What happened to BU?

[unamis76]

I'm still surprised that BU has more support than segwit after all that has happened the last couple of weeks.
Can anyone explain why miners are apparently against segwit?

Miners aren't apparently against segwit. Segwit support doesn't seem to have decreased (I think, not really paying attention to the numbers, honestly), miners just started singling more for BU.

(And from what I've seen in another thread, miners are signaling for everything because... April's fools )

I would rather have the speed reduced to transactions then to have the miner's profiteering off all these transactions.

If you are trying to say that miners should have less profit from fees... Careful what you wish for.

Then seagwit is retarded. I am totally against fundementally changing the blockchain and wallets. Bitcoin has proven itself to work just the way it is. Why don't they just increase mining power, in PH, problem solved??

Problem not solved, mining power is irrelevant for the main scaling question itself and you can't just "increase" mining power "in PH".

[iamnotback]

Miners aren't apparently against segwit.

On Bitcoin there can't be consensus to modify the protocol in any way. @dinofelis and I have explained this. On Litecoin the miners will want SegWit (which is my hypothesis).

[mr.mister]

I'm still surprised that BU has more support than segwit after all that has happened the last couple of weeks.
Can anyone explain why miners are apparently against segwit?

Its a massive change that totally rewrites how transactions are done.  With any massive change comes risk and loss of robustness.  It also requires wallets to be rewritten.  It doesn't really provide that much on chain scaling and makes it harder to make future improvements in this area.   It will hard if not impossible to undo later.  

Then seagwit is retarded. I am totally against fundementally changing the blockchain and wallets. Bitcoin has proven itself to work just the way it is. Why don't they just increase mining power, in PH, problem solved??

Hey mr mister why have you repeated the same mistake as the legendary member above? seagwit you like much eh? there is no fundamental change as you put it but rather making it possible to do a hard fork without splitting the network in half in a soft fork skin in the future. BU is about one big mining farm wanting to do a hard fork so they can do the same work as before but including more transactions so they can get more fees, imagine their grandchildren could include 2GB of transaction data in a block a century from now when there is no mining reward other than fees, I guess they've thought about everything really and increasing hash power is not an easy job it requires millions of dollars and a very well built infrastructure and even if they do BU supporter has a huge mining farm planned to turn it on and start mining in near future.
What they want is to get more earn more money since 1 block averagely found every 10 minutes is not enough for them.

the current state of the network is exactly what a decentralized network should be and if someday you saw miners easily implemented and activated something in matter of a month or two you need to run for the hills because that would mean a central authority with control and absolute power over any changes in the system.

I am not for either or (seagwit or BU). I am for consensus and harmony among the Bitcoin community. I am for leadership. There should be some mediation, and everyone's voices should be heard, instead of it being a  pissing contest.

[felipehermanns]

Haven't seen more news.
Can someone update me?
Where is the fork?

There's been a ton of things that have been happening recently, and the quick rundown for BU is that some things they planned to do were exposed and now there's some decent discontent with their plans coming from the community. If I remember correctly a lot of it was going to result in Bitcoin becoming very centralized through the new BU system.

So we can say BU is in a coma and soon will die.

[gentlemand]

So we can say BU is in a coma and soon will die.

I think it can keep chugging indefinitely but won't advance much or any further than it already has. If it does continue to breathe I suppose that gives time for its supporters to come up with more ideas. Dunno what they'd consist of.

[layoutph]

I dont think Bitcoin Unlimited will shine or overtake the success of the original Bitcoin core. As far as I know only the large portion of Chinese miners are in favor of BU.

[alucard23]

I don't think it's dead, but the hype is dying. Anyway, I think some groups will try to take that forward, since they have spent a lot of money on it.

[franky1]

there is no "hype"
BU and other implementations have no deadlines, threats or code to mandatorily activate.

they have been plodding along for 2 years allowing free choice.
the only reason its hyped is because CORE want dominance ever since core set the deadlines and votes and threats. and core are realising that not everyone is buying into cores half baked promises.

core are scared of losing their dictatorship TIER network plans, especially if people wake up and realise diverse decentralisation of a multiple implementation PEER network is better than blockstream(core) centralised upper Tier network and a cesspit of nonfull nodes down tier.

remember segwit activation does not fix maleability. or spam or guarantee 2mb..
it all requires people moving funds weeks-months after activation to new keys.. to only disable themselves from being malicious.. not the network

[alucard23]

there is no "hype"
BU and other implementations have no deadlines, threats or code to mandatorily activate.

they have been plodding along for 2 years allowing free choice.
the only reason its hyped is because CORE want dominance ever since core set the deadlines and votes and threats. and core are realising that not everyone is buying into cores half baked promises.

core are scared of losing their dictatorship TIER network plans, especially if people wake up and realise diverse decentralisation of a multiple implementation PEER network is better than blockstream(core) centralised upper Tier network and a cesspit of nonfull nodes down tier.

remember segwit activation does not fix maleability. or spam or guarantee 2mb..
it all requires people moving funds weeks-months after activation to new keys.. to only disable themselves from being malicious.. not the network

According to developers I've heard so far, one of the main reasons to implement segwit is to solve the malleability problem. Could you share a link that proves otherwise?