Blockstream/Core lost. It is only a matter of time now.

[Darkbot]

I was wondering if the Antbleed news would finally cause BU/Bitmain defenders to admit they have been wrong, or if they would go full bore insane. Guess I have my answer. Defending an exploit that could be used to wipe out much of the network is stark raving insane, as is the notion that exposing it somehow helps the clowns who perpetrated the exploit.

bitmain having a switch in its own server, that only affects only its own equipment, which will cause its customers to request refunds.
hmm

oh and also if they wanted it as a weapon they would have pulled the trigger already

however
this last month has all been about blockstream flock trying to find any bug in anything not blockstream advocated.. but not willing to listen when code made by blockstream has flaws

Bla bla bla bla like ussual from paid shill Franky1.

[RawDog]

I was wondering if the Antbleed news would finally cause BU/Bitmain defenders to admit they have been wrong, or if they would go full bore insane. Guess I have my answer. Defending an exploit that could be used to wipe out much of the network is stark raving insane, as is the notion that exposing it somehow helps the clowns who perpetrated the exploit.

bitmain having a switch in its own server, that only affects only its own equipment, which will cause its customers to request refunds.
hmm

oh and also if they wanted it as a weapon they would have pulled the trigger already

however
this last month has all been about blockstream flock trying to find any bug in anything not blockstream advocated.. but not willing to listen when code made by blockstream has flaws

Bla bla bla bla like ussual from paid shill Franky1.

Bla bla bla bla like ussual from paid shill Darkbot.  At least Franky1 isn't a new made up username like yours.  pathetic how low Core will go.

[cellard]

Rha you're just very picky about the meaning of words xD

Don't use strong words when you don't know the meaning behind them.

I'm not saying they're some kind of God that decide how things work. I'm just saying they're in a dominant position of power: they're trusted, their development are used by nearly everyone etc...

They have deserved this. I take it that you haven't been keeping track of the development on GitHub. Whilst BU tries to fill in all of their loop holes (whilst using an outdated Bitcoin Core version), there have been some pretty nice changes proposed.

The last time I see the charts Bitcoin unlimited has 49% votes leaving the core at somewhere between 30 to 40%. But this does not mean that the core has lost since there are still group of miners who have not placed their sides.

Even with the lead of the BU the core have not yet lost nor BU has won. We will only be convinced that the core had lost when BU is activated and the Core will be disabled.

I'm not sure whether you're a signature campaign spammer or just very ignorant or both. "Core will be disabled" makes no sense, in any context.

Anti Core guys keep living in lalaland where people aren't using their software even to mine blocks for other stuff because that's how good Core's code is (and how bad BU and the rest are). They also keep ignoring the fact that BU is no longer relevant. Futures show BTC-U has been dumped into oblivion. Nodes keep crashing while you claim they are production ready, f2pool already joined segwit, 75% of everyone running relevant services want segwit. BU rejected by 70%!



https://medium.com/@21/using-21-to-survey-blockchain-personalities-on-the-bitcoin-hard-fork-1953c9bcb8ed

Will their stances ever align with reality and face facts?

[franky1]

pie charts of nodes but doesnt show proof of backing (no ip lists) - result, ignore it and trust bitnodes as better source

"community measure" weighted to exaggerate results. where some of the advocates are just consultants that dont need nodes, or have listed their 3 subsiduaries as 3 separate votes even though its the same 'team' in all 3 votes..
also only a small selection of bitcoin merchants - result biased limited overview

questionnaire of 61 people, hmm who got told where to vote - result biased by spamming link to only one side


also if pereira4 is not around billy bob will daily spam the same biased stuff..
if billy not around lauda will

each day the same stuff is posted but none of them even think about researching behind the numbers. they just post it


P.S
want to see the narrative control


P.P.S
question 4 (as advertised by lauda and other) is
do you want MINERS to activate BU

..
if the question was "do you want community consensus to activate BU" results would be different
this is where people need to learn CONTEXT and source of data

[Kprawn]

This BTC Core vs BU thing is very stupid and border on playground politics. Let's say for one moment ONE of the two sides win this and the other

side {no matter who they are} stop supporting Bitcoin... Who will be the winner then? We will see one HUGE rage quit from a lot of people and

the support that we have been working on for years will be halved. We should make compromises on both sides and concentrate on finding a

better solution for a scaling solution. { because both of them suck } 

[franky1]

This BTC Core vs BU thing is very stupid and border on playground politics. Let's say for one moment ONE of the two sides win this and the other

side {no matter who they are} stop supporting Bitcoin... Who will be the winner then? We will see one HUGE rage quit from a lot of people and

the support that we have been working on for years will be halved. We should make compromises on both sides and concentrate on finding a

better solution for a scaling solution. { because both of them suck } 

finally someone gets it

[The One]

Rha you're just very picky about the meaning of words xD

Don't use strong words when you don't know the meaning behind them.

I'm not saying they're some kind of God that decide how things work. I'm just saying they're in a dominant position of power: they're trusted, their development are used by nearly everyone etc...

They have deserved this. I take it that you haven't been keeping track of the development on GitHub. Whilst BU tries to fill in all of their loop holes (whilst using an outdated Bitcoin Core version), there have been some pretty nice changes proposed.

The last time I see the charts Bitcoin unlimited has 49% votes leaving the core at somewhere between 30 to 40%. But this does not mean that the core has lost since there are still group of miners who have not placed their sides.

Even with the lead of the BU the core have not yet lost nor BU has won. We will only be convinced that the core had lost when BU is activated and the Core will be disabled.

I'm not sure whether you're a signature campaign spammer or just very ignorant or both. "Core will be disabled" makes no sense, in any context.

Anti Core guys keep living in lalaland where people aren't using their software even to mine blocks for other stuff because that's how good Core's code is (and how bad BU and the rest are). They also keep ignoring the fact that BU is no longer relevant. Futures show BTC-U has been dumped into oblivion. Nodes keep crashing while you claim they are production ready, f2pool already joined segwit, 75% of everyone running relevant services want segwit. BU rejected by 70%!



https://medium.com/@21/using-21-to-survey-blockchain-personalities-on-the-bitcoin-hard-fork-1953c9bcb8ed

Will their stances ever align with reality and face facts?

Based on 61 votes out of what? millions of BTC owners.

[The One]

This BTC Core vs BU thing is very stupid and border on playground politics. Let's say for one moment ONE of the two sides win this and the other

side {no matter who they are} stop supporting Bitcoin... Who will be the winner then? We will see one HUGE rage quit from a lot of people and

the support that we have been working on for years will be halved. We should make compromises on both sides and concentrate on finding a

better solution for a scaling solution. { because both of them suck } 

Well there are some of us advocating a simple 1mb to 2mb blocksize increase for this year. It could then go to 3mb then 4mb when certain blocks are reached.

This will allow more txs now then developers can go back to the drawing board. However Core will not listen to the community and want 1mb to stay. Ask yourself why? Even Miners agreed to 2mb with segwit. So forget segwit and do 2mb. Miners should be onboard and so will the users. Problem solved.

[d5000]

I think it's actually the other way around. The "big blockers" failed to block Segwit on LTC. When LTC activates LN, pressure will arise to BTC miners to adopt a malleability fix on Bitcoin (Segwit or another one) and so LN will be enabled here, too. Raiden (ETH) may cause additional pressure.

Miners can't simply be that stupid to allow a "flippening", be it to LTC or ETH - they would lose too much. So eventually they _will_ have to agree on a solution. I don't think it will be "pure Segwit" (they would lose their face) but a very similar solution like Segwit2MB, Segwit+BIP-100 or Extension blocks could get traction.

The poll cited by @cellard and @franky1 shows not that a side "won" but instead what I'm observing a lot of time now: People consider Bitcoin Unlimited too dangerous or too centralist (with too much power for miners), while most would support a conservatively increased block size.

[jonald_fyookball]

  most would support a conservatively increased block size.

Don't you find it weird that some the most talented and experienced developers aren't? (Pieter W. , Matt Corallo, etc) 

[Lauda]

Miners can't simply be that stupid to allow a "flippening", be it to LTC or ETH - they would lose too much. So eventually they _will_ have to agree on a solution. I don't think it will be "pure Segwit" (they would lose their face) but a very similar solution like Segwit2MB, Segwit+BIP-100 or Extension blocks could get traction.

There is no such thing as the "flippening" for ETH. ETH scalability is at least 10 times worse than Bitcoin. The only reason for which they don't have this problem yet is because they don't have the 'scale'. The case for LTC however may be different.

  most would support a conservatively increased block size.

Don't you find it weird that some the most talented and experienced developers aren't? (Pieter W. , Matt Corallo, etc) 

No. Segwit == big blocks. The top size that can be generated by Segwit is already 2x of the conservative approach. Bundling Segwit together with a conservative block size increase == possibility of 4x the size of a conservative increase.

[franky1]

No. Segwit == big blocks. The top size that can be generated by Segwit is already 2x of the conservative approach. Bundling Segwit together with a conservative block size increase == possibility of 4x the size of a conservative increase.

2x??
only if EVERYONE moves funds to segwit keypairs..

pretty much the same empty promise of 7tx/s only if everyone does lean tx's in 2009-2016

guess what we are only at ~3.5
so even with segwit. and then needing everyone to use segwit keys.. only then the network MAY SEE 7tx/s

so its still as empty as the 2009-2016 expectation of 7tx/s

WAKE UP
the 1mb base 4mb weight 2merkle segwit does not promise or guarantee 7tx/s at all.. plus its not a "it will happen at activation". there are other factors at play.

however a 4mb single block 1merkle segwit where both segwit tx's and native tx's all fit inside the 4mb block as a single peer network without the tier network* of (gmax upstream filter nodes)(lukejr bridge nodes)

would allow more tx/s without people needing to move funds to new key pairs for hopes and dreams to come true

*https://btcmanager.com/why-segwit-builds-a-network-within-a-network/
*https://bitcoincore.org/assets/images/filtering-by-upgraded-node.svg
*https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/#not-upgrading-1

If you still don’t wish to upgrade, it is possible to use a newer Bitcoin Core release as a filter for older Bitcoin Core releases.

Filtering by an upgraded node

In this configuration, you set your current Bitcoin Core node (which we’ll call the “older node”) to connect exclusively to a node running Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 or later (which we’ll call the “newer node”).

[leopard2]

I think the argument is finished.  It is now clear that Blockstream won't be able to take over the blockchain to run their proprietary (patented) bullshit and pay back their $70 million to AXA.  

I am confused, isn't Asicboost the patented bullshit? Is Blockstream supporting BU? I thought it was the other way round? I need some sleep.

[franky1]

I think the argument is finished.  It is now clear that Blockstream won't be able to take over the blockchain to run their proprietary (patented) bullshit and pay back their $70 million to AXA.  

I am confused, isn't Asicboost the patented bullshit? Is Blockstream supporting BU? I thought it was the other way round? I need some sleep.

google: blockstream defensive patent strategy

Our Patent Pledge assures developers and users of our technology that we will not sue them for patent infringement, provided they comply with the terms and conditions of our pledge,

[Sadlife]

It seems that the BU supporters has gone insane. Who lost?
from ive heard BU's nodes just crash for the 3rd or 4th time so people should avoid investing their money to some buggy code and amateur coders.
This should really stop and start solving the scaling issue.

[leopard2]

This BTC Core vs BU thing is very stupid and border on playground politics. Let's say for one moment ONE of the two sides win this and the other

side {no matter who they are} stop supporting Bitcoin... Who will be the winner then? We will see one HUGE rage quit from a lot of people and

the support that we have been working on for years will be halved. We should make compromises on both sides and concentrate on finding a

better solution for a scaling solution. { because both of them suck } 

[OROBTC]

This BTC Core vs BU thing is very stupid and border on playground politics. Let's say for one moment ONE of the two sides win this and the other

side {no matter who they are} stop supporting Bitcoin... Who will be the winner then? We will see one HUGE rage quit from a lot of people and

the support that we have been working on for years will be halved. We should make compromises on both sides and concentrate on finding a

better solution for a scaling solution. { because both of them suck } 

finally someone gets it

+ $1500

I am the point where I don'r really care who wins as long as they agree on something.  If these elementary-school-level crybabies would just agree and get 'er done, then (my prediction) is that BTC price would immediately shoot waaaaaayyy up.

But, if the fix the whole scaling issue, please guys: Do.It.Right.  Think and plan ahead!  Let's do this again.........

[digaran]

Oh RawDog is back again haven't seen him in a while, saying Core lost is like saying bitcoin lost, so far from 2009 the majority are using Core because well we have one Bitcoin and we should have one Version(code) otherwise where have you ever seen a child born with 2 male DNA?
I'm struggling to figure out whether asicboost can work with even 2 merkle roots or only 1 merkle root code is asicboost friendly? did I touch a nerve by asking that?
I'm sorry I'm not at all a nerd but from what I know after some readings asicboost process ignores some calculations aka POW or better say it actually doesn't do the work but makes it look like as if it did do the work.

Let me see, 20% advantage by skipping the work(like government employees watching porn behind their desks instead of completing people's tasks) it means 10,000 S9 will mine as 12,000 S9.
I think I'd go with blockstream $70M debt at least they don't have ties to miner(s) farm.