is BU an attack on Bitcoin?

[Wapinter]

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.

I do believe there are big whales behind this.It may either be individual or institutional whales.
They took the advantage of BU debate and helped falling price to buy more.

[1714946349]

1714946349

[1714946349]

1714946349

[stephanirain]

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.

I do believe there are big whales behind this.It may either be individual or institutional whales.
They took the advantage of BU debate and helped falling price to buy more.

No it's not. As BU get launched, bitcoin's market would alsp widespread since it would help bitcoin. There is  would be no competition against bitcoin.

[BillyBobZorton]

BU would kill the network effect of bitcoin, it would also kill it by a big bug, it would also kill it by miners screwing up via the control that BU brings to miners, it would also kill it by the crash it would deliver after the HF, it would also kill it by the inflation that BU needs to survive (21 million coin limit would be eventually lost).

BU is an abomination sold to idiots in hopes of onchain coffee.

[lionheart78]

I do believe that BU is not an attack on Bitcoin but rather on Bitcoin Core.  BU proposed a solution that is against the Bitcoin Core off-chain solution by going to bigger blocksize..  The truth is this is getting frustrating and confusing since every party attacking each others with a superlative accusation (exaggeration).  Sometimes we never knew who is telling the truth. 

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

It is not who contributed the most but rather who is willing to preserve the original vision of Satoshi in creating Bitcoin. But if there is no competent dev to preserve the original vision of why Bitcoin is created, there is no other way but to go to the more competent one.  At least we are secure that Bitcoin will not fail in its new path.

[iamTom123]

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.

Yes, it can be true and we are on the same opinion. I am sure there are many people who got enriched along the way. This is just showing us that Bitcoin just like any other currency can be manipulated by a group of people who have the means to do so. Small Bitcoin holders can only sigh and yes sighing in relief that Bitcoin is now back in the upswing lol...

[newman7]

Can someone explain to me what's all this chatting about Bitcoin and forks? Can you link easy articles to read and understand all of this?

[Lauda]

Another blow has been dealt to the altcoin attack called BTU.

[OliynyK]

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

They had a good theoretical view about how things must be but they lack in realistic approach and so is the reason they are meant to doom big time.They never had a competent enough team to write their codes and if they planning to take over they must atleast come up with a decent code rather than theory.

[OneUnderBridge]

Fake News!

[franky1]

16 users..

also
"We consider that any “neutral” or “absentee” stance on the hard fork is by default in opposition to the hard fork."

meaning less than that 16..
oh and they can post a statement to 5 million companies and by not getting a reply they can lie and say 5million oppose anything not core..
=fake stats are easy to achieve just by not having a return address on their request to ensure they get no response.

We encourage the development and use of alternative implementations of Bitcoin (e.g. bcoin, libbitcoin, bitcore, bitcoin knots) as long as they are compliant with the current consensus rules as defined in the Bitcoin Core reference implementation.

funny how they only want gmaxwell sanctioned implementations.. lol
=centralisation by subsidiary rebranding of blockstream(core) to pretend and fake independance.
also core 0.14 dont have consensus. node/pool/ or userbase.

so that means no one should be following 0.14 because 0.14 doesnt have consensus.

so far the rules of 0.12 have consensus.. not anything else.

[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.

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.

Thank you. I also tend to get polarized too sometimes. But as an investor who is gambling most of his life savings in Bitcoin, I have to be objective and know when to go out of the investment. Now Ethereum Classic is looking more attractive to park some Bitcoins in while all this drama unfolds. It is not a good time to be a Bitcoiner right now.

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.

Maybe I did not post that right. I do not mean a direct attack on Core but an attack on its philosophy on how to scale the network. I read the problem can be traced back to Satoshi and Hal Finney. I read that Satoshi wanted onchain scaling while Hal Finney wanted offchain. Is that accurate?

[jbreher]

I read that Satoshi wanted onchain scaling while Hal Finney wanted offchain. Is that accurate?

No. Hal convinced Satoshi to add a 1MB maxblocksize limit as an anti-spam measure. This in an era where most blocks were less than 1KB in size (1000x smaller than the limit), and most transactions carried no transaction fee.

[Wind_FURY]

I read that Satoshi wanted onchain scaling while Hal Finney wanted offchain. Is that accurate?

No. Hal convinced Satoshi to add a 1MB maxblocksize limit as an anti-spam measure. This in an era where most blocks were less than 1KB in size (1000x smaller than the limit), and most transactions carried no transaction fee.

Ok thanks for the clarification. But let me ask you, in this era of the 1MB maxblocksize, how much of today's average transactions per block is spam? I am looking at the mempool transaction count graph right now and it is hard to believe that the spikes are all real transactions.

https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-count

[Telepo]

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.

I do believe there are big whales behind this.It may either be individual or institutional whales.
They took the advantage of BU debate and helped falling price to buy more.

yes,this is my thought. They use this action to cover more bitcoins with cheaper price because the amount of bitcoins is only about 4-5 mil BTC for mining and now many many people want to hold bitcoin as safe assets in digital world and They need more threats for bitcoin .

[robelneo]

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.

Good point ,we should look at both sides and not just contend on what these experts are feeding us,they are targetting newbies out there who just got in,it's always a good thing to keep a list of links of various opinions..

[jbreher]

I read that Satoshi wanted onchain scaling while Hal Finney wanted offchain. Is that accurate?

No. Hal convinced Satoshi to add a 1MB maxblocksize limit as an anti-spam measure. This in an era where most blocks were less than 1KB in size (1000x smaller than the limit), and most transactions carried no transaction fee.

Ok thanks for the clarification. But let me ask you, in this era of the 1MB maxblocksize, how much of today's average transactions per block is spam? I am looking at the mempool transaction count graph right now and it is hard to believe that the spikes are all real transactions.

https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-count

Well, that's a conundrum. There is no way of looking at a single transaction, and objectively classifying it as spam/notspam. My attitude is that 'Bitcoin is permissionless - if a txn is attractive enough to be included by a miner in a solved block, then it is a valid transaction'.

[Wind_FURY]

If that is the case then there is no answer for the flooding of the mempool. I doubt this will be solved by the dynamic block sizes the developers of Bitcoin Unlimited are proposing. It might only aggravate the problem.

Think about it. This is where an offchain layer makes more sense to pursue.

[jonald_fyookball]

If that is the case then there is no answer for the flooding of the mempool. I doubt this will be solved by the dynamic block sizes the developers of Bitcoin Unlimited are proposing. It might only aggravate the problem.

Think about it. This is where an offchain layer makes more sense to pursue.

wondering if you have read this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1846510.msg18377356#msg18377356

[Wind_FURY]

If that is the case then there is no answer for the flooding of the mempool. I doubt this will be solved by the dynamic block sizes the developers of Bitcoin Unlimited are proposing. It might only aggravate the problem.

Think about it. This is where an offchain layer makes more sense to pursue.

wondering if you have read this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1846510.msg18377356#msg18377356

Ok. But does it really justify that we all follow the risks that comes with the hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited? As I read more and more about the topic, it gets more complicated than a simple hard fork and then everyone ends up happy with the outcome. There is now mention of an upgrade on the Proof of Work algorithm making the miners equipment useless. Then there is also the risk of the blockchain splitting in 2 and a dumping war. Maybe we should all follow the compromise and Segwit is that compromise.

[franky1]

Ok. But does it really justify that we all follow the risks that comes with the hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited? As I read more and more about the topic, it gets more complicated than a simple hard fork and then everyone ends up happy with the outcome. There is now mention of an upgrade on the Proof of Work algorithm making the miners equipment useless. Then there is also the risk of the blockchain splitting in 2 and a dumping war. Maybe we should all follow the compromise and Segwit is that compromise.

segwit isnt

its like retrofitting a planes cargo area into extra seating so that parents can throw their kids into the cargo area  so that more adults can fit into the main seating area.

issues.
1. it only works if adults volunteer to move their kids into cargo-hold by changing their tickets.(moving funds to different keypairs)
2. last year only obese people weighting upto 4000so of a 20,000so plane limit could get on. good for many weighing under 100so.. not so good for other passengers if 5 obese tried to get on
3. this year extremely obese people weighing 16000so of a 80,000so plane limit can get on. good for many weighing under 100so.. extremely not so good  for other passengers if 5 extra extremely obese got on

changing the design of the plane hoping adults will change their tickets rather than have their kids next to them and also foolishly letting even more bloated adultswithkids gets on does not help.

yes having a plane with more first class seating could seem hard..
but then the team calling it hard are the ones now forcing in their cargo-hold seating with empty hopes. and threatening to nuke the airport if they dont allow the new retrofitted planes to use the airport is even worse.
funny part is that it would require everyone to upgrade (hard) to achieve the threats.

so if the segwit PoW threat is needing community to upgrade either way. they might aswell do it the less violent way and let people have more first class seating. thus not need to threaten to nuke the airport.. rather than retrofit planes and nuke the airport..

in short saying hard is bad, lets trojan horse something.. and if trojan horse is rejected, go super super super hard. just to avoid hard.
the silly flip flopping tactics amazes me