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

[BillyBobZorton]

We all know BTU will result in an altcoin that vanishes overtime just like ETC did. It will be a way to make some free money while it lasts. Just look at the futures on bitfinex or whatever exchange did the BTC-C BTC-U tokens, BTC-U has been dumped already. Market will not trust amateurs with their money, and most big players have already rejected BU. Nobody is talking about anymore except the usual suspects.

[Juggy777]

“I don’t think [Bitcoin Unlimited] is a good idea,” Voegtlin said during the interview. “It’s really a big change; it’s a change in the structure of power in Bitcoin. It’s a very risky hard fork.” He went on to suggest that since the recent AsicBoost scandal, “a lot of people have changed their mind on this” and no longer support Bitcoin Unlimited.

The interview can be found here: https://epicenter.tv/episode/179/
The article: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/electrum-developer-thomas-voegtlin-bitcoin-unlimited-not-good-idea/

Well well finally someone speaks something sensible, there have been so many of us saying that we do not need hard folk and keep Bitcoins as it is but so many of us were ridiculed that it was right and good for Bitcoins and this article once again proves we were right. Hopefully the hard folk shall never ever take place. And this shall help people to finally take a stand.

[franky1]

We all know BTU will result in an altcoin that vanishes overtime just like ETC did. It will be a way to make some free money while it lasts. Just look at the futures on bitfinex or whatever exchange did the BTC-C BTC-U tokens, BTC-U has been dumped already. Market will not trust amateurs with their money, and most big players have already rejected BU. Nobody is talking about anymore except the usual suspects.

the ethereum event was an intentional split..
those wanting a peer network which is what bu wants too. dont want an intentional split.

however if BU gets the threshold to activate consensually, .. core will not join the peer network of consensus majority.. and core will be the one with the banning of communications on their minority by initiating their own split to form their own altcoin

its already been begged and pleaded by the core group that other implementations should split away. and they all refused.. its core that are the ones that want the split..

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

I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

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

but they want it to happen before consensus is reached so that they are not left with a small minority. this is why core have made so many threats and why implementations that are not core have just plodded along letting the community decide

[mindrust]

We all know BTU will result in an altcoin that vanishes overtime just like ETC did. It will be a way to make some free money while it lasts. Just look at the futures on bitfinex or whatever exchange did the BTC-C BTC-U tokens, BTC-U has been dumped already. Market will not trust amateurs with their money, and most big players have already rejected BU. Nobody is talking about anymore except the usual suspects.

Actually i am starting to think this whole block size debate is being made up artificially by Ver&WU to suppress the bitcoin prices and get cheap bitcoins from us.

Because a hard fork doesn't make sense in the first place, as you said, it will end up like another scam coin.

If their product was so good, and if they lost hope on bitcoin; nobody's stopping them to dump their coins away and start their own. They can't dump their coins because they love bitcoin so much <3  

They know nobody will give a fuck about their scam coin so they are spreading FUD to get cheap coins. There isn't any other explanation to these recent stuff going on.

[franky1]

We all know BTU will result in an altcoin that vanishes overtime just like ETC did. It will be a way to make some free money while it lasts. Just look at the futures on bitfinex or whatever exchange did the BTC-C BTC-U tokens, BTC-U has been dumped already. Market will not trust amateurs with their money, and most big players have already rejected BU. Nobody is talking about anymore except the usual suspects.

Actually i am starting to think this whole block size debate is being made up artificially by Ver&WU to suppress the bitcoin prices and get cheap bitcoins from us.

Because a hard fork doesn't make sense in the first place, as you said, it will end up like another scam coin.

If their product was so good, and if they lost hope on bitcoin; nobody's stopping them to dump their coins away and start their own. They can't dump their coins because they love bitcoin so much <3  

They know nobody will give a fuck about their scam coin so they are spreading FUD to get cheap coins. There isn't any other explanation to these recent stuff going on.

you got it the whole wrong way round
anything thats not core want consensus diverserse peer network of everyone on the same level playing field.. not an altcoin
core want a TIER network of control and then everything blindly following their dictation

look at core begging for them to make an altcoin to go get REKT, to BUgger off, to fork off..

its core code that is pushing up fee's and causing the drama. its core code with all the ban node rules and the PoW killing code.

atleast stop reading reddit and you will start to see passed the scripted narative.

[Sundark]

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.

It was only a matter of time before advanced blockchain explorers and trackers will evolve to pinpoint exactly who is in control of specific address and who send money to whom.
AFAIK unless your gateway point is not compromised i.e. address is not linked to your real identity what does that change? This is what you will get when you deal with fully transparent ledger.

[The One]

“I don’t think [Bitcoin Unlimited] is a good idea,” Voegtlin said during the interview. “It’s really a big change; it’s a change in the structure of power in Bitcoin. It’s a very risky hard fork.” He went on to suggest that since the recent AsicBoost scandal, “a lot of people have changed their mind on this” and no longer support Bitcoin Unlimited.

The interview can be found here: https://epicenter.tv/episode/179/
The article: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/electrum-developer-thomas-voegtlin-bitcoin-unlimited-not-good-idea/

I would like to agree with what the Electrum Developer Thomas Voegtlin said that bitcoin unlimited is not a good idea since if we really look at the hardfork it has many bugs and it not feasible for bitcoin at this moment. But later in time if bitcoin is ready for a hardfork then maybe that will be the time that bitcoin unlimited will come into the picture.

“I don’t think [Bitcoin Unlimited] is a good idea,” Voegtlin said - he never said he as 100% sure. "I don't think" implies one isn't 100% sure but somewhat on the fence so to speak.

[Yakamoto]

“I don’t think [Bitcoin Unlimited] is a good idea,” Voegtlin said during the interview. “It’s really a big change; it’s a change in the structure of power in Bitcoin. It’s a very risky hard fork.” He went on to suggest that since the recent AsicBoost scandal, “a lot of people have changed their mind on this” and no longer support Bitcoin Unlimited.

The interview can be found here: https://epicenter.tv/episode/179/
The article: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/electrum-developer-thomas-voegtlin-bitcoin-unlimited-not-good-idea/

I would like to agree with what the Electrum Developer Thomas Voegtlin said that bitcoin unlimited is not a good idea since if we really look at the hardfork it has many bugs and it not feasible for bitcoin at this moment. But later in time if bitcoin is ready for a hardfork then maybe that will be the time that bitcoin unlimited will come into the picture.

“I don’t think [Bitcoin Unlimited] is a good idea,” Voegtlin said - he never said he as 100% sure. "I don't think" implies one isn't 100% sure but somewhat on the fence so to speak.

It means that he's leaning towards it being a bad thing, and chances are a guy like this knows what it is and has done his research, so he's going to have an opinion formed. If he said "I'm not sure if it's a good idea", that would be way more indicative of him being on the fence. I would want to hear how he said "I don't think [etc]" because tones mean a lot more than just text. If he's really unconfident in it, he can make it easily known.

[Lauda]

you need to look passed the reddit stories

My statement has nothing to do with Reddit.

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

Another irrelevant straw man attempt.

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

Where exactly can one find this SWHF proposal?

“I don’t think [Bitcoin Unlimited] is a good idea,” Voegtlin said - he never said he as 100% sure. "I don't think" implies one isn't 100% sure but somewhat on the fence so to speak.

The reason for this exact usage of language is because he wants to avoid getting trolled and attacked by r/btc fanatics.

[franky1]

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

Where exactly can one find this SWHF proposal?

well you wont find it then the core censor cabin..
time for you to look beyond core and do some research.

prove you can do research without being spoonfed.

ill give you time and then maybe ill help you. but i hope you can actually do the search yourself without insults and without replying with empty comments.

start researching. show your research abilities and not your insult replying ability. if you can find it without being spoonfed then you will gain some rep.
P.S it does exist, its not a trick

[Lauda]

well you wont find it then the core censor cabin..
time for you to look beyond core and do some research.

Cut the bullshit. Nobody has mentioned Core nor is there any kind of censorship.

start researching. show your research abilities and not your insult replying ability. if you can find it without being spoonfed then you will gain some rep.
P.S it does exist, its not a trick

If you fail to provide an academic link (this does not include BTU troll social channels), then you are a complete, and time-wasting troll. I have no intentions of wasting my time doing your work for you.
The conclusion of this thread, which you fail to admit considering you're a paid, is that BTU is to the Bitcoin network what cancer is to the human body.

[franky1]

The conclusion of this thread, which you fail to admit considering you're a paid, is that BTU is to the Bitcoin network what cancer is to the human body.

bu has been running for years
segwit 6 months

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

segwit changes the design of blocks and needs to cut off the cancer just so it wont be rejected by the native "body"

core have the body killing code

[The One]

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

Value is subjective. No one can say it will decrease the price 100%.

The scenarios can be played out like this. Example.
A - 95% of the miners support increasing 21m coins to 30m coins. 95% of the users reject it. Users keep their money in BTC and very little goes into AltBTC. Users fire up their mining equipment and the miners mine a worthless low value coin that very few will buy. Miners will realise the errors of their ways and stop mining AltBTC and support BTC.
B - 95% of the miners support increasing 21m coins to 30m coins. 95% of the users support it. BTC will now mine 30m coins. Crazy it may be but what can the 5% do? Dump their coins?
C - 95% of the miners reject 21m coins to 30m coins. 95% of the users support it. Users keep their money in BTC and very little goes into AltBTC. Users fire up their mining equipment and the miners mine a worthless low value coin that very little will buy. Miners will realise the errors of their ways and stop mining AltBTC and support BTC. One then realise the users do have power over their money and that what create value.

The idea that 95% of the users want to increase the coins from 21m to 30m won't happen because it will devalue their BTC, and users are not that stupid, so don't worry.

Now there is division over BU and Core. Both have made grievous errors. Both are proposing so many changes at once. This is a fundamental mistake.

Core - Segwit, LN
BU - dynamic block (EC), flextrans, sidechain.

Person -
A - Core
B - BU
C - segwit and sidechain
D - segwit and not LN
E - Flextrans and LN
F - Flextrans and sidechain
G - Flextrans and dynamic block but not sidechain
and so on. There too many combination of choices and thus many divisions. Therein lies the grievous errors.

I and many others (perhaps over 80%) support bigger block. Easy to raise 1mb to 2mb. Miners support 2mb in the Hong Kong agreement. Albeit with Segwit. Now that half the miners don't support segwit, common sense dictate that the only proposal on the table that will work is -

Z - raise blocksize to 2mb. See B above and it will becomes this -

B - 95% of the miners support increasing 1mb to 2mb. 95% of the users support it. BTC will now have 2mb limit. Everyone is now happy and the objectors will be happy when the value of BTC goes higher.

This could have be done last year or even 2 years ago. None of us would be here debating.

The moral of the story is that when dealing with $billions, one change at a time.

[The One]

We all know BTU will result in an altcoin that vanishes overtime just like ETC did. It will be a way to make some free money while it lasts. Just look at the futures on bitfinex or whatever exchange did the BTC-C BTC-U tokens, BTC-U has been dumped already. Market will not trust amateurs with their money, and most big players have already rejected BU. Nobody is talking about anymore except the usual suspects.

Actually i am starting to think this whole block size debate is being made up artificially by Ver&WU to suppress the bitcoin prices and get cheap bitcoins from us.

Because a hard fork doesn't make sense in the first place, as you said, it will end up like another scam coin.

If their product was so good, and if they lost hope on bitcoin; nobody's stopping them to dump their coins away and start their own. They can't dump their coins because they love bitcoin so much <3  

They know nobody will give a fuck about their scam coin so they are spreading FUD to get cheap coins. There isn't any other explanation to these recent stuff going on.

That can only happen if you sell your BTC. If no one sells their BTC cheaply then there is nothing cheap for Ver and Wu to buy.

[franky1]

you should check out blockstreams LN code

at code level bitcoin protocol measure people holdings in satoshi's. where there are 2.1 quadrillion units of measure.

LN wants 1000x more units of measure (millisats)

cap was 2,100,000,000,000,000
LN want 2,100,000,000,000,000,000

have a nice day

[The One]

“I don’t think [Bitcoin Unlimited] is a good idea,” Voegtlin said - he never said he as 100% sure. "I don't think" implies one isn't 100% sure but somewhat on the fence so to speak.

The reason for this exact usage of language is because he wants to avoid getting trolled and attacked by r/btc fanatics.

And you know this how? Because he told you or you are making an assumption.

[Lauda]

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).

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.

And you know this how? Because he told you or you are making an assumption.

If I told you that he told me, would you believe me? It's safer to say I made a plausible assumption based on months of observation.

[The One]

you should check out blockstreams LN code

at code level bitcoin protocol measure people holdings in satoshi's. where there are 2.1 quadrillion units of measure.

LN wants 1000x more units of measure (millisats)

cap was 2,100,000,000,000,000
LN want 2,100,000,000,000,000,000

have a nice day

That is news to me. Evidence please. If you have seen the code then please provide the link/codes whatever.

[The One]

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).

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.

And you know this how? Because he told you or you are making an assumption.

If I told you that he told me, would you believe me? It's safer to say I made a plausible assumption based on months of observation.

If you have evidence, yes. If not, then i will simply "bear it in mind." I don't reject what people say automatically unless what they said is 100% wrong.

[dinofelis]

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.

It was only a matter of time before advanced blockchain explorers and trackers will evolve to pinpoint exactly who is in control of specific address and who send money to whom.
AFAIK unless your gateway point is not compromised i.e. address is not linked to your real identity what does that change? This is what you will get when you deal with fully transparent ledger.

It is always linked to a real identity when doing a deal (trading on an exchange, buying physical goods, ... ).  The problem with transparent ledgers is that this information propagates from transaction to transaction.  On an obfuscated ledger such as monero or ZEC, the knowledge that you bought coffee and got a change so the coffee shop owner knows who you are (the one buying coffee) and to whom belongs the change address, is not linked to how you use that change (say, for buying some pornography).  On a public ledger, that is traceable.