Can someone explain this?

[FlamingFingers]

I want to know the damned explanations for both of Segregated Witness (SegWit) and Bitcoin Unlimited (BU).
I need someone to enlighten me with the technical (heavy, if possible) details about both of them.

P.S. I cannot find anything about them that satisfies my mind technically on the Internet, just general definitions...

[jonald_fyookball]

https://segwit.org/segregated-witness-explained-d3ebd9aebf27

https://medium.com/@peter_r/what-were-doing-with-bitcoin-unlimited-simply-6f71072f9b94

[HabBear]

Are you kidding? There's at least three threads on each page of the forum going back several weeks (if not months) about this exact topic. Please read first, find the answers you're looking for and then come back to us with specific questions.

If you come back with well thought through specific questions (they don't have to be expert questions), you'll get well thought through responses.

I need someone to enlighten me with the technical (heavy, if possible) details about both of them.

P.S. I cannot find anything about them that satisfies my mind technically on the Internet, just general definitions...

P.P.S. You need to look harder, the technical conversation on this Forum is very easy to find: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=6.0

[fortunecrypto]

https://segwit.org/segregated-witness-explained-d3ebd9aebf27

https://medium.com/@peter_r/what-were-doing-with-bitcoin-unlimited-simply-6f71072f9b94

Medium.com is indeed a great source of articles about bitcoin and what is going on,on  crypto currency this is why I have this bookmarked I don't want to be in speculation especially those coming from newbie post here,better subscribe to medium because you only get the facts,nothing more.

[achow101]

For Segwit, read the BIPs: 141, 143, and 144.

For BU, read BUIP 1

[iamTom123]

I also want to understand what are these beasts all about...in a term which an ordinary and non-techie guy like me can comprehend...that is as much as possible. However, I think OP is just posting this for the sake of having a post because right now this is the hottest topic in the cryptocurrency world and there are so many sites talking about this trend. Nevertheless, the enlightenment of everybody is actually our goal here.

[cengsuwuei]

https://segwit.org/segregated-witness-explained-d3ebd9aebf27

https://medium.com/@peter_r/what-were-doing-with-bitcoin-unlimited-simply-6f71072f9b94

what is negative affect is follow segwit or follow bitcoin unlimited
what is the best and good between segwit or bitcoin unlimited
and where is still use orginal bitcoin block

[ImHash]

Let me explain in market language not technical, only a big mining farm which also are manufacturer of mining machines are supporting BU.
BU will allow miners (or rather allow themselves ) to generate blocks with any size depending on the numbers of unconfirmed transactions in the mempool but they didn't just change that NO they have changed other things as well and that's why nodes were operating on BU software were attacked/crashed/exploited. (ever since ASIC miners came to be no longer 1CPU or 1 computer was a full node and now you could operate 10K ASICs on only one full node but that is about centralization topic and doesn't belong here).

SW(segwit) will allow the developers to implement major changes in the future without needing to perform a hard fork the same hard fork BU is trying to perform which will damage the whole network greatly if not 95% of all nodes/miners vote on it and switch to run BU software.

If you think SW will give advantage to anyone running SW activated software then you could as a miner/full node operator run SW activated software to have the same advantage, why do you refuse to see the logic in that?

But one can argue why not switch to BU and have whatever BU supporters are going to have? answer is simple: only ONE miner which has a great hash power is mostly in support of BU and as well BU software is not the same as the software which right now majority of the network is operated on.

If BU had only changed the block size limitation we'd be gladly accept their version but why there was some attack on their nodes and why didn't the same attack work on Core nodes?

Having freedom over the size of a block means they want to collect as much fees as they can in a single block without contributing computing power required more than of mining a 1MB block, so only miners with most of the hash power will gain more profit and small miners will remain the bottom feeders with no saying in the future of and if any changes.

What happened with previous hard fork(s) why don't we have several chains? because everyone switched to Core and followed Core rules.

[franky1]

only core gave mining farm the vote and core do not care about node consensus.
if core dont get the miner vote, core will force activation anyway. thus wasting a year pretending its an election but where the end result in their eyes a sure thing and mandatory activation anyway..

bu and other dynamics rely on node consensus which pools have to follow and also have a lower preferential threshold that is only allowed to go a certain way into before pools have to back off and not push thier luck

to even activate irequires both a NODE AND POOL consensus (unlike cores pool only soft bypass exploit)
for the last 2 year many dynamic implementations have set no deadlines no threats, just running along side dozen other brands happily letting the community decide or not.

SW(segwit) will allow the developers to implement major changes in the future without needing to perform a hard fork
this is called a backdoor exploit and a risk because if it lets core implement a change without node consensus.. meaning anyone else can too.!!
emphasis exploitable

hard fork BU if activating via consensus will cause minimal distruption. but core wont let it get that far into consensus because core will cause a split to prevent bu getting popular. thus core will cause the damage for the whole network while blaming BU for just becoming popular.


If you think SW will give advantage to anyone running SW activated software they would be wrong. the activation is just to get people to resync and reset connections to a TIER network of centralism. the funny part of trying to coax 46million unspent tx's to move to new key pairs is going to cause alot of mempool spam and issues. with no guarantees on the segwit promises. due to it not actually killing off native spam methods.
oh i must add segwit have introduced new ways that spammers can mess with blocks.

But one can argue why not switch to BU and have whatever BU supporters are going to have? answer is simple: BU is one of many dynamic implementations that do not rely on devs to control bitcoin decisions. where the node has more control and users can independently change settings at runtime

If BU had only changed the block size limitation then the remote shutdown exploit which was part of core 0.12 would still be there. lucky it was fixed and a release was ready, even though some nasty people wanted to scream out to attack it before people downloaded the update.

core would be glad to accept their version but blockstream managers told the core independent devs not to independently review it but REKT it instead

Having freedom over the size of a block makes no difference to ASIC miners. after all an ASIC doesnt have a hard drive so doesnt see or care about blocksize. all an ASIC see's is a hash. so blocksizes do not make it expensive to mine. because it doesnt affect an asic chip in any way

fixed that for you