Bitcoin unlimited

[Variogam]

Emergent consensuns included in Bitcoin unlimited and other Bitcoin implementations is gainng support over time and now over 50% miners preffer this onchain scaling solution. Because there is nothing better on the table regarding onchain scaling, its going to be used to finally produce slightly bigger blocks so the Bitcoin wont be crippled anymore - it is bad news for altcoin pumpers, but necessary if Bitcoin has to remain #1 cryptocurrency.

[1713587403]

1713587403

[1713587403]

1713587403

[1713587403]

1713587403

[jonald_fyookball]

I've had enough of a blood drunk Roger Ver slaughtering hes own offspring, and I'm out of popcorn too.

The developers should just apply SegWit like they normally would and move on.

Let Jihan have hes fork. Be it an involuntary one.

Its up to the developers ?  humm, thats funny, i could have sworn Satoshi's
white paper said nodes will vote with their CPU power on any needed rules.

[BillyBobZorton]

In last few days BTU is loosing its steam, the hashrate is going down. On the other hand segwit is gaining momentum.
Is forking good or bad for BTC.
I need the views of the general community

http://xtnodes.com/

Look at the lines of Classic and XT nodes. That's what will happen to BU once the fad is over, it will disappear overtime since it's useless. Core will continue making the best effort delivering the best software and hodlers value that over anything else.

[corebob]

I've had enough of a blood drunk Roger Ver slaughtering hes own offspring, and I'm out of popcorn too.

The developers should just apply SegWit like they normally would and move on.

Let Jihan have hes fork. Be it an involuntary one.

Its up to the developers ? 

Of course it is. The core developers can just apply SegWit to their software if they want

[Coinchange]

I've had enough of a blood drunk Roger Ver slaughtering hes own offspring, and I'm out of popcorn too.

The developers should just apply SegWit like they normally would and move on.

Let Jihan have hes fork. Be it an involuntary one.

Its up to the developers ? 

Of course it is. The core developers can just apply SegWit to their software if they want

so whats the whole fork about that Topic
what can beforked will be forked

[jonald_fyookball]

I've had enough of a blood drunk Roger Ver slaughtering hes own offspring, and I'm out of popcorn too.

The developers should just apply SegWit like they normally would and move on.

Let Jihan have hes fork. Be it an involuntary one.

Its up to the developers ? 

Of course it is. The core developers can just apply SegWit to their software if they want

anyone can run whatever code they want.

Here's why segwit may never get full support of the miners
http://archive.is/XpI8a

[taxmanmt5]

In last few days BTU is loosing its steam, the hashrate is going down. On the other hand segwit is gaining momentum.
Is forking good or bad for BTC.
I need the views of the general community

http://xtnodes.com/

In the last week, BTU was threatening to be able to beat or overcome BTC, but to our good, it is no longer in competition. It has been dismissed by the people themselves. BTC lives

[Variogam]

In the last week, BTU was threatening to be able to beat or overcome BTC, but to our good, it is no longer in competition. It has been dismissed by the people themselves. BTC lives

Bitcoin Unlimited is used for mining Bitcoins for so long, many people already own BTCs mined from this software. Actually Bitcoin Unlimited software gaining popularity among miners over time, so the proper reasoning would be other implementations are slowly abandoned because they are not competetive anymore.

[Genedarner123]

 but for me bitcoin doesn't need any forking right now.

what about the network congestion. think of micro payments.
things promised by BTC community, people cant stand for hours in a grocery for their payments to get confirmed, if at all BTC becomes mainstream

[ImHash]

It doesn't matter, what really matters that we all should support any chain if forked under one condition only if they fork with 75%+ otherwise it's an attack if they try to change protocols with 51%+ of hash power.
To those saying POW will be changed, how could it be? miners with 75%+ of hash power still needed to vote for a POW change or is there some other way?
Would you vote against yourself to fire you from your job and your vote would be the one vote that really matters?
How can miners mining with ASIC machines vote for a change that kills their mining machines?

[Genedarner123]

It doesn't matter, what really matters that we all should support any chain if forked under one condition only if they fork with 75%+ otherwise it's an attack if they try to change protocols with 51%+ of hash power.
To those saying POW will be changed, how could it be? miners with 75%+ of hash power still needed to vote for a POW change or is there some other way?
Would you vote against yourself to fire you from your job and your vote would be the one vote that really matters?
How can miners mining with ASIC machines vote for a change that kills their mining machines?

its 95% for BTC . 75% is for LTC

[Genedarner123]

Now that LTC almost got the hashrate to activate segwit its time to watch how it will work. I feel it as a test ground before it can be activated on BTC. and if its a success segwit will will sure be activated on BTC and we will see another bull run on BTC. #fingerscrossed

[franky1]

Now that LTC almost got the hashrate to activate segwit its time to watch how it will work. I feel it as a test ground before it can be activated on BTC. and if its a success segwit will will sure be activated on BTC and we will see another bull run on BTC. #fingerscrossed

funny how that segwit is 'promised' to be soo backward compatible, so safe that it doesnt need node consensus.. and yet even after multiple requests, core refuse to make just 1 segwit block with 1 segwit tx by asking their DCG partner BTCC to publish one to show how compatible, safe and happy it is.

why does core need such savage banscores, UASF PoW algo threats....

atleast BU have shown what happens with BU in the event of controversy
if they made a 1mb+ block without node consensus... results in something mind blowing.. wait for it
wait for it..
here it comes....


 3 seconds of reject block drama. end of.

Code:

2017-01-29 06:59:12 Requesting block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5
2017-01-29 06:59:15 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-blk-length, size limits failed (code 16)

i know right.. 3 seconds and no drama after that.. shocking right!

yep. BU=3 seconds and forgotten, if it doesnt have consensus..

yep. core= banning, lots of orphaning and asic nukes if core doesnt have consensus..

[amacar2]

Now that LTC almost got the hashrate to activate segwit its time to watch how it will work. I feel it as a test ground before it can be activated on BTC. and if its a success segwit will will sure be activated on BTC and we will see another bull run on BTC. #fingerscrossed

I think when segwit will be activated on LTC it will trigger another bull run on LTC and if it works as thought than that will also create bull run in BTC and support may build towards segwit again in BTC too. #fingerscrossed  

[Rajchandu]

Bitcoin Unlimited is used for mining Bitcoins for so long, many people already own BTCs mined from this software. Actually Bitcoin Unlimited software gaining popularity among miners over time, so the proper reasoning would be other implementations are slowly abandoned because they are not competetive anymore.

[felipehermanns]

Now that LTC almost got the hashrate to activate segwit its time to watch how it will work. I feel it as a test ground before it can be activated on BTC. and if its a success segwit will will sure be activated on BTC and we will see another bull run on BTC. #fingerscrossed

I think when segwit will be activated on LTC it will trigger another bull run on LTC and if it works as thought than that will also create bull run in BTC and support may build towards segwit again in BTC too. #fingerscrossed  

that's true.

And the chinese bug coiners will move to segwit and these paid BUG coin users that talk here will shut up

[cryptoanarchist]

Isn't SegWit dead? I don't see how Core can move forward after alienating damn near everyone. The only way core can save face at this point is if they ceremoniously fired Greg and gave Gavin commit approval back.

That's not going to happen, and there are no better alternatives, so I'm committed to BTU even even if they only had 10% hashrate. I'm definitely fine forking with just 40%. My node will validate a 4MB BTU block. Everyone else can have their fake govt-sponsored blockchain - it won't be worth anything.

[ebliever]

BU has been dwindling since the ASICBoost scandal broke. It is now under 30% at https://coin.dance/blocks.

The Politics link at coin.dance shows only 4% of organizations actually oppose Segwit. Not surprisingly it looks like mostly miners in the BU cartel.

Segwit will probably never reach the 95% threshold, but the UASF certainly looks to be gaining steam. My guess is that is how it will end up being implemented.

[cryptoanarchist]

BU has been dwindling since the ASICBoost scandal broke. It is now under 30% at https://coin.dance/blocks.

The Politics link at coin.dance shows only 4% of organizations actually oppose Segwit. Not surprisingly it looks like mostly miners in the BU cartel.

Segwit will probably never reach the 95% threshold, but the UASF certainly looks to be gaining steam. My guess is that is how it will end up being implemented.

Whoever and whatever becomes of core will inevitably become a useless coin, so why bother? I don't care about UASF because I no longer will ever use a core client.

[jonald_fyookball]

funny how that segwit is 'promised' to be soo backward compatible, so safe that it doesnt need node consensus.. and yet even after multiple requests, core refuse to make just 1 segwit block with 1 segwit tx by asking their DCG partner BTCC to publish one to show how compatible, safe and happy it is.
 

Huh?  Of course segwit is not compatible if the longest PoW chain doesn't support it.  

I doubt anyone would claim otherwise.