is BU an attack on Bitcoin?

[jonald_fyookball]

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

[Vaskiy]

From the article it's clear that the recent cause of price drop is just a planned attack. From every angle a perfect plan has been executed, which was also now overcome by the potentially growing bitcoin.

[Viscount]

BTU is atack on Bitcoin, that failed like Classic and XT before  

[knircky]

You might want to read this article ...

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

Thx for link. Will read later.

Technically it cannot be an attack.

[Paashaas]

At the start i was exited about BU but when time passed i see BU as a disgusting hostile take over.

[clickerz]

I did not consider this as an attack to Bitcoin, but surely it will affect the  bitcoin . It is a branching out of bitcoin and like ETC or the Ethereum Classic its just like another cryptocurrency to me. I do not know what will happen in the future, but I wish the success of this BTU BTC hard fork initiative. I hope it will change the way we expect with bitcoins. If its only  the same and no change, this is another crap.

[7788bitcoin]

BU shouldn't be considered as an attack. It is just a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal, just like Segwit is also a BIP.

[Killerpotleaf]

you could say:
BU is an attack on BitcoinCore

i think that might be a fair assessment.

[Yakamoto]

I would argue that, after some of the more recent revelations of the motivations that the BU devs have and their plan for BU in the future, Bitcoin Unlimited is most definitely an attack on the nature of Bitcoin and potentially on the entire network should most of their plans come to pass in the way they are describing them.

Since Segwit is the only other viable option, I would encourage other devs to front other ways so that we can have some competition and make sure the network gets the best.

[kiklo]

Segwit is the Trojan Horse that will allow Bankers using LN to Bankrupt the Miners.

BTU is the only salvation for the ASICS Miners & BTC Transactions problems,

since BTC Core only works for bankers now and won't just increase blocksize or make a faster blockspeed to decrease transaction fees.


 

[Wind_FURY]

BU is not an attack on Bitcoin, it is an attack on the Core developers and an attempt to fork it all away from them. The article was written from a big blocker's perspective and it is a very biased one at that. Read the part "dissenters". The dissenters would depend on which side you are asking.

So be very careful and try to think for yourself and always listen to both sides of the argument.

[jonald_fyookball]

BU is not an attack on Bitcoin, it is an attack on the Core developers and an attempt to fork it all away from them. The article was written from a big blocker's perspective and it is a very biased one at that. Read the part "dissenters". The dissenters would depend on which side you are asking.

So be very careful and try to think for yourself and always listen to both sides of the argument.

I admire your objectivity in this whole thing.  Most people (including myself) tend to get polarized to a position and then start to look for evidence to support their position while ignoring/denying evidence to the contrary.

[jbreher]

BU is not an attack on Bitcoin, it is an attack on the Core developers and an attempt to fork it all away from them.

BU is not an attack on core devs, so much as it is an end-around of the braindead policy of not doing a simple increase to maxblocksize. Last year even. Core devs get to set their own policy. But core is not the entirety of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is permissionless. BU has exactly as much authority as does core. Core devs can also be left bereft when the majority decides bigger blocks are what is needed now.

In the end, the market will determine the direction Bitcoin turns - toward core, BU, another, or on the path of status quo.

[Lauda]

This article is bullshit and most likely a paid write up for BTU. There are far too many points to address.

The problem, however, is the malleability fix ― known as segregated witness or segwit ― is an incredibly complex change to the core protocol.

Bullshit exaggeration.

Typically such a change would need to be done as a hardfork, but the regime has spent years and enormous amounts of political capital propagandizing against hardforks in the name of trying to kill any and all attempts to increase the block size.

Complete lie.
Keep trying; the economy does not want your altcoin.

[Kakmakr]

This article is just another reason why you cannot trust everything you read. Some people are demonizing Core for going the soft fork route, but they knew how disastrous a hard fork can be. BU do not give a shit, because they just want to take control of Bitcoin at all cost.

Someone should make a comparison between the contributions that developers on both sides made to Crypto currencies and see who contributed the most. 

[Amph]

doesn't make sense, why i pool should sign support for a hard fork to attack core and reduce the value? it's all in their intent to have the value higher

therefore this is just another crap written by someone who have zero knowledge what this is all about

[amacar2]

BTU is atack on Bitcoin, that failed like Classic and XT before  

Yes the only hidden agenda for current block size debate is just a financial gain for few whales who are actually behind BTU.

They created FUD about hard fork to dump the bitcoin price so that they can buy few cheap coins under $1000, now they will just pump price hard to sell for quick profit.

[buwaytress]

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.

[unamis76]

Interesting article. Bitcoin has indeed been attacked, by all of us and especially for people who can only push to their side and that deny to see what's good in the other camp.

In other words, this tiny minority of Bitcoiners wanted to completely rid Bitcoin of its raison d’etre by forcing people to use the very type of system Bitcoin was created to thwart.

Maybe a bit over the top, but it gets the point across regarding LN.

We can conclude from the article that the attack isn't being made by an implementation in particular, but by some of its users who tend to be a bit extremist. Unlimited is as much as an "attack" on Bitcoin as Core is. They both have proposals to keep Bitcoin moving forward, and those are stepping stones for Bitcoin and that's what will keep us moving forward.

[lottery248]

BU is not an attack on Bitcoin, it is an attack on the Core developers and an attempt to fork it all away from them. The article was written from a big blocker's perspective and it is a very biased one at that. Read the part "dissenters". The dissenters would depend on which side you are asking.

So be very careful and try to think for yourself and always listen to both sides of the argument.

+1 because most of the protocols are not in mind of BU IIRC, and you would understand the problem of transaction fee in the core.