharging and other improvements developed in last several decades, we must respect the path of Rudolf Diesel.

Confirmed, you think you're smarter than Satoshi.

Your comparison is absurd.

You do not understand the revolution of electric cars.
Simple, efficient and will fix the wars and the world.

[uchalkql]

Users, nodes and developers do not have any special authority on Bitcoin.

Edit your comment/quote. I did not say -> Users rejected it, twice.

[Oznog]

Users have had the opportunity to switch to a 2MB blocksize client, twice. Users rejected it, twice.

Users, nodes and developers do not have any special authority on Bitcoin.

Edit your comment/quote. I did not say -> Users rejected it, twice.

OK, as you wish.

[stdset]

Apparently this noob doesn't know what is a harfork.

I suspect you think you're smarter than Satoshi.

Engineers developing diesel engines must stop using common rail, turbocharging and other improvements developed in last several decades, we must respect the path of Rudolf Diesel.

Confirmed, you think you're smarter than Satoshi.

Your comparison is absurd.

You do not understand the revolution of electric cars.
Simple, efficient and will fix the wars and the world.

A couple of questions. Find answers to them and it will improve your understanding of what a blockchain is, and why it's a great invention.

1) ETH forked off ETC. Starting right from the split ETH had much more PoW (and still has much more PoW than ETC). How ETC survived and still being accepted by markets, users?
2) Why are we sure, that there won't be more than 21M BTC? What if miners decide to remove the cap. What if the chain with increased emission will have more PoW than the original chain? Would that force us to accept modified BTC instead of original?

[Oznog]

1) ETH forked off ETC. Starting right from the split ETH had much more PoW (and still has much more PoW than ETC). How ETC survived and still being accepted by markets, users?

I think Bitcoin's miners will learn from that mistake and self-organize to neutralize the incorrect blockchain by creating empty blocks and artificial transfers as long as necessary.

2) Why are we sure, that there won't be more than 21M BTC? What if miners decide to remove the cap. What if the chain with increased emission will have more PoW than the original chain? Would that force us to accept modified BTC instead of original?

Miners can do that perfectly (always with sufficient consensus and cooperation).

But before doing so they will question what impact it will have on the market price.
If they are favorable, they will and if not, no.

Problem?

[unamis76]

I'm wondering if someone managed to develop "fake BU" nodes, just like someone did with XT... That can explain the recent rise in Unlimited-related hashpower.

[stdset]

I think Bitcoin's miners will learn from that mistake and self-organize to neutralize the incorrect blockchain by creating empty blocks as long as it takes.

Sounds like you support ETH? If so, it's a symptom that you don't understand what value blockchain brought to us.

2) Why are we sure, that there won't be more than 21M BTC? What if miners decide to remove the cap. What if the chain with increased emission will have more PoW than the original chain? Would that force us to accept modified BTC instead of original?

Miners can do that perfectly (always with sufficient consensus and cooperation).

If that's so easy, can we expect Bitcoin to be overtaken by powerful entities such as governments to be turned into fiat? Governments like fiat, they like to control money, the more contol they have the more they like it.

[Haladay]

If we allow BU to take over the bitcoin network or let them monopolize the bitcoin mining sector then in the end bitcoin will be corrupted with bugs and many problems. The bitcoin unlimited has made the bitcoin community to somehow weaken their trust to bitcoin. If bitcoin unlimited will be successful then almost everyone who invested on bitcoin will leave and shift to ethereum.

This is the most clear comment in this topic obviously. They aim to centralize the bitcoin to take control over it, yet we will not let them do this. Having a high network has should not mean that you can centralize bitcoin or make a hard fork to take control over it!

[Oznog]

Sounds like you support ETH? If so, it's a symptom that you don't understand what value blockchain brought to us.

I do not support ETH, I do not understand why you say it. I'm learning English.

If that's so easy, can we expect Bitcoin to be overtaken by powerful entities such as governments to be turned into fiat? Governments like fiat, they like to control money, the more contol they have the more they like it.

That is the only risk I see in Bitcoin.

We can only trust on the mining chip market and the miners so that they always have the most computing power.
At the moment they are doing very well.

But for this it is important not to steal from the miners their commissions.

[stdset]

Sounds like you support ETH? If so, it's a symptom that you don't understand what value blockchain brought to us.

I do not support ETH, I do not understand why you say it. I'm learning English.

You called ETC chain 'incorrect'. Apparently you meant it's 'incorrect' from miner's point of view, ok. And English isn't my native language neither.

If that's so easy, can we expect Bitcoin to be overtaken by powerful entities such as governments to be turned into fiat? Governments like fiat, they like to control money, the more contol they have the more they like it.

That is the only risk I see in Bitcoin.

We can only trust on the mining chip market and the miners to become more competitive.

Original chain supporters can change PoW as many times as needed. In the case attackers are really obstinate it can be many times. But after all, original (in this case it's 'original' in the sense of original economic rules) chain will be kept alive and users will have to choose which Bitcoin they prefer to accept: original or inflationary. So ultimately it's users who decide which chain will live. Although I admit, that an attack from miners can create a lot of confusion, loss of faith, market cap and so on.

[jonald_fyookball]

I'm wondering if someone managed to develop "fake BU" nodes, just like someone did with XT... That can explain the recent rise in Unlimited-related hashpower.

hash power and nodes are 2 different things.

You cannot fake hashpower -- that is the whole point why PoW is so powerful.

[Oznog]

So ultimately it's users who decide which chain will live.

If you mean users with the market, not with the nodes, then we agree.

Although I admit, that an attack from miners can create a lot of confusion, loss of faith, market cap and so on.

One company has taken Bitcoin's development to impose a limit on transfers per second to make its master solution necessary (and steal commissions from miners).
This in my country is called corruption and is what is happening in Bitcoin.

A hard fork is only made if there is no other choice.

I would like to know better, effective and definitive solutions.

[jonald_fyookball]

nodecounter only showing 38%.

[stdset]

One company has taken Bitcoin's development to impose a limit on transfers per second to make its master solution necessary (and steal commissions from miners).

Can't agree on that. If Bitcoin goes mainstream it will need blocks of size of tens of gygabytes to conduct payments of world population onchain. It means that only huge companies, such as Google, and governments will be able run full nodes, that's centralisation. Of course, nothing prevents payment processors such as Visa from conducting payments denominated in Bitcoin. But it would require users to keep their BTC in banks. That means users will need to trust banks, banks will have a lot of BTC at their disposal to use in fractional reserve banking. So we do need second layer solutions such as LN.

On the other hand, in my opinion Core devs are too stubborn in refusing blocksize increase. If increasing to 2MB would put an end to the civil war, I support such increase. In my opinion even 8MB blocks are still handleable for a Bitcoin enthusiast running a full node.

[Oznog]

Can't agree on that.

Seem right. You help me test my theory.

If Bitcoin goes mainstream it will need blocks of size of tens of gygabytes to conduct payments of world population onchain. It means that only huge companies, such as Google, and governments will be able run full nodes, that's centralisation.

The nodes have no power over the blockchain.
Therefore a hypothetical centralization of the nodes is not relevant, provided there are enough to flow confirmations and communications.

Centralization or not depends only on the miners.
That's it: https://coin.dance/blocks/thisweek
I think the ASIC chip market will increase in efficiency and diversity.

Of course, nothing prevents payment processors such as Visa from conducting payments denominated in Bitcoin. But it would require users to keep their BTC in banks. That means users will need to trust banks, banks will have a lot of BTC at their disposal to use in fractional reserve banking. So we do need second layer solutions such as LN.

We agree.

On the other hand, in my opinion Core devs are too stubborn in refusing blocksize increase. If increasing to 2MB would put an end to the civil war, I support such increase. In my opinion even 8MB blocks are still handleable for a Bitcoin enthusiast running a full node.

I also agree.

But I wish they did not raise the limit to 2MB.
This would postpone the problem.
Uncertainty would continue until the next hard-fork-week.
I hate half-solutions.
And I think the miners understand it just as they increasingly support Bitcoin Unlimited.

If this is achieved, Bitcoin's confidence and strength will be unprecedented.

[jonald_fyookball]

The nodes have no power over the blockchain.

miners decide the chain but users can decide not to use it.

in a way, its a bit like a political party system...

miners: vote on blocks to form winning chains
users: vote on winning chains to decide what is accepted

although it is slightly more compliicated than that, because
there's a bit of chicken and egg.  The miners don't want
to form chains that are not valuable.  they need perception
of demand and exchanges to facilitate trade.

also there is the aspect of profit:  miners will spend
hash power on most profitable chain/coin to mine,
but they also know this can change quickly during
a contentious fork.  iow, if there is BTCC and BTCU,
they do not know what the value will be in 24 hours
, 7 days, etc... so it is a gamble either way, and this
is new territory.. if miners choose a new rule and vote on it
then they would not do so simply to turn around and
go the other way -- they will keep mining the new coin
and see what the market does with it.

[Oznog]

miners decide the chain but users can decide not to use it.

in a way, its a bit like a political party system...

miners: vote on blocks to form winning chains
users: vote on winning chains to decide what is accepted

IMHO you're wrong.

Nodes can only confirm (positive vote if you prefer).
Confirmation is not the same as voting.
To confirm is to give support, to vote is to decide.

Imagine there are 1,000,000 Bitcoin Core nodes and 5,000 Bitcoin Unlimited nodes.
And yet the transactions of Bitcoin Unlimited would work smoothly without any problem.

Now imagine that with enough computing power, consecutive empty blocks are being mined in Bitcoin Core's preferred blockchain.
Having a million nodes would not fix the problem.

Hard is hard.