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

[franky1]

https://github.com/UASF/bitcoin
The only ironic thing here is that the UASF implementation is already much more advanced than BU is. BU is based on outdated Bitcoin Core code (0.12.x).

lol try reading the code and documentation
plus you are obsessed with the reddit bu vs.. debate. there are MANY dynamic block implementations.

i know your finally realising something i have said months ago. but things have moved on since.
but to address your issues with BU because you brought it up..

unlike it taking months to get core to update their issues when core moved from 0.12-0.13..
bu patched cores 0.12 issues in a quicker time. its just that segwit as a SF 2 merkle half gesture is a cesspit creating network so bu havnt just thrown in the 2 merkle segwit half baked code.

In other words, SWHF does not imply a 4 MB block size limit (as opposed to the SWSF 1 MB base && 4 MB weight). It retains the same 1-to-4 ratio that the soft fork variant has.

and thats a failure of using an opportunity to do a proper peer network upgrade..

maybe if you read code and documentation and the terms like hardfork consensus.. you would see that a peer network of a 1 merkle block where everyone is on the same level is possible due to everyone needing to upgrade

[1714847534]

1714847534

[1714847534]

1714847534

[1714847534]

1714847534

[1714847534]

1714847534

[1714847534]

1714847534

[dinofelis]

In other words, your idea is complete bullshit and has nothing to do with how actual cryptocurrencies work in practice (maybe you need to read a whitepaper or two). Then again, you're being paid for this kind of nonsense so it doesn't come as a surprise.

Of course I'm not paid for analysing the dynamics of crypto (*).  I'm open to discuss arguments with you (although you have forbidden me to post in any of your threads, and when you cannot have any arguments, you censor: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1879835.0 remember).

What people write in white papers, is not necessary a correct analysis of the dynamics of the system they set up.  Satoshi was, for instance, quite wrong in his public writings about bitcoin's dynamics.

You are right that most crypto currencies are highly centralized systems, at least on the protocol side: if only one group decides on the protocol (usually the original publishers of the white paper laying out the protocol, which are very often also the developers of a piece of software that implements that protocol), then by definition, the protocol is a centrally issued and steered thing.    It is only when nobody in the world is defining any protocol after it came out, and if there are many totally independent software implementations of said protocol, that one can pretend that the system is, on the protocol side, decentralized.  Bitcoin was first totally centralized in Satoshi's hands, and this centralization is still a lot the case in the hands of Core ; but it got lastly some modest counter wind from another part of the eco system, which are the miners.

As usual, in the battle between a centralized force (here core) and a distributed entity (the users and miners), the central entity wins, because it can play much more divide and conquer.  But what wasn't foreseen, was that another part of the ecosystem got sufficiently centralized, the miners, for them to defend their interest.  When core started to annoy them with LN and Segwit, these two "empires" fought their battle.  The funny thing is that this has, as a side effect, a better form of decentralisation, than decentralized users and miners on one side, and a powerful central control (core) on the other.  As such, bitcoin starts, ironically, to show some decentralized properties, of which immutability is the main sign.

In a truly decentralized system of non-colluding antagonists, the protocol is perfectly immutable on every economical aspect, because the slightest change to one of these aspects is in the disadvantage of sufficient of the players, that they will oppose it, and the antagonists are sufficiently non-colluding that they cannot propose anything coherent.

(*) ... but you give me an idea: if anyone wants actually to PAY me for me continuing to post, please send some funds to

LRcK7eiVzyTEG8s4scRKMvxdAm4kCpfUVu

(a LTC address, as BTC will soon be too expensive I guess ).

[franky1]

(*) ... but you give me an idea: if anyone wants actually to PAY me for me continuing to post, please send some funds to

LRcK7eiVzyTEG8s4scRKMvxdAm4kCpfUVu

(a LTC address, as BTC will soon be too expensive I guess ).

ages ago i was going to jokingly put up a post where people pay me to shutup about my open opinions that i have.
(secretly donating funds to seans outpost cos i dont need handouts)

[mmo4me.2016]

I don''t like Bitcoin Unlimited In any form, Only BTC and other coin! May be!

[xuan87]

I don't like bitcoin unlimited, it will decrease the price and make it become less valuable, and by making bitcoin to hardfork it will risk all of the investor to go away, this can lead to bitcoin domination to end and cause a lot of investor to lost their money, bitcoin should never being hardfork to maintain the investor trust level

[franky1]

I don't like bitcoin unlimited, it will decrease the price and make it become less valuable, and by making bitcoin to hardfork it will risk all of the investor to go away, this can lead to bitcoin domination to end and cause a lot of investor to lost their money, bitcoin should never being hardfork to maintain the investor trust level

hard fork does not mean automatically making an altcoin

even going soft can result in an altcoin



learn high consensus(unity with no split , just minority nodes that cant sync(orphan drama))
learn controversial consensus(orphan drama with eventual with no split , just higher minority nodes that cant sync( higher orphan drama))
bilateral split. (intentionally having nodes not communicate to avoid consensus/orphaning mechanism (altcoin maker))

^ those scenarios can happen soft or hard

stop reading the reddit scripts
al you have seemed to have read is the narative of soft best case and hard worse case but not researched the whole picture or run all scenarios

[jonald_fyookball]

i wonder what Thomas thinks of Bip100.

[AngryDwarf]

i wonder what Thomas thinks of Bip100.

What BIP100?

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips

[jonald_fyookball]

i wonder what Thomas thinks of Bip100.

What BIP100?

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips

wow..hmm i guess the bip process is censored too much?

https://github.com/jgarzik/bip100/blob/master/bip-0100.mediawiki

[franky1]

i wonder what Thomas thinks of Bip100.

What BIP100?

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips

wow..hmm i guess the bip process is censored too much?

https://github.com/jgarzik/bip100/blob/master/bip-0100.mediawiki

yep censored

[AngryDwarf]

i wonder what Thomas thinks of Bip100.

What BIP100?

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips

wow..hmm i guess the bip process is censored too much?

https://github.com/jgarzik/bip100/blob/master/bip-0100.mediawiki

yep censored

I challenge every miner to put WHAT?BIP100 in their coinbase string.

[Sundark]

Everyone knows that. Even those Chinese lunatics know that BU will only destroy the whole system. But sadly, they still ignore it and try to activate it as soon as they can. They always want to control Bitcoin

Chinese lunatics want it because it will provide them more money. SegWit will eliminate a ASICBoost, this is the only reason main Chinese pools live in self-delusion.

Op, said that Bitcoin Unlimited is no loger supported and people are facing away from it. So why do we see more than 40% support for BU?
As long as I am not mistaken it is the highest hash support BU received, ever.

[jonald_fyookball]

Everyone knows that. Even those Chinese lunatics know that BU will only destroy the whole system. But sadly, they still ignore it and try to activate it as soon as they can. They always want to control Bitcoin

Chinese lunatics want it because it will provide them more money. SegWit will eliminate a ASICBoost, this is the only reason main Chinese pools live in self-delusion.

Op, said that Bitcoin Unlimited is no loger supported and people are facing away from it. So why do we see more than 40% support for BU?
As long as I am not mistaken it is the highest hash support BU received, ever.

Big block support (BU + bip 100 + 8mblocks) is now at 56.9% for the last 144 blocks.

www.coin.dance

[Lauda]

In other words, SWHF does not imply a 4 MB block size limit (as opposed to the SWSF 1 MB base && 4 MB weight). It retains the same 1-to-4 ratio that the soft fork variant has.

and thats a failure of using an opportunity to do a proper peer network upgrade..

maybe if you read code and documentation and the terms like hardfork consensus.. you would see that a peer network of a 1 merkle block where everyone is on the same level is possible due to everyone needing to upgrade

Another straw man argument. This is how you deflect the actual argument instead of admitting that you were lying about the differentiation between SWSF and SWHF. Classic shilling.

-snip-

I'm now entirely convinced of my previous assessment of you. You show zero signs of reading any kind of research on blockchain consensus. Maybe start at Princeton.

i wonder what Thomas thinks of Bip100.

Wait, so you're trying to imply that BU is essentially dead. Now we are going back to BIP100?

[franky1]

In other words, SWHF does not imply a 4 MB block size limit (as opposed to the SWSF 1 MB base && 4 MB weight). It retains the same 1-to-4 ratio that the soft fork variant has.

and thats a failure of using an opportunity to do a proper peer network upgrade..

maybe if you read code and documentation and the terms like hardfork consensus.. you would see that a peer network of a 1 merkle block where everyone is on the same level is possible due to everyone needing to upgrade

Another straw man argument. This is how you deflect the actual argument instead of admitting that you were lying about the differentiation between SWSF and SWHF. Classic shilling.

you need to look passed the reddit stories

there are more than 2 implementations..
look at bitcoin as a whole. not the reddit stories of narrow minded rhetoric.

then you will see that SWHF has been proposed as a single dynamic block (1 merkle) with features like segwit and dynamics and lowtxsigop count and other things ontop. all in one go. not the tier network your reddit rhetoric want

[dinofelis]

(*) ... but you give me an idea: if anyone wants actually to PAY me for me continuing to post, please send some funds to

LRcK7eiVzyTEG8s4scRKMvxdAm4kCpfUVu

(a LTC address, as BTC will soon be too expensive I guess ).

ages ago i was going to jokingly put up a post where people pay me to shutup about my open opinions that i have.
(secretly donating funds to seans outpost cos i dont need handouts)

Ah, OK, I didn't think of that.  But I like posting here, so in order for me to shut up, the amount needs to be significant
(and it is open to me doing a Sybil attack, and posting from a new account ).  Nope, after all, my free speech is (almost) priceless.

[AngryDwarf]

(*) ... but you give me an idea: if anyone wants actually to PAY me for me continuing to post, please send some funds to

LRcK7eiVzyTEG8s4scRKMvxdAm4kCpfUVu

(a LTC address, as BTC will soon be too expensive I guess ).

ages ago i was going to jokingly put up a post where people pay me to shutup about my open opinions that i have.
(secretly donating funds to seans outpost cos i dont need handouts)

Ah, OK, I didn't think of that.  But I like posting here, so in order for me to shut up, the amount needs to be significant
(and it is open to me doing a Sybil attack, and posting from a new account ).  Nope, after all, my free speech is (almost) priceless.

Your opinion has been unconfirmed for so long, it has been dropped from the free speech pool.

[dinofelis]

I don't like bitcoin unlimited, it will decrease the price and make it become less valuable, and by making bitcoin to hardfork it will risk all of the investor to go away, this can lead to bitcoin domination to end and cause a lot of investor to lost their money, bitcoin should never being hardfork to maintain the investor trust level

I would actually think that all that is a good idea. You see, what attracted me to bitcoin when I learned about it, was its anarchist character.  Money that can be used in an uncensored way to *pay for things and services that states don't want you to, or steal heavily from* was to me, a great idea.  My problem is NOT with banks.  My problem is with the subjugation of banks to the law.  I'm against state and law, at least in the form it is in most "democratic" countries.  I want my economic freedom back, which is to be able to exchange value with an agreeing counterparty, without anyone obstructing, or putting his nose in.   Until not so long ago, normal banks made this possible.  It is only after 2001, that terrorism was used as an excuse by states to crack down on banks, and turn them into state agents, having to spy on their customers, and restricting what their customers can do with their money.  And I thought that bitcoin was going to do, what banks were stopped from doing.

But bitcoin turned into half a nightmare.  When I realized the traceability of bitcoin, and its privacy nightmare, it is far worse than fiat money.  So I now only consider anonymous crypto as something that makes sense.  Bitcoin was intended to be pseudonymous, but chain analysis has broken that privacy.

The other thing why bitcoin is half a night mare, is that its market cap is essentially sustained by greater-fool speculation, and hoarding, and that the "money on the internet" has only a very tiny part of its market cap coming from the demand to actually buy stuff on the internet ; most of it is speculative HODLing.

I set out to try to find out why.  So I studied the thing.  I'm now convinced that bitcoin is a very problematic system, and is an obstacle to progress for crypto-anarchy.  It became too big, it has attracted too much attention from finance, law enforcement and all that, while not even being a very much used currency and it has become a huge greater-fool bubble that has now a "community" of greedy speculators, instead of people that wanted an underground money hidden from state, taxes, and law enforcement.  Hell, to protect their gamblings, sorry, investors, they want bitcoin now to be "regulated".  I think I understood the "flaws" in bitcoin's design that rendered it useless and even counter productive for a crypto anarchist.  Of course, one can say that it was designed ON PURPOSE to become what it is, a rich-man's speculator tool pumping money from greater fools into their fortunes, and allowing them to conduct their sleazy business.  I don't know if that was the idea, and if we have been lied to from the start, or whether it is simply bad design.  My guess is the latter.

My hope, but also my expectation, is that its design flaws will sooner or later lead to its demise, to make room for better.  However, when I see the scammy stuff that is waiting in row (ETH, DASH, RIPPLE...) to overtake its role, I think crypto currencies have screwed up too much for this to become useful for underground economy in any near future, and that a lot of damage has been done to the possibilities of setting up such a system now.

[dinofelis]

Your opinion has been unconfirmed for so long, it has been dropped from the free speech pool.

 

I wouldn't say so.  My opinion that bitcoin's economic parameters (number of coins, emission scheme, and now also block size because the scarcity feeding the fee market) are immutable is empirically confirmed since 2013, and even since 2010, when the first attempts at changing it started, and especially since 2015 when the heated debate started.

[AngryDwarf]

Your opinion has been unconfirmed for so long, it has been dropped from the free speech pool.

 

I wouldn't say so.  My opinion that bitcoin's economic parameters (number of coins, emission scheme, and now also block size because the scarcity feeding the fee market) are immutable is empirically confirmed since 2013, and even since 2010, when the first attempts at changing it started, and especially since 2015 when the heated debate started.

For your thoughts to be confirmed they must match the right criteria:

meet the bug-for-bug compatibility required by Bitcoin's consensus protocol.