hypothesis: BU motivations (NO PROOF)

[franky1]

of course , because it will be more expensive as we discussed earlier.

Right. Let me divert the topic a little. Who do you think is spamming the network and for whose best interest is he acting? All we see are cries of "Oh someone is spamming and flooding the mempool" but there is no mention of who or what group is doing this.

In theory it could be someone who has a commitment to Bitcoin Unlimited but I do not want to go there and be biased. That is why I am asking you.

looking at the dates of when the most spam spikes are

june/july 2016
and then
a long constant go at it from october onwards..

it appears obvious that anyone offering something from those particular dates that want to sway people into thinking their features are needed to remedy the spam would benefit from creating spam to then point out that something needs to be done.
https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?timespan=1year

june/july 2016 = core CSV
october+ = segwit

[centralbanksequalsbombs]

of course , because it will be more expensive as we discussed earlier.

Right. Let me divert the topic a little. Who do you think is spamming the network and for whose best interest is he acting? All we see are cries of "Oh someone is spamming and flooding the mempool" but there is no mention of who or what group is doing this.

In theory it could be someone who has a commitment to Bitcoin Unlimited but I do not want to go there and be biased. That is why I am asking you.

looking at the dates of when the most spam spikes are

june/july 2016
and then
a long constant go at it from octobre onwards..

it appears obvious that anyone offering something from those particular dates that want to sway people into thinking their features are needed to remedy the spam would benefit from creating spam to then point out that something needs to be done.
https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?timespan=1year

june/july 2016 = core CSV
october+ = segwit

+1 Well said Franky1.

Franky1 has the answer and I recommend others to read his post.

Its obvious there are those with an agenda to undermine Bitcoin. There's a long list of names and institutions, not that hard to identify who.

[franky1]

Do you think spamming the blockchain will be discouraged by having bigger blocks?

by not being so generous with the txsigop limit can discourage it
by having more space in the base block so that it takes more effort can discourage it

by even inventing a new priority mechanism thats not just a rich vs poor preference but a real bloat +young age costly thing.. can discourage it.

but core have not increased base block.
but core have not reduced txsigop limit, infact they increased it to be absurdly more generous to spammers
and core have removed any kind of priority barrier  

even funnier. core say the onchain fee is good for pools. even though pools dont really 'need' it this decade. but at the same time discounted it as a way to tempt people to use segwit. thus not really offering more 'bonus' to pools due to a discount. and not really offering a real discount by pre-emptively increasing the fee's 10-100x the cost of 2015

[Amph]

no shills, i actually hate BU.Just worried and looking for concrete and substantiated feedback for my hypothesis.could you read it and point what is wrong?

The thing is, anyone with 51% of the hashpower can attack the network and kill it -- they don't BU or anything else, or anyone's consensus or permission.
Also bigger blocks or smaller blocks do not affect this one way or another.   

but it's not feasible today to buy tons of petahash just to attack the network, to force a decision, if that the reason behind the attack

it's always better for them to mine with that hashrate than doing an attack, the only case where this can make sense is if bitcoin is tanking hard and there is no real profit anymore

as a desperate final move a 515% would make sense in that case

[franky1]

no shills, i actually hate BU.Just worried and looking for concrete and substantiated feedback for my hypothesis.could you read it and point what is wrong?

The thing is, anyone with 51% of the hashpower can attack the network and kill it -- they don't BU or anything else, or anyone's consensus or permission.
Also bigger blocks or smaller blocks do not affect this one way or another.  

but it's not feasible today to buy tons of petahash just to attack the network, to force a decision, if that the reason behind the attack

it's always better for them to mine with that hashrate than doing an attack, the only case where this can make sense is if bitcoin is tanking hard and there is no real profit anymore

as a desperate final move a 515% would make sense in that case

hashpower alone doesnt mean much. all it means is more dodgy blocks get rejected/orphaned and a group with such high hashpower is just wasting much more electric just to get rejected.

EG
imagine there was 2 pools and the node rule was 1mb
pool A with 500000000 exahash making a 1.000,250 block
and pool B with 4exahash making 0.999,750 block

pool A would lose, all that happens is that the orphan/reject stats would be higher

NODES have to have consensus and accept 1.000,250 block.
and even then thats just to try to keep the over 1mb going because the nodes are just in a orphan drama event.

the only way to make sure that 1.000,250 blocks are acceptable without drama without fuss and with the pools making the blocks able to spend their rewards, is to have node consensus of majority, merchant/services node acceptance and to completely ignore the minority to not care about their old rules.

...
now if dynamic implementations wanted to do this controversially they would have done it already over the last few years. they would have even set a date and announced it.

now if dynamic implementations wanted to do this controversially they would have gmaxwell up on the bilateral split offer, rather than laugh in his face at gmaxwells desire of dominant TIER centralised control by pushing anything not core away/to bottom tier.

[jonald_fyookball]

of course , because it will be more expensive as we discussed earlier.

Right. Let me divert the topic a little. Who do you think is spamming the network and for whose best interest is he acting? All we see are cries of "Oh someone is spamming and flooding the mempool" but there is no mention of who or what group is doing this.

In theory it could be someone who has a commitment to Bitcoin Unlimited but I do not want to go there and be biased. That is why I am asking you.

I really do not know.  It could be either side of the debate trying to force a resolution. 

Honestly I do not think it is Roger Ver (as some say) because I know he was using Bitcoin for
payments, so it wouldn't make sense to cause an issue just so he could complain
about it since he could complain anyway once it became an issue.

[andrew24p]

I think that BU legitimately thinks that they are choosing the way forward, I think the miners are the bad actors here skewing everyones vision. Even Roger I think believes he is doing the right thing, if not he would sell all of his coins and could live like a king for the rest of his life.

[felipehermanns]

BU trash aint dead yet? 

I see people supporting this crap coin. They must be paid by his friend roger and antpool comunist.

What the fork guys. No one want this crap bugged coin. Stop messing up kids.

[Pettuh4]

I think that BU legitimately thinks that they are choosing the way forward, I think the miners are the bad actors here skewing everyones vision. Even Roger I think believes he is doing the right thing, if not he would sell all of his coins and could live like a king for the rest of his life.

BU has missed the way, how can they lead us? They better listen to the core Devs and act appropriately. I don't see why they keep seeking undeserved attention?

[jonald_fyookball]

  I think the miners are the bad actors here skewing everyones vision.

Explain why the miners are bad actors , please...because to me it sounds crazy.  Miners are the ones securing Bitcoin, how could they possibly be bad actors unless
they are going to be blatantly malicious (unwind transactions, block transactions etc)

[iamnotback]

I'm not a BU loyalist.  I'll support any implementation that allows big blocks and on chain scaling.

and no, segwit isn't meaningful onchain scaling in my view.

Decentralized on chain scaling is technologically impossible with PoW:

https://www.reddit.com/r/litecoin/comments/631ffe/pools_that_block_litecoin_development/dfr3weo/

If you actually understood the technology, then perhaps you'd change your position to something which can actually scale off chain.

The economic majority wins. Those who are buying LTC now are doing so because they want SegWit to be activated. Jihan Wu of Bitmain who is blocking SegWit on both LTC and BTC, created the new more efficient Scrypt miners, so I didn't realize this before. They could monopolize these in theory. So this fight might not be as easy as I thought. But the economic majority should win, unless it lacks resolve and/or patience. Already people are arbitraging and finding ways to rent hashrate in order to earn money and support SegWit. If you think the price is going up, you try to lock in a rental price that doesn't increase as the price rises, so you can profit. Others may be buying A4s if they want to maximize profits and believe the price will remain high (and going higher).

Jihan Wu needs to get his ass kicked economically so both Bitcoin and Litecoin can move forward.

It is most likely that BU is a diversionary lie. These miners simply want to gouge high fees on Bitcoin and block any alternatives. They were never going to fork with BU. It was a lie to prevent everyone from joining together to kick Jihan's ass.

If my health will improve or stabilize, my plan is to launch a Bitcoin Killer which doesn't require PoW (the design is already completed). I want to bankrupt all these miners. Their vested interests are a pain in the ass. We need to kick all their arses out into the street and turn their ASICs into door stops. I am talking long-term plan.

Those who are buying ASICs now, my plans are a year or more away from reaching any relevancy or size, so fear not. Buy A4s and profit.

Both you guys are obstructionist wolves in sheepskin. You pretend you want to make progress but you are intentionally stalling. Any one with a brain stem can see right through your deceit.

ProHashing is not signaling SegWit thus they are an obstructionist. Their words are meaningless. In a meritocracy only actions count.

"Talk is cheap, show me the code", wrote Linus Torvalds

Also it is quite clear that BU never intended to fork Bitcoin with that Buggy Unlimited piece-of-shit, because they know damn well the economics of Bitcoin are that the whales can and will destroy any miners who attempt to fork Bitcoin. I explained this in great detail on BCT.

BU is a lie and diversionary tactic in order to fool everyone. The real goal of Jihan Wu is to gouge maximize transaction fees from Bitcoin and block any alternatives for scaling. These obstructionists are block progress on both Bitcoin and Litecoin, because Bitcoin depends on Litecoin to add off chain scaling, because the whales of Bitcoin will never allow SegWit on Bitcon. Period. ProHashing by their actions is complicit. Words are meaningless.

Look at your conflicting statements:

He states that we oppose Segregated Witness, which is true. We do not think that SegWit is the best course for bitcoin or litecoin.

We do intend to implement SegWit

A majority of customers have requested SegWit, so we plan to implement it.

Stalling. Deceit. An obstructionist wolf in sheepskin.

the IRS doesn't move its deadline back because of SegWit, and we won't have any business at all if they come after us

Miners should leave such an incompetent company.

Whining in a forum about not being able to do your accounting at the same time you do your technical work.

Of course it is quite clear you are just lying and deceitful.

[franky1]

iamback
quoting yourself is meaningless.
your getting to the point of being a traincarwreck endless pil of rants that just circle into an endless loop of 'im wright because i said so here, her and here'

[Wind_FURY]

of course , because it will be more expensive as we discussed earlier.

Right. Let me divert the topic a little. Who do you think is spamming the network and for whose best interest is he acting? All we see are cries of "Oh someone is spamming and flooding the mempool" but there is no mention of who or what group is doing this.

In theory it could be someone who has a commitment to Bitcoin Unlimited but I do not want to go there and be biased. That is why I am asking you.

looking at the dates of when the most spam spikes are

june/july 2016
and then
a long constant go at it from october onwards..

it appears obvious that anyone offering something from those particular dates that want to sway people into thinking their features are needed to remedy the spam would benefit from creating spam to then point out that something needs to be done.
https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?timespan=1year

june/july 2016 = core CSV
october+ = segwit

You cannot be serious in using that as evidence to show that Core or a group allied with Core is behind it right? That is too obvious. Because a group against Core could do it too and make it look like Core did it. We cannot snub that possibility out.