Bitcoin Unlimited v/s SegWit

[dannon]

(Some reasons) Why segregated-witness is bad -

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5zn4oi/some_reasons_why_segregatedwitness_is_bad/


1) segregated witness is a big change from the whitepaper, it changes fundamental concepts and outlines of Bitcoin.
2) it adds a huge more 'technical debt' which will make actually fixing the blocksize problem much, much harder than it is right now.
3) it does not actually fix anything regarding scaling, it merely pushes the issue off for another 6 months-2years, but if btc survives we will be back here discussing these same things again, but with more difficultly as segregated witness makes solving the blocksize issue much more difficult on a technical level
4) there is a massive, absolutely huge amount of misinformation and lies that are being used to try and persuade people to use segregated witness, I don't usually like things that have to be lied about to sound good.
5) segregated witness does not double the block size, far from it. In fact bitcoinCore gives an estimate of 1.6 or 1.7 times the current size (which was too small over a year ago if we want to avoid full blocks like Satoshi said we should). They estimate that we could get up to 2MB with a working LN (not yet developed)
6) it increases the amount of data that is sent at a higher rate than it increases capacity, increasing waste
7) segregated witness as a soft fork includes far more technical debt than as a hard fork, which makes all the above problems worse
8 ) there is no reason why a hardfork would be bad if the supermajority if the hashpower was needed to be using it before it activates, such a well prepared fork is just an upgrade
9) the things that segregated witness does do (tx malleability) can be done with FT or something better than segregated witness, or segregated witness as a hard fork (to lessen the amount of technical debt that will interfere with a real scalability fix)
.

I agree. I think segwit Bitcoin is no longer really Bitcoin if there are so many changes to the base protocol. I'm not saying changed are bad, just that if you want segwit Bitcoin just fork and create an alt instead of changing so much. Code is law. No need to rewrite the whole Constitution.

[1714815013]

1714815013

[1714815013]

1714815013

[1714815013]

1714815013

[1714815013]

1714815013

[Josepino]

I still like segwit for long-term period and I do not support the Bitcoin unlimited and it should seem a fork coin of bitcoin and will watch which one is the winner after then?

[dannon]

I still like segwit for long-term period and I do not support the Bitcoin unlimited and it should seem a fork coin of bitcoin and will watch which one is the winner after then?

How about you explain why instead of blindly fanboying what you were told to think?

[Decoded]

I don't understand why people are calling BU a "fork coin". It's concept is good, I don't see anything wrong. If everyone else were to support it, there would be no two different coins, just one Bitcoin.

Segwit will not tackle the blocksize problem. It's a temporary fix them at will require a fork in the future.

[hv_]

I don't understand why people are calling BU a "fork coin". It's concept is good, I don't see anything wrong. If everyone else were to support it, there would be no two different coins, just one Bitcoin.

Segwit will not tackle the blocksize problem. It's a temporary fix them at will require a fork in the future.

Yeah. All politics, hidden interest, fight for big balls and control.

I say remove one line of code and let the market do the free float. But who gets the merits? No testing needed...

All the rest are nice to haves and can be added later.

[ebliever]

I don't understand why people are calling BU a "fork coin". It's concept is good, I don't see anything wrong. If everyone else were to support it, there would be no two different coins, just one Bitcoin.

Segwit will not tackle the blocksize problem. It's a temporary fix them at will require a fork in the future.

There is no "blocksize problem". There is a transaction capacity problem. And Segwit _directly_ addresses that actual problem with a immediate capacity improvement.

If BU forks and fails to kill off Bitcoin, there will indeed be two coins. If they do kill it off and achieve the coup, many of us will never accept miner-monopolized control over it and will leave their faux bitcoin for good.

[hv_]

I don't understand why people are calling BU a "fork coin". It's concept is good, I don't see anything wrong. If everyone else were to support it, there would be no two different coins, just one Bitcoin.

Segwit will not tackle the blocksize problem. It's a temporary fix them at will require a fork in the future.

There is no "blocksize problem". There is a transaction capacity problem. And Segwit _directly_ addresses that actual problem with a immediate capacity improvement.

Yahoo, and what quality measure do you apply to this adressing thingy, directly?

If acceptance stays that poor, given the most are agnostic or blindly following core, the measure is very poor....

[jonald_fyookball]

I'm for simple on chain scaling using a bigger block size and believe most of the support to do other things is politically motivated or a result of misunderstanding via propaganda. 

The biggest myths are:

1. we need high fees right now
2. there is a danger to bigger blocks (aside from quadratic hashing)
3. if we increase blocksize we'll have gigabyte blocks overnight
4. node cost increases can be eliminated
5. there is no centralization risk with LN
6. we wont need bigger blocks with LN
7. we need segwit for LN
8. there's a specific plan to get worldwide scaling with LN in a p2p fashion

[hv_]

I'm for simple on chain scaling using a bigger block size and believe most of the support to do other things is politically motivated or a result of misunderstanding via propaganda. 

The biggest myths are:

1. we need high fees right now
2. there is a danger to bigger blocks (aside from quadratic hashing)
3. if we increase blocksize we'll have gigabyte blocks overnight
4. node cost increases can be eliminated
5. there is no centralization risk with LN
6. we wont need bigger blocks with LN
7. we need segwit for LN
8. there's a specific plan to get worldwide scaling with LN in a p2p fashion

Great compilation - and the sad thing is that lots are brainstreamed already to believe in all that  - so they act using only their instinct. Using instinct is far cheaper for human brains. Thinking about hard problems needs real energy = PoW and majority is not willing to spend that. We cant fix stupid....

[nightrider]

The answer is Segwit

[onemanatatime]

It's not a question of one or the other. BU is just not an acceptable choice by any measure, no matter how low your standards are.

[cryptoanarchist]

LAST 1000 BLOCKS:

Bitcoin Unlimited blocks: 373  ( 37.3% )           
Bitcoin Classic blocks: 2  ( 0.2% )             
SegWit blocks: 275  ( 27.5% )

Miners seem to disagree with the most likely rigged results of the poll here. Bitcoin holders don't seem to support SegWit either:

https://vote.bitcoin.com/arguments/block-size-limit-should-be-increased-to-8-mb-as-soon-as-possible

Neither miners nor holders want SegWit, so who does? Oh yeah, AXA, Blockstream, and Core. They should have just made their own alt-coin, because SegWit is dead and they just wasted 75 million dollars.

Oh well, the devs got paid. The banksters who funded this nonsense are out of 75 million though. 

[cryptoanarchist]

It's not a question of one or the other. BU is just not an acceptable choice by any measure, no matter how low your standards are.

If you intend to say they have bad development, be prepared to offer code snippets and explain in full technical detail why they are bad commits.

This isn't the "Dancing with the Stars" forum, its the bitcoin forum. There are a lot of people here who understand the whole 'Appeal to Authority' logical fallacy thing you guys love to do.

[Lionidas]

I would have to say I would go with segwit because seeing how it's is causing litecoin to come out it's 3 year slumber and actually getting a must needed revitalization again, this can only make bitcoin stronger if it wades in the same waters as it's cryptocousin.

[cryptoanarchist]

I would have to say I would go with segwit because seeing how it's is causing litecoin to come out it's 3 year slumber and actually getting a must needed revitalization again, this can only make bitcoin stronger if it wades in the same waters as it's cryptocousin.

Banks have a lot of money to mindlessly throw at their frankenstein creations.

[mezzomix]

Bitcoin Unlimited blocks: 373  ( 37.3% )           
Bitcoin Classic blocks: 2  ( 0.2% )             
SegWit blocks: 275  ( 27.5% )
...
Neither miners nor holders want SegWit, so who does?

Your block statistic answered part of your question: Some of the miners do.

I think I qualify as holder and I will accept segwit blocks which proves your arguments to be wrong.

[unamis76]

Choices are not so black and white.

While I think that everybody is entitled to an opinion, Bitcoin Unlimited is just plain wrong and irresponsible.

Hence why choices aren't so black and white as this poll...

Oh well, the devs got paid. The banksters who funded this nonsense are out of 75 million though. 

Banksters aren't out of anything, those millions have to be paid back (if they weren't yet) and with profit... Banksters are never out of anything (thus Bitcoin was born...)

seeing how it's is causing litecoin to come out it's 3 year slumber

What slumber, exactly? Last time I checked they weren't having any issues.

[cryptoanarchist]

Bitcoin Unlimited is gaining ground!

LAST 1000 BLOCKS:

Bitcoin Unlimited blocks: 395  ( 39.5% )             
Bitcoin Classic blocks: 2  ( 0.2% )             
SegWit blocks: 278  ( 27.8% )


If you run a node, make sure you are using an implementation that accepts big blocks -  the fork is coming soon! 

[fkod]

I do not support anything. Bitcoin needed a better, more effective solution. Both systems have significant insufficiency.

[cryptoanarchist]

I do not support anything. Bitcoin needed a better, more effective solution. Both systems have significant insufficiency.

Can you be more specific? This is a technical forum.