Yep.. BU absolutely definitely possibly maybe ready for prime time..

[AngryDwarf]

fail to mention another bug.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/labels/Bug

Can't believe this issue is still open:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/651

[1715112333]

1715112333

[mimini0147]

This just goes to show that we should not rush into options such as BU and segwit.

Just imagine what would happen if we rushed to implement bitcoin unlimited and this happened, the price would drop significantly. Hopefully we will see a permanent fix for this in the future because this is the third instance of this happening. The numbers should be back up soon but the coders need to fix whatever bug is causing this, It's the third or fourth time that I've seen this since February.

[franky1]

This just goes to show that we should not rush into options such as BU and segwit.

Just imagine what would happen if we rushed to implement bitcoin unlimited and this happened, the price would drop significantly. Hopefully we will see a permanent fix for this in the future because this is the third instance of this happening. The numbers should be back up soon but the coders need to fix whatever bug is causing this, It's the third or fourth time that I've seen this since February.

the issue is not about segwit vs BU

the big picture is peer network vs tier network
(because segwit 'features' are empty gestures... the only long term network wide effect of segwit is the tier network)
then below that

dynamic blocks less reliant on dev control vs segwit reliant on dev control

there are MANY implementations out there, not 2. but the reddit crowd are only mentioning 2 because they want to make it sound like an election for who controls bitcoin. by making people think there are only 2 options to choose from.

the reality should be to realise that there are a dozen different implementations at the moment. and where the diversity allows a proper independent choice of brand. where by the rules upgrade only when the majority of the community can find something they can all agree on.

and to keep our mind open to a diverse decentralised peer network, rather then a dependant tier network. this prevents any brand from doing a half assed gesture of temporary drama of features that wont actually meet expectations

if your first thought is to attack anything thats not core. then its time to stand back and ask yourself are you defending the code or the devs.
in short.. if all the lines of code were the same. would your stance change if say hearne wrote segwit

bitcoin is code. if you prefer to only care about the devs that can come or go.. rather then what could happen to bitcoin in the next 120 years, then stand back and spend a few minutes thinking about things

[Hydrogen]

I don't understand how anyone can support BU.

If you owned 100 BTC, would you want to put that in the hands of people who can't solve basic technical issues?

Not seeing how that's a good idea.

 

[mackenzied]

I do not believe BU will actually show up, because most people refuse it, it can not grow if it is not interested.

[Snorek]

Well I never supported it anyway do it serves them right. They've been decisively dealt with and I hope no one will try to plagiarize Bitcoin in the future.

Bitcoin's source code is no protected by any patent as I am aware it was copied and used hundreds of times, if not thousands by various altcoins.
What you are probably trying to say is that you don't want current bitcoin network to be torn apart and split, by 2 different version of scaling solution.
Bitcoin Unlimited was never popular among users node-wise anyway, always backed by just ~10% of node providers.

[-ck]

This just goes to show that we should not rush into options such as BU and segwit.

Lumping BU and segwit together in that same sentence is a terrible mistake. Segwit has 100x more coders that worked and tested it, and it has been LIVE on testnet for a very long time now, having received 1000s of times more testing than BU has. There is no "rush" with segwit. It was developed slowly and meticulously, and has been audited and tested by many very capable coders. The same can NOT be said about BU.

[theymos_away]

and why the only brand that has not crash from 2013 is Bitcoin core

Core didn't crash in 2013. The bug that franky1 keeps talking about was a failure to maintain perfect consensus, leading to an accidental split in the network/currency. It's ironic that franky1 complains about this in particular, since accepting a diversity of consensus rules as he often endorses would by its very nature result in similar splits all the time. The kind of split that was treated as an emergency by the Core devs - one of Bitcoin's biggest failures - is seen as nothing to worry about by many "emergent consensus" advocates.

Core has never been successfully brought down like this, and to my knowledge the last bug that could theoretically have caused comparable effects was fixed by Satoshi.

[crazyivan]

Well I never supported it anyway do it serves them right. They've been decisively dealt with and I hope no one will try to plagiarize Bitcoin in the future.

+1

My thought exactly. Having so many issues recently makes me thing only people who expect direct financial benefits from it can still support it.

[terrate]

Software bug is a big issue of them.
I hate they say BU good BU good, then they not get the things well.
It might hacked by hacker easily if problem not got well clear.

[lottery248]

that's why the bitcoin core is the only valid client/node in the bitcoin network.
let's get the things straight: bitcoin's protocol is not to be destroyed by any method, else the itself wouldn't be called 'bitcoin'.

[Searing]

that's why the bitcoin core is the only valid client/node in the bitcoin network.
let's get the things straight: bitcoin's protocol is not to be destroyed by any method, else the itself wouldn't be called 'bitcoin'.

If all this was BU and core and such was not about power and money..they'd just make the same arrangement as what litecoin
did to make an agreement (of any kind) but both sides want it all...thus ...LTC is now eating their open source code 'lunch' as it were
and pumping as a result. Maybe 4x spike in price in LTC after this has the BTC devs of any flavor (and miners) re-thinking positions

[spartacusrex]

Hmm..

Franky1 - We ALL want multiple implementations of the same protocol. I agree. Healthy.

We don't want multiple competing protocols. That would be madness.

------------

What I find very hard to swallow.. is that BU does not fork the VERY LATEST STABLE VERSION OF CORE.. and then add the ~100 lines of code that change it into BU.. Then patches can still be added to both, etc etc etc..

It's really that simple, and the fact that they don't do that.. is what upsets me.. and makes me think they are morons. I can't condone the Bitcoin network being run by morons. That's going to end in disaster.

[franky1]

Hmm..

Franky1 - We ALL want multiple implementations of the same protocol. I agree. Healthy.

We don't want multiple competing protocols. That would be madness.

------------

What I find very hard to swallow.. is that BU does not fork the VERY LATEST STABLE VERSION OF CORE.. and then add the ~100 lines of code that change it into BU.. Then patches can still be added to both, etc etc etc..

It's really that simple, and the fact that they don't do that.. is what upsets me.. and makes me think they are morons. I can't condone the Bitcoin network being run by morons. That's going to end in disaster.

bitcoin is bitcoin

CORE should not own bitcoin!!!!

NO ONE should own bitcoin
we should not be blindly following core and only doing what core want. not until atleast core independent devs get rid of their dependency on being goverend and moderated and gatekeepered by blockstream.

that way the independent core devs can happily help out the rest of the community without fear of getting REKT

what would be rational is this
ALL implementations. including core should have versions of highly discussed and popular bips.

EG
btcd (wrote in go) should have 3 versions A dynamic. B twomerkle segwit. C dynamic and one-merkle segwit
core  should have 3 versions  A dynamic. B twomerkle segwit. C dynamic and one-merkle segwit
bu  should have 3 versions one dynamic. A dynamic. B twomerkle segwit. C dynamic and one-merkle segwit
(i could list more 'brands' but you get the idea)

where all brands help each other out to write the best versions possible. no brand camping..no REKT, no pointing fingers

and none of them activate the new "protocol" until there is high majority of the community accepting a favourite 'protocol'
this would be done by both a node consensus followed by a pool consensus.

that way its no longer about giving control to any brand because each brand offer the same 'protocol' choice

[chek2fire]

I don't understand how anyone can support BU.

If you owned 100 BTC, would you want to put that in the hands of people who can't solve basic technical issues?

Not seeing how that's a good idea.

 

because this Bu supporters are not bitcoin holders and the most of them are shitcoin pumpers that they think a disaster of bitcoin will  rise their shitcoin

[Lauda]

-snip-

Yet another post full of nonsense and shilling for BTU.

because this Bu supporters are not bitcoin holders and the most of them are shitcoin pumpers that they think a disaster of bitcoin will  rise their shitcoin

Correct. You can see this clearly in all of their communication channels. Most of them "quit to [insertAltcoin]" every second day.

If all this was BU and core and such was not about power and money..they'd just make the same arrangement as what litecoin  did to make an agreement (of any kind) but both sides want it all...thus ...LTC is now eating their open source code 'lunch' as it were and pumping as a result. Maybe 4x spike in price in LTC after this has the BTC devs of any flavor (and miners) re-thinking positions

That arrangement makes no sense and is a sign of centralization. There is no leader in Bitcoin, nor is the creator known or present. Therefore, you can't compare the LTC roundtable to any possible BTC roundtable. Bitcoin Core developers can only propose consensus changes, but ultimately that's where their "power" ends.

[Searing]

-snip-

Yet another post full of nonsense and shilling for BTU.

because this Bu supporters are not bitcoin holders and the most of them are shitcoin pumpers that they think a disaster of bitcoin will  rise their shitcoin

Correct. You can see this clearly in all of their communication channels. Most of them "quit to [insertAltcoin]" every second day.

If all this was BU and core and such was not about power and money..they'd just make the same arrangement as what litecoin  did to make an agreement (of any kind) but both sides want it all...thus ...LTC is now eating their open source code 'lunch' as it were and pumping as a result. Maybe 4x spike in price in LTC after this has the BTC devs of any flavor (and miners) re-thinking positions

That arrangement makes no sense and is a sign of centralization. There is no leader in Bitcoin, nor is the creator known or present. Therefore, you can't compare the LTC roundtable to any possible BTC roundtable. Bitcoin Core developers can only propose consensus changes, but ultimately that's where their "power" ends.

er..so the bitcoin core guys can't get a roundtable together ..propose the same comprise as LTC with some of the same players blocking seg witness on BTC with
the added line of " a soft fork or hard fork in block size will be implemented at such and such a time under such and such a circumstance" to keep the miners happy?

bullsh*t...in BTC it is about who controls it all not in who shares a way forward.......miner concerns ..block concerns ...delusional concerns (usaf taking over) all
can be dealt with if the folk want to talk..they don't want to......its about power and all the marbles

then at that point...the masses (us) point the hash where we want to achieve whatever..if they all sing the same song and say point to seg witness with the
above caveats ...that would get passed....again about power ...my way or the highway in both camps

or how I see it

[Lauda]

er..so the bitcoin core guys can't get a roundtable together

Correct. Bitcoin Core as a singular entity does not exist. Nobody who contributes to Bitcoin Core can sign/agree to anything on behalf of Bitcoin Core.

..propose the same comprise as LTC with some of the same players blocking seg witness on BTC with
the added line of " a soft fork or hard fork in block size will be implemented at such and such a time under such and such a circumstance" to keep the miners happy?

You're failing to realize that Segwit is a block size increase.

bullsh*t...in BTC it is about who controls it all not in who shares a way forward.......

If there are people that control BTC, then Bitcoin has no inherent value. Almost all of its features practically wash down a drain. Once you have people who can control it, then you also have people who can be manipulated or bought. Once that happens, all kinds of nasty things come a long (see US Govt or any centralized institution for that matter).
Tl;dr: Bitcoin does not need a block size with Segwit at the moment. If you'd recall the events of the Hong Kong Roundtable, that what you propose has already been tried and has failed (mostly due to a miner breaking the agreement very soon after it was conceived).

[franky1]

er..so the bitcoin core guys can't get a roundtable together

Correct. Bitcoin Core as a singular entity does not exist. Nobody who contributes to Bitcoin Core can sign/agree to anything on behalf of Bitcoin Core.

liar lair lair
there are atleast 2 round tables a year (ofcourse they are closed door meetings by invite only.. where the main devs and their corporate sponsors plan the roadmaps)

stop trying to brush that crap under the carpet.

the "independent" devs can only request a bip. but its the main devs paid for by blockstream that are the gate keepers of what gets accepted or not

look at the bips.. Luke JR
look at the mailing list .. rusty russel
look at the tech discussion board here gmax

then when it comes to actual code. if gmax or the other paid devs find any reason to nACK a idea.. forget any chance of convincing them otherwise

lauda will you stop wearing the blockstream defender cap, thinking they should own bitcoin. and start wearing a bitcoin cap.
you know the one that thinks about bitcoin over the next few decades and not blockstreams 2-5year plan

you can pretend all you like that blockstream and their interns are independent. but its plain to see that if any of the devs did go independent they would get rekt.

[franky1]

Lumping BU and segwit together in that same sentence is a terrible mistake. Segwit has 100x more coders that worked and tested it, and it has been LIVE on testnet for a very long time now, having received 1000s of times more testing than BU has. There is no "rush" with segwit. It was developed slowly and meticulously, and has been audited and tested by many very capable coders. The same can NOT be said about BU.

until last month when gmax found out his going soft approach Luke JR promoted wasnt as soft as he thought because gmax found out only last month that it ran into compatibiliy issues with ASICS that PRE-DATE segwit code.

also last year it took months to convince devs and get passed their ego's about the anyonecanspend. but instead of writing a version that would have been a full network upgrade and an oppertunity to add real features in. they continued as is and done a work around by telling people not to use segwit wallets until long after activation (killing part of their backward compatibility promise) and also by reinforcing their control of a tier network by making older nodes to be downstream of the network.

making segwit such a cludgy bit of code with no promises. just 'expectations' and many if's and maybe's