Electrum Developer Thomas Voegtlin: Bitcoin Unlimited Is Not a Good Idea

[franky1]

bu has been running for years
segwit 6 months

False. BU (EC) has been running for 0 hours on any live network. BU as the implementation of the current consensus is primarily Bitcoin Core with some faulty patches on top. That has been running for a while now (and crashing).

LOL you need to go check
the crashes were due to a core bug.

also many nodes have limits of 1mb-8mb active right now.

much like core had the 1mb limit even when there was a 500kb issue that would have held things back at 500kb 2009-2013

EG are you saying that the cores 1mb limit was not active in 2009-2015 when blocks were only going upto 0.75mb

BU uses native keys (cells)
segwit wants to change the keys (mutated cells)

This makes no sense. If we were to go this deeply into analysis, we'd have to define each piece of the human body. You didn't understand my statement. It's the effect of cancer what I was referring to.

cancer=mutated cells, foreign cells that are rejected from the native body which need to be cut away from the main body to not cause harm..
sounds like segwit to me

[1714821773]

1714821773

[1714821773]

1714821773

[1714821773]

1714821773

[1714821773]

1714821773

[Hydrogen]

Bitcoin Unlimited is an attempt to centralize bitcoin.

Its not what Satoshi would have wanted & its not what is best for crypto or those who use it.

People think that if bitcoin has larger blocks, btc will be able to achieve thousands of transactions per second like credit cards.

That's not the way things work. Btc was never built for that function & it will never achieve a higher transaction rate no matter how big blocks are.

[franky1]

People think that if bitcoin has larger blocks, btc will be able to achieve thousands of transactions per second like credit cards.

your reading the reddit "gigabytes by midnight" old scripts..

dynamic concepts are not about visa by midnight. ..
but instead natural growth over time

[jonald_fyookball]

Bitcoin Unlimited is an attempt to centralize bitcoin.

Its not what Satoshi would have wanted & its not what is best for crypto or those who use it.

People think that if bitcoin has larger blocks, btc will be able to achieve thousands of transactions per second like credit cards.

That's not the way things work. Btc was never built for that function & it will never achieve a higher transaction rate no matter how big blocks are.

I guess you haven't read Satoshi very carefully.

You might enjoy this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1391350.0

[The One]

Bitcoin Unlimited is an attempt to centralize bitcoin.

Its not what Satoshi would have wanted & its not what is best for crypto or those who use it.

People think that if bitcoin has larger blocks, btc will be able to achieve thousands of transactions per second like credit cards.

That's not the way things work. Btc was never built for that function & it will never achieve a higher transaction rate no matter how big blocks are.

Anyone can replace that with "Bitcoin Core/Blockstream/LN is an attempt to centralize bitcoin."

Visualise Bitcoin as a circle supported by codes and protocols etc. Inside the circle are Users, Full Noders, Miners. This MUST be decentralise.

Outside the circle are Bitcoin related services such as exchanges, retailers, etc. Also developers, doesn't matter if all in one "organisation" or many "organisations" or individual. These are centralise by nature. Nothing anyone can do about it. They exist outside the circle. Those centralisers can only propose changes. It is the Users, Full Noders, Miners, inside the circle (decentralise) that has the final say.

[The One]

Bitcoin Unlimited is an attempt to centralize bitcoin.

Its not what Satoshi would have wanted & its not what is best for crypto or those who use it.

People think that if bitcoin has larger blocks, btc will be able to achieve thousands of transactions per second like credit cards.

That's not the way things work. Btc was never built for that function & it will never achieve a higher transaction rate no matter how big blocks are.

Did Bill Gates create Windows 7, 8, 10 straight away in the 1980s? Could he have done it then? - Nope. All software starts small and new ideas appear over time, new development over time, new technolgies over time. Over time we get better software.

Satoshi can't be expected, at the start to programme what BTC will be in 20 years time. He, like Bill gate, started small. Those who think about Visa, or 1 bn txs a day are getting ahead of themselves. It takes time. It may work, it may not.

[unamis76]

i wonder what Thomas thinks of Bip100.

I actually wonder what he thinks about SegWit:

“I don’t think [Bitcoin Unlimited] is a good idea,” Voegtlin said during the interview. “It’s really a big change;

Just look at the futures on bitfinex or whatever exchange did the BTC-C BTC-U tokens, BTC-U has been dumped already.

Which is expected of something that's based on thin air and doesn't have anything to do with Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies (and that probably had destabilization as one of its objectives).

[MingLee]

Bitcoin Unlimited is an attempt to centralize bitcoin.

Its not what Satoshi would have wanted & its not what is best for crypto or those who use it.

People think that if bitcoin has larger blocks, btc will be able to achieve thousands of transactions per second like credit cards.

That's not the way things work. Btc was never built for that function & it will never achieve a higher transaction rate no matter how big blocks are.

Did Bill Gates create Windows 7, 8, 10 straight away in the 1980s? Could he have done it then? - Nope. All software starts small and new ideas appear over time, new development over time, new technolgies over time. Over time we get better software.

Satoshi can't be expected, at the start to programme what BTC will be in 20 years time. He, like Bill gate, started small. Those who think about Visa, or 1 bn txs a day are getting ahead of themselves. It takes time. It may work, it may not.

I can never say this with 100% certainty but it does seem likely that Bitcoin was a project that was in semi-development for a while and then was ramped up after the 2008 collapse, or it was a concept which was rapidly developed following the collapse in 2008 and then released in 2009. There likely wasn't a ton of time to develop a ton of new systems like Segwit and they decided to release Bitcoin with the features it had at the time, offering an alternative to the regular system.
New technologies will always be something that are created, a single man only has so much creativity and time.

[franky1]

I can never say this with 100% certainty but it does seem likely that Bitcoin was a project that was in semi-development for a while and then was ramped up after the 2008 collapse, or it was a concept which was rapidly developed following the collapse in 2008 and then released in 2009. There likely wasn't a ton of time to develop a ton of new systems like Segwit and they decided to release Bitcoin with the features it had at the time, offering an alternative to the regular system.
New technologies will always be something that are created, a single man only has so much creativity and time.

segwit does fix/guarantee anything, the only thing you can expect it to do as a soft fork is create a tier network

[Lauda]

the crashes were due to a core bug.

That is yet another outright lie. The bug was introduced by the BTU team.

also many nodes have limits of 1mb-8mb active right now.

much like core had the 1mb limit even when there was a 500kb issue that would have held things back at 500kb 2009-2013

EG are you saying that the cores 1mb limit was not active in 2009-2015 when blocks were only going upto 0.75mb

EC and the standard block size limit are two entirely different things. EC is untested, period.

cancer=mutated cells, foreign cells that are rejected from the native body which need to be cut away from the main body to not cause harm..
sounds like segwit to me

Still wrong. What I was referring to is that BTU would destroy the network from within like a disease (in this case cancer).

[franky1]

the crashes were due to a core bug.

That is yet another outright lie. The bug was introduced by the BTU team.

the assert bug was part of core v0.12 in 2016

have a nice day

[anonymoustroll420]

the assert bug was part of core v0.12 in 2016

have a nice day

The assert bug was in "xthin", BU's block propagation system. That doesn't exist in Core.

http://blog.erratasec.com/2017/03/assert-in-hands-of-bad-coders.html

[franky1]

EC and the standard block size limit are two entirely different things. EC is untested, period.

lol try telling core how the 1mb was tested in 2012 when blocks could not surpass 500kb

if your saying EC is not tested.. then 1mb was not tested for 6 years

[franky1]

The assert bug was in "xthin", BU's block propagation system. That doesn't exist in Core.

http://blog.erratasec.com/2017/03/assert-in-hands-of-bad-coders.html

there were many assert bugs..
hense why core were real quick to advertise ways to attack it. because they knew of the issues in 2016 because of the issues within core

https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/43373/bitcoin-core-error-message-assertion-failed

google found thousands of results
"bitcoin core assertion failed"

[anonymoustroll420]

there were many assert bugs..
hense why core were real quick to advertise ways to attack it. because they knew of the issues in 2016

There were 2 assert bugs (actually there were WAY more than that as seen in the article I linked, but only 2 were 'exploited'). The other bug was 6 lines below the xthin bug. Neither of them affected Core....

Show me the proof the issue existed in Core
Show me where Core patched the issue

[Lauda]

lol try telling core how the 1mb was tested in 2012 when blocks could not surpass 500kb

if your saying EC is not tested.. then 1mb was not tested for 6 years

Emergent consensus has nothing to do with the standard block size limit of 1 MB. The former can and will lead to many chain organizations (or possibly even network splits).

There were 2 assert bugs (actually there were WAY more than that as seen in the article I linked, but only 2 were 'exploited'). The other bug was 6 lines below the xthin bug. Neither of them affected Core....

I don't see >90% of the Core nodes being taken down within the same day. Therefore, this is just another example of the dishonesty of the franky1 troll.

[franky1]

I don't see >90% of the Core nodes being taken down within the same day. Therefore, this is just another example of the dishonesty of the franky1 troll.

because core didnt advertise how to attack their own..

but did advertise how to attack others.

major difference

[anonymoustroll420]

I don't see >90% of the Core nodes being taken down within the same day. Therefore, this is just another example of the dishonesty of the franky1 troll.

because core didnt advertise how to attack their own..

but did advertise how to attack others.

major difference

Where did Core patch it then? or is it still vulnerable?

[franky1]

I don't see >90% of the Core nodes being taken down within the same day. Therefore, this is just another example of the dishonesty of the franky1 troll.

because core didnt advertise how to attack their own..

but did advertise how to attack others.

major difference

Where did Core patch it then? or is it still vulnerable?

core ammended a few of them in 0.13 but didnt think to edit 0.12 with a patch.
core just release a new version but dont patch old versions. leaving older version vulnerable

[ImHash]

You guys need to stop double/ triple posting.
What made someone to fork Core and create BU in 2015? back then there was no SW and as we can see in these 2 years Core managed to hold the entire network together.
I want the reason for BU in 2015 what was the reason? if answer is banks were trying to buy Core team then that's just another lie.