is BU an attack on Bitcoin?

[andrew24p]

I think that BU generally thinks they are choosing the right way forward for bitcoin, I dont agree, but I dont think they are an attack on bitcoin itself. Many of them are old timers who have been here forever, they just want a different way forward.

[freedomno1]

I wish both sides would be a little less dramatic, do away with the theatrical and get closer to the points they want to make.

Even the article quoted at the very first plays to the same stoking of sentiments. Almost every educated article is filled with rhetoric and unnecessary superlatives. Why can't they just tell us the pros and cons and be objective about it?

I just read yesterday on this forum of a user who's sick with both sides bickering and is diversifying into an alt. I suspect more will take this path.

Pretty much the expected outcome with market cap movements the alt-coin rush is a symptom of the problem.
Either way the debate is vexing and is nearer to shouting at one another than anything else but sigh keep waiting it out.

[BingoDog]

I think that BU generally thinks they are choosing the right way forward for bitcoin, I dont agree, but I dont think they are an attack on bitcoin itself. Many of them are old timers who have been here forever, they just want a different way forward.

I would support this opinion. Someone is thinking that BU would be the right solution for further bitcoin development. Even if the things go wrong I don't think that someone's intention is to deliberately harm bitcoin and cause some damage. Until it happens we can only speculate how it's going to be.

[milewilda]

I think that BU generally thinks they are choosing the right way forward for bitcoin, I dont agree, but I dont think they are an attack on bitcoin itself. Many of them are old timers who have been here forever, they just want a different way forward.

I would support this opinion. Someone is thinking that BU would be the right solution for further bitcoin development. Even if the things go wrong I don't think that someone's intention is to deliberately harm bitcoin and cause some damage. Until it happens we can only speculate how it's going to be.

No one knows on what would be the intention of BU and people do really give their own assumptions and speculation related to this event.Agreed,no one would really makes harm to bitcoin itself but seeking for more further development.

[Iranus]

Well the concept of BU goes against that of bitcoin - at least in practise.
With BU, you rely on some giants with their own nodes in order to transact.
Originally there was no need to depend on ANYONE but BU says no, please rely on these giants to make transactions faster... or whatever it is they really are after.
The bilderbergs don't want an economy they can't influence.

might be worth you taking a non biased look at cores TIER network plan
words to look into
"upstream filter"
"bypassing consensus by going soft"
"DCG funding cartel(bilderberg)"

then look at who is setting the deadlines, mandatory activations, making the PoW nukes, begging other implementations to bilaterally split

all while the reality shows if the dynamic implementations wanted to controversially split. they would have done so sometime over the last 2 years..
yet the dynamic implementations just plod along with no threats no ban hammers no deadlines.. offering a free open choice that only activates with consensus.
yep no bypassing.

remember only core gave pools the only vote(going soft). so pools gave miners control over segwit. not the other implementation proposals.

I think you forget that BU isn't the current development team.  If they were, you could be sure that they would be equally nasty if not nastier than Core.  They can't do a mandatory activation without having the power to do so - however nice they try to look, they're still propped up by the likes of Roger Ver, Jihan Wu etc and acting like BU is some grassroots movement isn't considering the reality of Bitcoin centralisation.

[uchalkql]

Although I disagree with BU, I don't think it is an attack on Bitcoin itself. Remember the basic concept of Bitcoin - it's controlled by nobody!

Well the concept of BU goes against that of bitcoin - at least in practise.
With BU, you rely on some giants with their own nodes in order to transact.
Originally there was no need to depend on ANYONE but BU says no, please rely on these giants to make transactions faster... or whatever it is they really are after.
The bilderbergs don't want an economy they can't influence.

The design outlines a lightweight client that does not need the full block chain.  In the design PDF it's called Simplified Payment Verification.  The lightweight client can send and receive transactions, it just can't generate blocks.  It does not need to trust a node to verify payments, it can still verify them itself.

The lightweight client is not implemented yet, but the plan is to implement it when it's needed.  For now, everyone just runs a full network node.

I anticipate there will never be more than 100K nodes, probably less.  It will reach an equilibrium where it's not worth it for more nodes to join in.  The rest will be lightweight clients, which could be millions.

At equilibrium size, many nodes will be server farms with one or two network nodes that feed the rest of the farm over a LAN. satoshi
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=286.msg2947#msg2947

[Qartada]

You might want to read this article ... (please actually read it in full)

https://medium.com/@arthricia/is-bitcoin-unlimited-an-attack-on-bitcoin-9444e8d53a56#.tuts22w3t

It's mostly a strawman article.  It builds up arguments and then knocks them down, without considering what the arguments actually are.

Even a lot of Core supporters never even said that BU is an attack on Bitcoin, and neither solution is.

[mmo_online_1981]

I think! BTC is best at the moment!

[classicsucks]

Some good points from the article:

* Segwit is a horrible hack due to political reasons
* Satoshi said consensus should arise from CPU hash power and not politics.
* Blockstream was formed after Greg Maxwell took control of core development and purged anyone who disagreed with him
* The Blockstream business model is explicitly to sell LN and other tiered payment solutions and they are funded by big banks via DCG
* SPV has been demonized while core refusal to increase blocksize encourages people to use centralized exchanges

Has anyone else noticed that the mempool size is down to 10MB? Whoever was flooding it has stopped...

[franky1]

Some good points from the article:

* Segwit is a horrible hack due to political reasons
* Satoshi said consensus should arise from CPU hash power and not politics.
* Blockstream was formed after Greg Maxwell took control of core development and purged anyone who disagreed with him
* The Blockstream business model is explicitly to sell LN and other tiered payment solutions and they are funded by big banks via DCG
* SPV has been demonized while core refusal to increase blocksize encourages people to use centralized exchanges

Has anyone else noticed that the mempool size is down to 10MB? Whoever was flooding it has stopped...

now that mandatory (forced) activation of segwit is proposed gmaxwells chums dont need to harrass the mempool as much as they did in june/july last year to get CSV in. and not as much as the october + constant harrassassment

kind of funny and obvious

[Pettuh4]

You might want to read this article ... (please actually read it in full)

https://medium.com/@arthricia/is-bitcoin-unlimited-an-attack-on-bitcoin-9444e8d53a56#.tuts22w3t

Of course they brought it like Ebola on Africans so I don't think it wasn't intended to attack Bitcoin, it was a well fighting competition but as Bitcoin always does it didn't spare these ones too but proven them wrong.

[barbara44]

You might want to read this article ... (please actually read it in full)

https://medium.com/@arthricia/is-bitcoin-unlimited-an-attack-on-bitcoin-9444e8d53a56#.tuts22w3t

It's mostly a strawman article.  It builds up arguments and then knocks them down, without considering what the arguments actually are.

Even a lot of Core supporters never even said that BU is an attack on Bitcoin, and neither solution is.

I read the article and I think that your right. It doesn't seem to bring anything to the table. The article seems to be an attack on Greg Maxwell. I am not sure the author knows what he is talking about. But regardless Bitcoin Unlimited is not an attack on bitcoin it seems to me. I think they just have a different  point of view.

[Lauda]

I'm just going to leave this here:


https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/63qaps/a_list_of_all_the_bu_supporter_concocted/