What happened to BU?

[felipehermanns]

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

[1714890507]

1714890507

[1714890507]

1714890507

[unamis76]

There haven't been news, things are still "tied" in discussion. There's no fork...

If you're looking for % of support, you can check coin.dance

[eternalgloom]

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?

[Pab]

Sure all that is done against seagwit,seagwit can limit miners profit,if fork will not happen fast will not happen
Will be suspended untill next,We can bet.Whan btc price will start to incrase we will have more scary news about fork and sell off or not,it is always possible to manipulate market that way

[jonald_fyookball]

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.   

[mastrox92]

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

Iam almost 100% sure there wont be any fork!
(Ive read about miners does not support BU too)

[noodle_dam]

I would rather have the speed reduced to transactions then to have the miner's profiteering off all these transactions.
It is a good thing to have slower transactions so less of them are happening so the miners don't get shit for what they are trying to do and that is skimming off the froth of the of their lattes.

[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??

[mr.mister]

I would rather have the speed reduced to transactions then to have the miner's profiteering off all these transactions.
It is a good thing to have slower transactions so less of them are happening so the miners don't get shit for what they are trying to do and that is skimming off the froth of the of their lattes.

Miners need to be paid, otherwise Bitcoin will die. They don't need to get greedy however, because that will kill their business too, if it's too expensive to send coins. If they get too greedy, the market will be flooded with miners as well, and the payouts will be less. Miners have to act responsibly. They need to walk a fine line or it could spell doom for bitcoin, and that would be a shame.

[jonald_fyookball]

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??

The problem is political not technical in nature.
 
The 1mb blocksize could be easily increased but the leading core developers (several of whom are employed by Blockstream) are against it.
 

[JanpriX]

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

 I believe it's still in the pipeline and nothing has been changed in the past few days. We are seeing positive trend in Bitcoin's price but the goal of BU is still there and they are just waiting again for the right time with the right resources to go with a fork. I just checked https://coin.dance/blocks. BU still has 37% support while SegWit has 29.2%.

[ImHash]

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.

[Rockie1234]

Didn't F2Pool, the second largest Bitcoin mining pool just reject Bitcoin Unlimited through an announcement by the owner? If so, it's quite a big advantage to Segwit.

[thejaytiesto]

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??

Jonald keeps talking nonsense about segwit for some reason.

Wallets that aren't updated can still recieve regular transactions, also all relevant online wallets are segwit ready so this is a non issue. All relevant software is also segwit ready or in progress:

https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/

Also miners that are pro-BU should explain how they call segwit risky while BU not being risky while trying to keep a straight face.

[FiendCoin]

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

BTU is a piece of Chinese crap, it aint going no where. If they fork-off, they fork themselves  

[quake313]

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??

Jonald keeps talking nonsense about segwit for some reason.

Wallets that aren't updated can still recieve regular transactions, also all relevant online wallets are segwit ready so this is a non issue. All relevant software is also segwit ready or in progress:

https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/

Also miners that are pro-BU should explain how they call segwit risky while BU not being risky while trying to keep a straight face.

It's pointless arguing with the shills, they're paid to do this. I'll say this though, franky1 ALMOST has me convinced he's not a paid shill, at least paid to shill for BU. His hate for Blockstream though is on another level, like he's been personally slighted by them or something. Definitely seems personal.

[iamnotback]

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

As planned by the Chinaman as a way of misdirecting our attention, BU died and SegWit on Litecoin was achieved instead.

I never understood why the Chinaman was dumb enough to support a the technological idiocy in BU, and now I understand it was a diversionary manipulation that was never intended to be carried out.

[jonald_fyookball]

Jonald keeps talking nonsense about segwit for some reason.

Wallets that aren't updated can still recieve regular transactions, also all relevant online wallets are segwit ready so this is a non issue.

But if they do not upgrade they cannot originate transactions that take advantage of any new capacity offered by the witness segregation, obviously.  So this weakens the argument even further that its a meaningful increase.  

Why not just increase the blocksize? That is what miners and most clear thinking users want.

Why do you choose to ignore obvious facts and spin everything?  

[Yakamoto]

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.

[iamnotback]

Why not just increase the blocksize? That is what miners and most clear thinking users want.

Why do you choose to ignore obvious facts and spin everything?  

Because small blocks are absolutely necessary to maintain the equilibrium of power structure of a stalemate that Satoshi designed into the system.

You keep ignoring this, even I have told you many times to go read the thread linked below:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18408976#msg18408976

It seems simple to you that big blocks are better, because you don't comprehend that we must have an immutable master blockchain else we do not get Nash's ideal money. Until you understand that, then you understand nothing about Bitcoin.

Until you understand that really well, you will continue to talk nonsense and not realize that you are.

Of course we can have bigger blocks, on Litecoin. As explained at the above linked post. Please slow down and read.