So do you still support BU?

[FlamingFingers]

After the Bitmain's ASICBOOST exploit that Jihan Wu used to get an additional 30% (more or less) efficiency for his mining hardware, and the real reason behind Bitmain's attempts to block implementing SegWit has been exposed, do you still support BU after all? If so, why?  

[JeffBrad12]

After the Bitmain's ASICBOOST exploit that Jihan Wu used to get an additional 30% (more or less) efficiency for his mining hardware, and the real reason behind Bitmain's attempts to block implementing SegWit has been exposed, do you still support BU after all? If so, why?  

Jihan Wu is cancer for the bitcoin ecosystem itself. But I don't support the Bitcoin Unlimited, Are you forgetting about the important thing if the key about the scalability solution is on the block voters? Did you realized it? The consensus is like a big wall between the communities and miners.
I'm not a BU fan but I can't do anything to change the result into the SegWit to be a winner in the future.  

[pixie85]

This proves again that the real motive is always money. The pools started supporting BU because they hoped to gain more cash from it. They didn't do it to support the network or to make it easier for everyone to use Bitcoin, and as Roger Ver proved by not taking the bet, they don't believe in what they're preaching. It's just a means to get richer.

[BillyBobZorton]

This proves again that the real motive is always money. The pools started supporting BU because they hoped to gain more cash from it. They didn't do it to support the network or to make it easier for everyone to use Bitcoin, and as Roger Ver proved by not taking the bet, they don't believe in what they're preaching. It's just a means to get richer.

Of course, what did you expect? Miners don't give a fuck about bitcoin other than milking it for more fiat money lol. Also miners don't want a bigger block size in any shape or form, this is all a way to keep bitcoin as it is for as long as possible, they don't care about BU or about segwit or about anything that drives fees down for obvious reasons. Sure there are some that actually care and want to take bitcoin to the next level with segwit + LN but most (chinese) don't care.

[Hazir]

I never supported BU, I consider emergent consensus mechanism which is part of BU as too risky solution which can create other unforeseen problems in the future.

But this argument that ASICBoost is root of all evil (money, duh) is starting to be a bit overplayed IMO.
AFAIK AsicBoost was never used and it it will be clear who are using this tech if activated.

Bitmain's statment: https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/

[Yakamoto]

I've never been a supporter of any of the blocksize solutions, at least not until recently, but BU has always been a sort of bad apple in the bunch of solutions that have been proposed, in my opinion. Over the past two weeks, they managed to shatter and kind of slight support I had for them, and this is just the cherry on top it seems.

Segwit or that one other alternative (I believe it was called ULA or something, based on the Segwit concept) seem to be the only viable options now. I have no problem saying that BU is a pile of BS.

[batang_bitcoin]

This proves again that the real motive is always money. The pools started supporting BU because they hoped to gain more cash from it. They didn't do it to support the network or to make it easier for everyone to use Bitcoin, and as Roger Ver proved by not taking the bet, they don't believe in what they're preaching. It's just a means to get richer.

Of course, what did you expect? Miners don't give a fuck about bitcoin other than milking it for more fiat money lol. Also miners don't want a bigger block size in any shape or form, this is all a way to keep bitcoin as it is for as long as possible, they don't care about BU or about segwit or about anything that drives fees down for obvious reasons. Sure there are some that actually care and want to take bitcoin to the next level with segwit + LN but most (chinese) don't care.

We all know the attitude of Chinese people, they are always go for the money as long as they can get much on a particular thing, they will going to push whatever they want on it. And I didn't became a supporter nor a fan with this crazy BU and these people. All of them are selfish, just like billy said, they really don't care with the real function of crypto/bitcoin.

[oktana]

This proves again that the real motive is always money. The pools started supporting BU because they hoped to gain more cash from it. They didn't do it to support the network or to make it easier for everyone to use Bitcoin, and as Roger Ver proved by not taking the bet, they don't believe in what they're preaching. It's just a means to get richer.

Of course, what did you expect? Miners don't give a fuck about bitcoin other than milking it for more fiat money lol. Also miners don't want a bigger block size in any shape or form, this is all a way to keep bitcoin as it is for as long as possible, they don't care about BU or about segwit or about anything that drives fees down for obvious reasons. Sure there are some that actually care and want to take bitcoin to the next level with segwit + LN but most (chinese) don't care.

We all know the attitude of Chinese people, they are always go for the money as long as they can get much on a particular thing, they will going to push whatever they want on it. And I didn't became a supporter nor a fan with this crazy BU and these people. All of them are selfish, just like billy said, they really don't care with the real function of crypto/bitcoin.

There is nothing wrong with BU, can we compare with capitalism and intervention in Fiat who continue to support continuity of currency. If you want bitcoin shouldn't be monopolized mean you have to think twice when blocksize in future is already finished. Competition and monopoly will be more brutal than the BU concept.

[AngryDwarf]

I ran a BU node for a while, but now I consider it Bitcoin Unneeded. It's complexity just isn't required. I believe the block size limit should simply be removed altogether (as per the original bitcoin design). I think the right approach is dynamic block size generation, based on transaction pool demand factors, network propagation factors, etc.. Low fee paying transactions can be artificially delayed if required.
Previously, pools used to up the block size as a soft limit (until they hit the hard limit). This unfortunately does not keep up with moments of high demand, and provides no fee market pressure during periods of low demand. Unfortunately, when the demand cap is exceeded, the function of the bitcoin network starts to fall apart. That is, zero confirmation transaction risk changes from a disadvantageous double spend propagation attempt to one where the transaction does not confirm at all due to transaction pool forgetfulness, and selective transaction relay from nodes.

[ololajulo]

After the Bitmain's ASICBOOST exploit that Jihan Wu used to get an additional 30% (more or less) efficiency for his mining hardware, and the real reason behind Bitmain's attempts to block implementing SegWit has been exposed, do you still support BU after all? If so, why?  

Sorry I didn't get to know the reason behind bitmans blocking segwit

[7788bitcoin]

I think many people, including myself, support proposal that increase the capacity and reduce the fee- which is what BU seems to promise...

However, being someone with zero knowledge about how BU & Segwit work, I will just leave the inspection to the coding experts. Of course we will need something that will not adversely affect the security of the network.

[JanpriX]

I don't really support BU in the first place. I just wanted this scaling debate to get into a decision and just stop this pissing contest. Lets get over with this and just have a compromised decision to find a solution for BTC's problems. We need to move forward. Problems will just keep on piling if let this run for too long.

[AngryDwarf]

I think many people, including myself, support proposal that increase the capacity and reduce the fee- which is what BU seems to promise...

However, being someone with zero knowledge about how BU & Segwit work, I will just leave the inspection to the coding experts. Of course we will need something that will not adversely affect the security of the network.

I think a lot of people would be a lot happier with segwit implemented as a hard fork, along with removal of a hard blocksize cap. In fact, I wonder how much more could be achieved if this irrational fear of a high consensus hard fork is removed.

Monero is about to HF again. I doubt we will have two Monero chains as a result. Probably no drama either. But we will see.

Code:

status
Height: 1285035/1285035 (100.0%) on mainnet, not mining, net hash 75.02 MH/s, v4 (next fork in 5.0 days), up to date, 8(out)+17(in) connections, uptime 0d 19h 50m 58s

Code:

hard_fork_info
version 5 not enabled, 10080/10080 votes, threshold 0
current version 4, voting for version 5

[BingoDog]

I don't really support BU in the first place. I just wanted this scaling debate to get into a decision and just stop this pissing contest. Lets get over with this and just have a compromised decision to find a solution for BTC's problems. We need to move forward. Problems will just keep on piling if let this run for too long.

My opinion exactly. This just doesn't lead to anything. We need quality solution for problems that have appeared and could become even biger if we continue to ignore them and waist time on argues that leeds us to nowhere. And many bitcoin users are very confused and just don't know what to think.

[buwaytress]

I never supported BU, I consider emergent consensus mechanism which is part of BU as too risky solution which can create other unforeseen problems in the future.

But this argument that ASICBoost is root of all evil (money, duh) is starting to be a bit overplayed IMO.
AFAIK AsicBoost was never used and it it will be clear who are using this tech if activated.

Bitmain's statment: https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/

For whatever reasons I had (I had few that were technically sound, and suspect there are many like me) BU wasn't something I liked and had hoped to fail, so yes, I'm pleased at the current developments. But, like you, I also never bought this latest ASIC nonsense... it's just more of the same vitriole and rhetoric from both sides.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know or have any stats on how BU support has been affected if at all?

[amacar2]

I have never supported BU before and will not in future. There is no reason to keep supporting a group of people who want to centralize and add inflation on bitcoin. That is completely bullshit, they want to split the network by blocking segwit activation.  

[jonald_fyookball]

I ran a BU node for a while, but now I consider it Bitcoin Unneeded. It's complexity just isn't required. I believe the block size limit should simply be removed altogether (as per the original bitcoin design). I think the right approach is dynamic block size generation, based on transaction pool demand factors, network propagation factors, etc.. Low fee paying transactions can be artificially delayed if required.
Previously, pools used to up the block size as a soft limit (until they hit the hard limit). This unfortunately does not keep up with moments of high demand, and provides no fee market pressure during periods of low demand. Unfortunately, when the demand cap is exceeded, the function of the bitcoin network starts to fall apart. That is, zero confirmation transaction risk changes from a disadvantageous double spend propagation attempt to one where the transaction does not confirm at all due to transaction pool forgetfulness, and selective transaction relay from nodes.

Funny how there's 14 shit posts with signature campaigns , raging against the machine, and there's AngryDrawrf,
the only guy without a paid sig, the only guy saying something smart.

Dynamic Block Sizes are a great idea.

[cigaLeider]

I have never supported BU before and will not in future. There is no reason to keep supporting a group of people who want to centralize and add inflation on bitcoin. That is completely bullshit, they want to split the network by blocking segwit activation.  

Indeed!! Completely bullshit without sense

[mindrust]

After the Bitmain's ASICBOOST exploit that Jihan Wu used to get an additional 30% (more or less) efficiency for his mining hardware, and the real reason behind Bitmain's attempts to block implementing SegWit has been exposed, do you still support BU after all? If so, why?  

I stopped supporting them way before this asicboost shit came up. It was decided when i watched dsh/ver utube video conference. I saw there how clueless he is. This ASICBOOST thing made everything just worse. Bitmain shouldn't survive this mess. If they want BU so bad, why don't they start their own shitcoin anyway?

[tournamentdan]

After the Bitmain's ASICBOOST exploit that Jihan Wu used to get an additional 30% (more or less) efficiency for his mining hardware, and the real reason behind Bitmain's attempts to block implementing SegWit has been exposed, do you still support BU after all? If so, why?  

Why do core sheep continue to spread lies when not one of the core sheep has posted any data that asic boost has been used?
It's simple to prove or disprove. Yet still no data from the sheep.