Satoshi talks about BU

[BillyBobZorton]

Satoshi would have been against BU (which will change the 21 million coin supply limit so the "Emergent Consensus" has any chance to work) or any other secondary implementation of the software that pretends to fork it in such a violent way.

We are looking at a couple of miners with massive centralized power against the majority of nodes:




This is insane.

If you don't like bitcoin, then create an altcoin and people will naturally dump bitcoin for your altcoin if your altcoin is so good, but don't force it on people's throats.

[1715271945]

1715271945

[1715271945]

1715271945

[1715271945]

1715271945

[1715271945]

1715271945

[cellard]

BUggy is dead. If the miners go with their attack, they will get fired via PoW change, and it will prove that they didn't care to cause havok on the network they were direct attackers since they KNOW going through with this kills bitcoin network effect and price.

[lurker10]

satoshi would have been against BU or any other attack in the form of a second version (which goes against the majority of current nodes and so on)

If you respect what Satoshi said, you must respect this too. He said, quote:

"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."

What miners think is true Bitcoin is Bitcoin according to Satoshi. You can't cherry pick some quotes, respect all of his vision or none.

[cellard]

satoshi would have been against BU or any other attack in the form of a second version (which goes against the majority of current nodes and so on)

If you respect what Satoshi said, you must respect this too. He said, quote:

"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."

What miners think is true Bitcoin is Bitcoin according to Satoshi. You can't cherry pick some quotes, respect all of his vision or none.

And he also said that he didn't want his software forked for good reasons.
I seriously DOUBT that satoshi would have been cool with a couple chinese kids jeopardizing the entire system.
Remember that back then, nodes where miners.
Now nodes and mining has been split completely.

[Holliday]

satoshi would have been against BU or any other attack in the form of a second version (which goes against the majority of current nodes and so on)

If you respect what Satoshi said, you must respect this too. He said, quote:

"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."

What miners think is true Bitcoin is Bitcoin according to Satoshi. You can't cherry pick some quotes, respect all of his vision or none.

Rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.

Which rules and incentives to be enforced are chosen, however, by the economic majority.

The miners will be enforcing a rule set worth exactly zero if people aren't willing to trade other items of value for their coin base rewards.

[lurker10]

And he also said that he didn't want his software forked for good reasons.

What is a bigger fork?
BU which changes one parameter or Segwit which changes a whole bunch of code and is much farther away from the original Bitcoin? Satoshi himself said the block limit is only a temporary thing. So which one is a real forked code here?

[lurker10]

Which rules and incentives to be enforced are chosen, however, by the economic majority.

Only 5% of Bitcoin users run a full node, the full nodes count is not how you measure economic majority. So how did you measure it? no how, it's immeasurable.

Miners enforce consensus rules according to Satoshi. He didn't say about economic majority or how to take it into account. You're making it up.

[Emoclaw]

satoshi would have been against BU or any other attack in the form of a second version (which goes against the majority of current nodes and so on)

If you respect what Satoshi said, you must respect this too. He said, quote:

"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."

What miners think is true Bitcoin is Bitcoin according to Satoshi. You can't cherry pick some quotes, respect all of his vision or none.

And he also said that he didn't want his software forked for good reasons.
I seriously DOUBT that satoshi would have been cool with a couple chinese kids jeopardizing the entire system.
Remember that back then, nodes where miners.
Now nodes and mining has been split completely.

But he also said that the 1MB limit was meant to be removed, which is only possible with a hard fork.
The idea was that as bandwidth and technology capabilities increased, so would blocksize. Bigger blocks does not mean centralization.

Also it is Core devs who opted to go with a soft-fork so as to not need node consensus.

[DooMAD]

Every time a so called "bigblocker" quotes Satoshi to argue their point, it's dismissed as an "appeal to authority", so why should this thread be treated any differently?  You could spend all day speculating on what a 2010 Satoshi may or may not have thought about things they couldn't possibly have foreseen in Bitcoin's ecosystem in 2017.  But that's literally all it is.  Speculation.

[dacueba]

satoshi would have been against BU or any other attack in the form of a second version (which goes against the majority of current nodes and so on)

If you respect what Satoshi said, you must respect this too. He said, quote:

"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."

What miners think is true Bitcoin is Bitcoin according to Satoshi. You can't cherry pick some quotes, respect all of his vision or none.

but the vast majority rejected BU or all other versions of Bitcoin, so Bitcoin still is Core and I don't see a change

[Snorek]

Hard Fork is last resort SegWit needs to come first. If we want to maintain network security and decentralization.
Maybe it is time to stop focusing on block size and instead try to focus on number of transaction that every block can store?
Bitcoin Unlimited seems strong now, but I expect it will be flavor of the month like Bitcoin Classic and XT were.

[lurker10]

but the vast majority rejected BU

Where do you get this from? Don't listen to propaganda. The vast majority wants their transactions to be processed quickly and with low fees, the vast majority doesn't care about BU, Core and other fancy names. They want to do their business with as little friction as possible.

[quake313]

but the vast majority rejected BU

Where do you get this from? Don't listen to propaganda. The vast majority wants their transactions to be processed quickly and with low fees, the vast majority doesn't care about BU, Core and other fancy names. They want to do their business with as little friction as possible.

If this is true then the vast majority can go to alt coins.

[Syke]

The idea was that as bandwidth and technology capabilities increased, so would blocksize. Bigger blocks does not mean centralization.

To a point, yes. Truly massive blocks would lead to centralization.

[lurker10]

but the vast majority rejected BU

Where do you get this from? Don't listen to propaganda. The vast majority wants their transactions to be processed quickly and with low fees, the vast majority doesn't care about BU, Core and other fancy names. They want to do their business with as little friction as possible.

If this is true then the vast majority can go to alt coins.

They are, and this movement has been accelerating in the past months.

[HabBear]

If you respect what Satoshi said, you must respect this too. He said, quote:

"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."[/u][/i]

What miners think is true Bitcoin is Bitcoin according to Satoshi. You can't cherry pick some quotes, respect all of his vision or none.

What consensus? The consensus of the users? The consensus of the miners? The consensus of the transactions? How can we call it a consensus when a minority group of miners are controlling (or fighting to control) a majority of the transactions?

And to BillyBob, one thing you're proving here is that Roger Ver is not Satoshi.

[andron8383]

***
What consensus? The consensus of the users? ***

If no one ill buy BU coin then i think we have true consensus. On bitfinex is 0.1BTC for BU haha....
Segwit at least brings some improvemts to BTC while BU what ? Blocksize unlock ?
Is this fucking innovation ? We can hire coincreator that will change you to anyblocksize for only 0.1 BTC.

Whole BU stuff i pathetic and bugged. Try win with it with Etherum tech over time.

[quake313]

I'm pretty sure Satoshi would be against any hostile takeover of Bitcoin.

[franky1]

I'm pretty sure Satoshi would be against any hostile takeover of Bitcoin.

blockstreams segwit is the hostile take over.

all other implementations just plod along waiting for consensus.

blockstreams segwit has all the ban hammering bips, deadlines, mandatory activations and PoW changing algos..
wake up

blockstream did not exist prior to 2014
segwit was an altcoin and part of an elements project not bitcoin

and even the core brand didnt exist prior to 2012
wake up. core did not invent bitcoin. core are just one of many implementations.

oh and dont me me the crap that a group of devs who refuse to independently review other implementations.. are 'independent'
they jumped into their cabin in the corner so they made themselves dependant on the blockstream team leaders to lock and watch the doorways

and any time any dev tries to go independent. they are threatened with REKT campaigns
wake up

[thejaytiesto]

And he also said that he didn't want his software forked for good reasons.

What is a bigger fork?
BU which changes one parameter or Segwit which changes a whole bunch of code and is much farther away from the original Bitcoin? Satoshi himself said the block limit is only a temporary thing. So which one is a real forked code here?

"BU which changes one parameter"


BU changes a fundamental feature of bitcoin (limited 21 million coins) because EC (emergent consensus) mechanism requires non-zero inflation, yet you say segwit changes bitcoin. Are you some kind of troll?

Not to mention BU gives stupid amounts of power to miners (even more than now).

satoshi would have been against BU or any other attack in the form of a second version (which goes against the majority of current nodes and so on)

If you respect what Satoshi said, you must respect this too. He said, quote:

"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."

What miners think is true Bitcoin is Bitcoin according to Satoshi. You can't cherry pick some quotes, respect all of his vision or none.

You already got disproved by other user but anyway, from Bitcoin whitepaper:

The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers.

Yet you are supporting Peter R's fantastic idea to attack the network which has all the nodes. See how that plays out.