What is the latest status/drama on the Bitcoin Unlimited Hard Fork?

[very_452001]

Is it dead or happening?

Another newbie question that may be asked hundred times already is how do we know that BU Hard Fork is dead and definitely will not happen? Is there a website to track its status and what numbers/figures am I suppose to look out for on that website?

Thanks,

[1714010886]

1714010886

[1714010886]

1714010886

[Quantus]

Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited were nothing more then tools of Chines mining pools to prevent the end of ASIC-boost. A detrimental mining technique that increase efficiency but damages the network.

These groups pray on people who are uninformed and easily manipulated to support their agendas.

Chines ASIC manufactures have gained a monopoly by exploiting this detrimental mining technique.  They now have enough hashing power to prevent any improvements to the network they disagree with.

They have no real support outside of their mining pools and a small gaggle of idiots and paid shills.

Most posts on the subject are alt-coin supporters coming here from other forums to spread fear and uncertainty in a bid to drive up the Alt-coin markets and its clearly working. http://coinmarketcap.com/charts/#btc-percentage


  

[zimmah]

I'm not very up to date but it seems like t's still unresolved and it's just more staling.

it's very bad that this issue is unresolved for so long.

[DannyHamilton]

Is it dead or happening?

At the moment, neither.

Another newbie question that may be asked hundred times already is how do we know that BU Hard Fork is dead and definitely will not happen?

We don't.  We just educate ourselves about how much interest there is, and then we make decisions for ourselves about how to handle our bitcoins based on that understanding.

Is there a website to track its status and what numbers/figures am I suppose to look out for on that website?

Here are a few places you can look:

http://nodecounter.com/#bitcoin_classic_blocks

https://coin.dance/blocks

It is effectively impossible for miners (or pools) to successfully mine a larger "forking" block unless at least 50% of the hash power is in support of a larger block.  It is EXTREMELY financially risky to the miner (or pool) to mine a larger "forking" block without a significant majority of the hashpower signalling that they will support the larger blocks.

[s1lverbox]

As you mght not know, jihan wu is little guy who tried to make more money by forcing whole bitcoins world to be he's own purse.
Smart people showed middle finger and made it clear what motives he had and now BU is the same as Classic and XT.

Its not over yet but it will be clear that jihan will loose on long run.

The best thing to do is to read a lot about people which makes bitcoin possible to run(devs), support another group(all of us) which is right and hope that jihan will not jump up again with another evil plan like BU was.

[cryptoanarchist]

Big block miners could HF right now and they would survive and kill SegWit once and for all. They're only waiting until more nodes switch to big block clients. They're also waiting for more hash power so they'll lose as little money as possible when they lose hashpower from BitFury and other core miners.

Bear in mind, the second miners would fork to bigger blocks, core miners would be under a lot of pressure to switch clients or do a lot of work for nothing. Not to mention how hard they would have to work to mine 1MB blocks.

[Lauda]

Big block miners could HF right now and they would survive and kill SegWit once and for all. They're only waiting until more nodes switch to big block clients. They're also waiting for more hash power so they'll lose as little money as possible when they lose hashpower from BitFury and other core miners.

Only in your fairytales. BU nodes at 1.5% of the network: http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.html

Bear in mind, the second miners would fork to bigger blocks, core miners would be under a lot of pressure to switch clients or do a lot of work for nothing. Not to mention how hard they would have to work to mine 1MB blocks.

This is not going to happen, as the economy has clearly stated that they do not want the BTU altcoin.

It is EXTREMELY financially risky to the miner (or pool) to mine a larger "forking" block without a significant majority of the hashpower signalling that they will support the larger blocks.

Correct. We all know the financial resulted which was resulted from Bitcoin.com mining a >1 MB block due to a bug in the BU software.

[franky1]

BU/classic/xt do not want to split the network. they want a proper network consensus upgrade.
they have set no deadlines or added code that would destroy the network. they are just waiting for consensus. the sensible way

they were offered and refused to split away from the network

What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.

I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral ... Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--

then do not want to wreck the network. never have..
the only 'group' wanting to wreck (REKT) the network are the blockstream group

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1330734.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1858019.0

blockstreamists will scream lots of fake drama that spits are bad,
but then demand anything not core should split off
then scream how anything not core are wrecking the network by splitting
then scream how anything not core is an altcoin due to splits..

its all just circle jerk drama from the blockstreamists that can only read one line of FUD script on reddit at a time and just repeat it without researching or thinking logically.

all the drama about asics wrecking/attacking the network is drama too. asicboost came first and is just an efficiency gain. just like back in the GPU mining days openCL was an efficiency gain for ATI GPU's.

its blockstream who have wasted over 2 years using a exploit(they admit the going soft is using a backdoor) to try 'going soft' pretending that doing so was all backward compatible, yet if so backward compatible they could trigger it any time with no harm, right..(logically)
last month they found a flaw that using the soft (exploit backdoor) just wont work, where they realised its not as compatible as they thought. so now started more drama.

they are blaming the miners yet its the blockstreamists that were the ones that gave only the pools the vote.. in short its all just drama inducing delay tactics

but instead of holding hands up to admit they need to do a real network consensus and an opportunity that would include the other features that the community desire, which if implemented in 2015 would have been active by now..

but blockstreamists will continue delaying things until 2019(usaf.co: 'up until late 2018') with empty half promises and debate to avoid a proper network consensus upgrade any time soon.

tl:dr;
BU/classic/xt do not want to split the network. they want a proper network consensus upgrade. but the crew of blockstream that have coded over 98% of core are doing all they can to control the network for their own purpose, with all this drama

[cryptoanarchist]

If big blocks forked now with 85% of the "nodes" running Core, but 40% of the hash rate accepting bigger blocks, most nodes would end up syncing to the shrinking minority chain, and once they realized that, they would switch to a different client because the coins on the big block chain will be worth more.

I find it hilarious that they still think they can win by confusing people. Bitcoin was created to withstand propaganda campaigns.

[franky1]

If big blocks forked now with 85% of the "nodes" running Core, but 40% of the hash rate accepting bigger blocks, most nodes would end up syncing to the shrinking minority chain, and once they realized that, they would switch to a different client because the coins on the big block chain will be worth more.

I find it hilarious that they still think they can win by confusing people. Bitcoin was created to withstand propaganda campaigns.

those wanting "big blocks" and dynamics. dont want to split away and dont want to do anything without consensus.

its the likes of the blockstreamists screaming for anything not core to split away.
atleast read and research who is screaming what

bu/xt/classic/ and other implementations have just plodded along waiting for consensus.
gt your head out of the r/bitcoin, also known as the Foxnews mindset club

[very_452001]

Thanks for all the replies.

All this drama reading is interesting and makes bitcoin not boring.

As a bitcoin investor is it best to still hold the coins or sell the coins now and buy them back again once the drama has settled or after the hard/fork happens?

So if BU gets consensus instead of hardfork then that means bitcoin is doomed?

[European Central Bank]

look to litecoin's activation of segwit. i think there's a proxy war going on there right now.

unlimited have proven themselves to be disruptive assholes with little or no support. it forced most people in this space to state their position and it wasn't very flattering to unlimited.

they're still mining away but it's pretty flat.

So if BU gets consensus instead of hardfork then that means bitcoin is doomed?

if bu did get consensus then that means there's no more doom because everyone's on board. it'll never happen.

[Meuh6879]

BU ?
no problem ... segwit will win by the number (like usual with the constant revision of Bitcoin Core).





100 000 users of Bitcoin network, it's cool ...
we can touch the next P2P file sharing statistics of 330 000 users on KAD network.

[BillyBobZorton]

Well I think that for anyone's sanity it's better to simply not pay much attention to this subject anymore because there are better ways to spend your time. As of today we don't have any real reasons to worry about BUcoin, it has no support beyond Roger Ver and the couple of miners, everyone else in the space is pro segwit and anti BU. This must be resolved eventually, or else, we'll be stuck with the current bitcoin (which is better than BUcoin in any case)

[youdacapt]

Well I think that for anyone's sanity it's better to simply not pay much attention to this subject anymore because there are better ways to spend your time. As of today we don't have any real reasons to worry about BUcoin, it has no support beyond Roger Ver and the couple of miners, everyone else in the space is pro segwit and anti BU. This must be resolved eventually, or else, we'll be stuck with the current bitcoin (which is better than BUcoin in any case)

Issues of bitcoin unlimited will always come to surface when bitcoin get the big deal about the news of refusal, so far they have managed to reduce prices significantly, although in the end is always a myth, I think they are useful for traders who always seek to profit from the price difference. Bitcoin Unilimited will sound very loud when blocksize almost exhausted, and I am sure they will provide a very significant effect.

[cryptoanarchist]

It's getting deep in here with all the BS propaganda coming from AXA-funded Blockstream. Spoofed node-counts aside, the real numbers:

LAST 1000 BLOCKS :

Bitcoin Unlimited blocks: 381  ( 38.1% )             
Bitcoin Classic blocks: 2  ( 0.2% )             
SegWit blocks: 309  ( 30.9% )


When you say things like "BU is dead, everyone wants SegWit", anyone who can google can see you're lying.

[ebliever]

It's getting deep in here with all the BS propaganda coming from AXA-funded Blockstream. Spoofed node-counts aside, the real numbers:

LAST 1000 BLOCKS :

Bitcoin Unlimited blocks: 381  ( 38.1% )             
Bitcoin Classic blocks: 2  ( 0.2% )             
SegWit blocks: 309  ( 30.9% )


When you say things like "BU is dead, everyone wants SegWit", anyone who can google can see you're lying.

https://coin.dance/poli

Actually, anyone who can google can see that you can't tell the difference between the hashrate of a handful of miners and the majority consensus of scores of bitcoin organizations, and the hundreds of thousands of users and customers behind them.

[cryptoanarchist]

It's getting deep in here with all the BS propaganda coming from AXA-funded Blockstream. Spoofed node-counts aside, the real numbers:

LAST 1000 BLOCKS :

Bitcoin Unlimited blocks: 381  ( 38.1% )             
Bitcoin Classic blocks: 2  ( 0.2% )             
SegWit blocks: 309  ( 30.9% )


When you say things like "BU is dead, everyone wants SegWit", anyone who can google can see you're lying.

https://coin.dance/poli

Actually, anyone who can google can see that you can't tell the difference between the hashrate of a handful of miners and the majority consensus of scores of bitcoin organizations, and the hundreds of thousands of users and customers behind them.

That's meaningless. Businesses aren't going to decide what gets adopted - miners are. You can cry about that all you want but that is how bitcoin was created. If you don't understand PoW than go buy peercoin.

[sotoshihero]

Hope  it will not resurrected soon. It has little supporter and most of the community members here do not favor it. Only the big / greedy people wants it and want to control in my opinion. I am thankful it did not push through.

[AngryDwarf]

There is not enough consensus to attempt a clean fork of any kind, hard or soft. So for now it will stay as is.

Even gmax seems to consider UASF to be below the required standards expected of bitcoin.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1870015.0

Perhaps this is because a UASF without miner majority support could be a disaster.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1865966.0