jbreher
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
|
 |
May 04, 2017, 03:24:44 PM |
|
My understanding of this is that the miners could reject both BU and segwit and still get the reward, right?
They could rally together and propose a new version of the software with just the one single change of raising the block size to say 2MB, rally nodes to accept just that one change, then mine the reward.
It is a hard fork, correct?
Absolutely. The fact that adopting BU would address the blocksize war for all time makes it preferable, but the most important aspect is ridding ourselves of this stupid arbitrary production quota. I'd be more than happy -- at least until we again hit the ceiling -- with a simple maxblocksize increase. Further, BU (as well as Classic, XT, the 8MB client, and any other client that accepts larger blocks) would be fully compatible with such a fork. |
Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.
I've been convicted of heresy. Convicted by a mere known extortionist. Read my Trust for details.
|
|
|
|
|
|
"There should not be any signed int. If you've found a signed int
somewhere, please tell me (within the next 25 years please) and I'll
change it to unsigned int." -- Satoshi
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
Kprawn
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1073
|
|
May 04, 2017, 03:26:44 PM |
|
What is the plan B of Core besides SW and if miners were to choose between a Core with 2MB support implemented and BU?
If blocksize is about to increase this way then better it be done with Core version rather than an unstable and often buggy version which is BU.
In my view this would be a hard fork and will have nothing to do with both SegWit/LN or BU.  ... If they do this, it would not be permanent and they would only do this to get the reward and then go back to whatever their original intent was. So nothing will be accomplished by doing this, if it were not done to make a permanent change.  |
|
|
|
jbreher
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
|
|
May 04, 2017, 03:27:28 PM |
|
|
Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.
I've been convicted of heresy. Convicted by a mere known extortionist. Read my Trust for details.
|
|
|
jbreher
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
|
|
May 04, 2017, 03:29:20 PM |
|
From the other hand, I don't believe that this is the way to go at all. It is a dirty way to influence miners and motivate their greed above all else.
Bitcoin is fueled by greed. Satoshi's grand innovation was in aligning everyone's greed with what is best for the system as a whole. |
Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.
I've been convicted of heresy. Convicted by a mere known extortionist. Read my Trust for details.
|
|
|
felipehermanns
Member
Offline
Activity: 77
Merit: 10
|
|
May 04, 2017, 03:39:37 PM |
|
i am going to say it again:
BU = no one want this crap
|
|
|
|
|
jonald_fyookball (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
|
|
May 04, 2017, 03:53:06 PM |
|
What is the plan B of Core besides SW and if miners were to choose between a Core with 2MB support implemented and BU?
If blocksize is about to increase this way then better it be done with Core version rather than an unstable and often buggy version which is BU.
In my view this would be a hard fork and will have nothing to do with both SegWit/LN or BU. ... If they do this, it would not be permanent and they would only do this to get the reward and then go back to whatever their original intent was. So nothing will be accomplished by doing this, if it were not done to make a permanent change. Once you have a block bigger than 1MB, that's going to be the new consensus rule. It's not like miners are going to run code that says "well for this one block we'll allow a >1mb, and all other blocks, no" |
|
|
|
felipehermanns
Member
Offline
Activity: 77
Merit: 10
|
|
May 04, 2017, 04:17:39 PM |
|
bitcoin unlimited should be called bug unlimited, how many more bugs?  |
|
|
|
|
unamis76
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
|
|
May 04, 2017, 04:23:02 PM |
|
Whatever the goals are and how well intentioned this may be, this is nothing but bribery, this is basically enticing miners with money. If things go "as planned" nobody will take up on this and honor their opinions and everything will just be as it is now. can only be included on the blockchain if the maximum block size limit is raised, How has this been achieved? |
|
|
|
|
jbreher
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
|
|
May 04, 2017, 05:45:41 PM |
|
bitcoin unlimited should be called
bug unlimited, how many more bugs?
A limited number. On the flipside, core has had a fatal bug, known for years, that they refuse to address. This is, of course, the inability to process more than ~250,000 transactions per day. |
Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.
I've been convicted of heresy. Convicted by a mere known extortionist. Read my Trust for details.
|
|
|
BurtW
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1131
All paid signature campaigns should be banned.
|
|
May 04, 2017, 06:13:49 PM |
|
I AM NOT TAKING A SIDE, Carlton.
It is ironic that those that support smaller blocks whine that "this is using greed to influence miners" on the one hand but yet are perfectly happy to say that the miners greed for the larger transaction fees caused by smaller blocks is perfectly natural and OK.
So "greed is good" if it is used to supports my personal belief regarding block size but "greed is bad" if it is used to support a different belief regarding block size.
|
Our family was terrorized by Homeland Security. Read all about it here: http://www.jmwagner.com/ and http://www.burtw.com/ Any donations to help us recover from the $300,000 in legal fees and forced donations to the Federal Asset Forfeiture slush fund are greatly appreciated! |
|
|
Franz_Huber
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 938
Merit: 1004
CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!
|
|
May 05, 2017, 10:07:11 AM |
|
Let's activate SegWit.
|
|
|
|
|
Nagadota
|
|
May 05, 2017, 07:52:10 PM |
|
bitcoin unlimited should be called
bug unlimited, how many more bugs?
A limited number. On the flipside, core has had a fatal bug, known for years, that they refuse to address. This is, of course, the inability to process more than ~250,000 transactions per day. You mean the one that they've agreed to address through SegWit without screwing over node users by making them download far more data? BU is one method of increasing transaction capacity, Core's method (SegWit) is another. For the years that Bitcoin had been running before this hype, I bet you weren't complaining that the transaction capacity was too small. The block size shouldn't just be increased every single time the transaction capacity does, there should be changes to make the protocol more efficient or partially offchain as well (extension blocks, LN etc), which are better for decentralisation. Your argument is basically that people shouldn't support Core because their ideas haven't been supported yet. |
|
|
|
|
