is BU an attack on Bitcoin?

[Xester]

The article said that the attack was not really coming from bitcoin unlimited but rather the attack was done even before the problem on blocksize happened. There maybe some group or somebody that has been attacking bitcoin and blockchain for some time and that has led to the problem on blocksize and scaling. Satoshi had programmed bitcoin to be sufficient and that its blocksize and scaling can suffice the growth of transactions. But what happened today is that there is a crisis in scaling and blocksize that led to increase in mining fee. In my opinion, there is an attack to bitcoin so that they can increase the miner fee.

[Lauda]

https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/848049572668559362
Reminds me of OneCoin as well.

[Wind_FURY]

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

Ok but does it all really make the the hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited worth it? It is buggy and the developers behind it are not as good as the Core developers. I believe the answer to that question is "no". The miners are making a big mistake if they help implement the buggy BU.

[Searing]

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

Ok but does it all really make the the hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited worth it? It is buggy and the developers behind it are not as good as the Core developers. I believe the answer to that question is "no". The miners are making a big mistake if they help implement the buggy BU.

Agree...if the BU backers simply accepted the majority and did a Seg witness upgrade etc.....THEN made their case....they might have more traction...no less dangerous then that
talk of a fork...imho....anyway how I see it (then again I'm not a dev whale in the midst of the epic battle and power over who controls bitcoin either ..just watching from the bleachers)

[XVS]

If anything...BlockStream is an attack to Bitcoin. Stagnation.

[Lauda]

If anything...BlockStream is an attack to Bitcoin. Stagnation.

Stop reading the /r/btc propaganda and bullshit. BlockStream is everything but an attack to Bitcoin. Do I have to remind you again how the market reacted to the 'HF imminent' FUD?

[Rahar02]

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'.

There is no any evidence and we might could just speculate about spam transaction when the mempool was flooded, but it maybe true as we can see how much unconfirmed transaction on blockchain before and after ATH. Hal finney had proposed right thing to measure spam attack to the network, but we won't never know about it. For now, we should satisfy with 1Mb blocksize and hopefully SegWit could overcome this problem.

[XVS]

If anything...BlockStream is an attack to Bitcoin. Stagnation.

Stop reading the /r/btc propaganda and bullshit. BlockStream is everything but an attack to Bitcoin. Do I have to remind you again how the market reacted to the 'HF imminent' FUD?

How do you feel about the /r/bitcoin censorship?

[lionheart78]

Ok but does it all really make the the hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited worth it? It is buggy and the developers behind it are not as good as the Core developers. I believe the answer to that question is "no". The miners are making a big mistake if they help implement the buggy BU.

I also do not think that a buggy hardfork worth it.  I would rather choose the "centralization" (as BU called it) of segwit and LN with stable softfork than supporting a buggy "decentralized"  network which can only worsen the problem of what Bitcoin is having at this moment worst is many people might lose their money due to exploit of the bug. 

If anything...BlockStream is an attack to Bitcoin. Stagnation.

Stop reading the /r/btc propaganda and bullshit. BlockStream is everything but an attack to Bitcoin. Do I have to remind you again how the market reacted to the 'HF imminent' FUD?

How do you feel about the /r/bitcoin censorship?

Seems pot calling the kettle black to me.

[animalroam]

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!

[uchalkql]

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.

Hi,

It's not an attack.
Some people don't like SegWit:
https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-fork-too-far-87d6e57a4179

And think that a simple block size increase is better for Bitcoin.

[Wind_FURY]

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!

That would depend on a person's point of view. If you look at the hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited as a collusion of the Chinese miners and ASIC manufacturers and having an allegiance with the BU developers to become the stewards of the network and be the people in control then yes it is an attack on Bitcoin.

[Lauda]

If anything...BlockStream is an attack to Bitcoin. Stagnation.

Stop reading the /r/btc propaganda and bullshit. BlockStream is everything but an attack to Bitcoin. Do I have to remind you again how the market reacted to the 'HF imminent' FUD?

How do you feel about the /r/bitcoin censorship?

Irrelevant. Neither Blockstream nor Bitcoin Core has anything to do with censorship. Theymos & his mods moderate the sub against a predefined set of rules. Similarily, r/btc is censored in a somewhat different way.

-snip-
And think that a simple block size increase is better for Bitcoin.

It seems pretty clear to me that some people shouldn't be thinking for themselves.
Instead of writing code, the BU team is going around China trying to lobby miners.


https://twitter.com/bitcoinunlimit/status/848669483354935296

[Goms]

This article is bullshit and most likely a paid write up for BTU. There are far too many points to address.
.
.
.
Keep trying; the economy does not want your altcoin.

I guess you are working for theymos, right?

[Lauda]

This article is bullshit and most likely a paid write up for BTU. There are far too many points to address.
.
.
.
Keep trying; the economy does not want your altcoin.

I guess you are working for theymos, right?

No, I am not. What kind of relevance does this have to the attacked called BTU or the economy not wanting this altcoin?

[Goms]

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.

[mmo4me.2016]

Dear all
I do not like this! I think only BTC or other coin. Not BU

[Lauda]

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.

They also often falsely quote Satoshi from the original Whitepaper (not that it mattered in practice today).

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.

Bitcoin is all about not having to trust/rely on anyone should you choose not to. Looks like they want to throw all of this into the trashcan in hopes of gaining some more $$ by rushing TPS and sacrificing everything along the way.
A

Dear all
I do not like this! I think only BTC or other coin. Not BU

The people in charge of almost all those other coins/working on them are fools. Instead of learning from Bitcoin right now, they are wasting their time by cheering that they are going to 'win next' (A.A. made a short video about this).

[franky1]

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.

They also often falsely quote Satoshi from the original Whitepaper (not that it mattered in practice today).

core actually wanted to rewrite satoshis whitepaper.. funny that!

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.

Bitcoin is all about not having to trust/rely on anyone should you choose not to. Looks like they want to throw all of this into the trashcan in hopes of gaining some more $$ by rushing TPS and sacrificing everything along the way.

says the blockstream adoration fanclub that only want core.
yep lauda without you reading code you have been onboard REKTing anything thats not core..
hypocrite

Dear all
I do not like this! I think only BTC or other coin. Not BU

The people in charge of almost all those other coins/working on them are fools. Instead of learning from Bitcoin right now, they are wasting their time by cheering that they are going to 'win next' (A.A. made a short video about this).

and you prefer the propaganda video's not actually learning code or understanding how things work independently.

your getting real obvious lauda

please dont waste another year not learning the basics

[franky1]

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.