Buggy Unlimited crashes, AGAIN!! Price rallies.

[BillyBobZorton]

Another day, another crash for Buggy "production ready" Unlimited. I wonder how they will blame Core devs this time?

Meanwhile, BTC rallying past $1700+.

If only we could activate segwit, we could hit $10000 in no time, but LTC is going to go down in history books as the first lightning network transaction in a real blockchain (not testnet). It will get all the good news and it will hit to ATH. All this money (billions) could be on segwit if we weren't on this stalemate situation.

[1715024303]

1715024303

[1715024303]

1715024303

[franky1]

All this money (billions) could be on segwit if we weren't on this stalemate situation.

atleast you are admitting subtly segwit is an altcoin instead of your old rhetoric that segwit is bitcoin and anything else running on bitcoin is the altcoin. one step in the right direction.

as for the social drama of bu vs core.
funnily core has a speak no evil about their own bugs for 30 days after fix is released, but REKT anything not core as soon as issue is found.
very professional and independent (sarcasm)

read all the core devs saying how release info on exploits within 30 days of fix is bad.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10364

kinda hypocritical

[franky1]

ignoring the BU vs core drama and only thinking about the decentralised PEER network

this is why its good to have diverse brands/code bases.. if one brand goes down. the network continues as if you dont know something happened unless specifically looking for it

[mindrust]

All this money (billions) could be on segwit if we weren't on this stalemate situation.

atleast you are admitting subtly segwit is an altcoin instead of your old rhetoric that segwit is bitcoin and anything else running on bitcoin is the altcoin. one step in the right direction.

as for the social drama of bu vs core.
funnily core has a speak no evil about their own bugs for 30 days after fix is released, but REKT anything not core as soon as issue is found.
very professional and independent (sarcasm)

read all the core devs saying how release info on exploits within 30 days of fix is bad.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10364

kinda hypocritical

How is segwit an altcoin? Please explain. Segwit is a soft fork, a protocol upgrade, not an altcoin. You can make an altcoin out of segwit (and there are some already) as you can make one from almost anything.

BU will be the altcoin if it ever manages to succeed HF.

[-ck]

I wonder how they will blame Core devs this time?

They're blaming them the same way they blamed them last time - their buggy client is crashing by running out of ram due to an x-thin block bug. They claim that core and/or blockstream is DDoSing them intentionally although they can't actually find evidence of it. Even if it IS someone DDoSing them, it's a given with there being so much value in bitcoin that attacks will be a routine part of operation and clients should be hardened against all forms of attack. Additionally this is the same bug they had last time; they didn't even fix it, and that makes it the 3rd critical bug they've had in the x-thin code. The x-thin code is one of their only unique features in the BU client and one of their claimed workarounds for transmitting large blocks across the network - but now they're recommending people disable it as a workaround. Add to that the thought that parallel block validation will help somehow - and that will use even more ram so regularly running out of ram seems intrinsic to their design at the moment...

Once more the same BU morons will just put it down to yet another simple bug that's easily fixed and nothing to worry about blah blah blah... even though the thought of a 2030 billion dollar industry that was this unreliable would be terrifying. The only nodes that have stayed up are those on mega servers with >64GB ram. Of course mining pools that are advertising BU support in their coinbase are NOT affected since they don't trust the BU client software; they're just using the core software with a customised coinbase signature - they'd never trust their mining operations to the buggy BU client.

Note I'd already created as similar thread here but since I made it self moderated it didn't attract the attention of the full time anti-core brigade.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1908442.0

[thejaytiesto]

All this money (billions) could be on segwit if we weren't on this stalemate situation.

atleast you are admitting subtly segwit is an altcoin instead of your old rhetoric that segwit is bitcoin and anything else running on bitcoin is the altcoin. one step in the right direction.

as for the social drama of bu vs core.
funnily core has a speak no evil about their own bugs for 30 days after fix is released, but REKT anything not core as soon as issue is found.
very professional and independent (sarcasm)

read all the core devs saying how release info on exploits within 30 days of fix is bad.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10364

kinda hypocritical

It's funny how you always find a way to ignore reality and assemble your arguments in a way that makes you think you are correct. "Oh he said segwit instead of BTC, lol he admited it's an alt!!"

It's time to adjust reality with facts: Coin adopting Segwit = price up. BUcoin crashing = price up.

[franky1]

atleast you are admitting subtly segwit is an altcoin instead of your old rhetoric that segwit is bitcoin and anything else running on bitcoin is the altcoin. one step in the right direction.

as for the social drama of bu vs core.
funnily core has a speak no evil about their own bugs for 30 days after fix is released, but REKT anything not core as soon as issue is found.
very professional and independent (sarcasm)

read all the core devs saying how release info on exploits within 30 days of fix is bad.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10364

kinda hypocritical

How is segwit an altcoin? Please explain. Segwit is a soft fork, a protocol upgrade, not an altcoin. You can make an altcoin out of segwit (and there are some already) as you can make one from almost anything.

BU will be the altcoin if it ever manages to succeed HF.

if you read passed the reddit drama and look at reality
a successful hardfork is ONE chain of united community agreeing that all upgrading to a new consensus rules is good.

a hard fork is not a guarantee bilatral split. and if you look at who are the protagonists screaming to cause a split. its the core fans and devs that want to split.

What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral 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--

rekt campaigns "just f**k off"
rekt campaigns they dont agree so we need to MASF and UASF them away to their own chain and make them program a no replay attack

meanwhile the MANY implementations that want to stick with a diverse decentralised PEER network have actually laughed and declined core devs invitation to split.

in short you should have said:
in a UNsuccessful hardfork there might be a split with a altcoin, where the minority becomes the altcoin

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Music to my ears. It's just a matter of time until BU dies any way, feel free to quote me.

[Xester]

ignoring the BU vs core drama and only thinking about the decentralised PEER network

this is why its good to have diverse brands/code bases.. if one brand goes down. the network continues as if you dont know something happened unless specifically looking for it

Exactly that is the positive advantage of having a diverse code but even if it is an advantage it will also bring great disadvantage and trouble if not being monitored. But anyway the most important thing is that even if BU crashes or Segwit crashes the most important thing is that bitcoin continues to exist and still growing and increasing in value.

[U2]

Lol that's a huge downward spike. That's awesome. Hopefully they don't fully recover each time from these "tiny bugs" and we can all move on with good software. Maybe BU should just help out Litecoins or some other alt hahaha.

[cellard]

atleast you are admitting subtly segwit is an altcoin instead of your old rhetoric that segwit is bitcoin and anything else running on bitcoin is the altcoin. one step in the right direction.

as for the social drama of bu vs core.
funnily core has a speak no evil about their own bugs for 30 days after fix is released, but REKT anything not core as soon as issue is found.
very professional and independent (sarcasm)

read all the core devs saying how release info on exploits within 30 days of fix is bad.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10364

kinda hypocritical

How is segwit an altcoin? Please explain. Segwit is a soft fork, a protocol upgrade, not an altcoin. You can make an altcoin out of segwit (and there are some already) as you can make one from almost anything.

BU will be the altcoin if it ever manages to succeed HF.

if you read passed the reddit drama and look at reality
a successful hardfork is ONE chain of united community agreeing that all upgrading to a new consensus rules is good.

a hard fork is not a guarantee bilatral split. and if you look at who are the protagonists screaming to cause a split. its the core fans and devs that want to split.

What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral 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--

rekt campaigns "just f**k off"
rekt campaigns they dont agree so we need to MASF and UASF them away to their own chain and make them program a no replay attack

meanwhile the MANY implementations that want to stick with a diverse decentralised PEER network have actually laughed and declined core devs invitation to split.

in short you should have said:
in a UNsuccessful hardfork there might be a split with a altcoin, where the minority becomes the altcoin

Nobody is against Bitcoin Unlimited forking and becoming what it is (an altcoin).

What we don't want is what they are doing: Trying to subvert BTC so they get to steal the BTC token. It's all a war for the BTC token, nothing more.

If they really thought their solution was better, they would fork already and use their own token and compete against BTC and people would freely choose, but they choose drama instead, at expense of every holder.

[Qartada]

All this money (billions) could be on segwit if we weren't on this stalemate situation.

atleast you are admitting subtly segwit is an altcoin instead of your old rhetoric that segwit is bitcoin and anything else running on bitcoin is the altcoin. one step in the right direction.

as for the social drama of bu vs core.
funnily core has a speak no evil about their own bugs for 30 days after fix is released, but REKT anything not core as soon as issue is found.
very professional and independent (sarcasm)

read all the core devs saying how release info on exploits within 30 days of fix is bad.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10364

kinda hypocritical

It's funny how you always find a way to ignore reality and assemble your arguments in a way that makes you think you are correct. "Oh he said segwit instead of BTC, lol he admited it's an alt!!"

It's time to adjust reality with facts: Coin adopting Segwit = price up. BUcoin crashing = price up.

The price was up anyway, it's irrelevant whether or not the number of BU nodes went down.  The BU nodes are only a tiny percentage of the total nodes anyway because Core is the reference client.  It really is pointless to pick out a correlation and argue that it means something.  A meaningful correlation would be something like:  "Known Bitcoin users' average lifespan is decreasing and the amount of lost coins is rising".

Note to franky - SegWit is a backwards compatible protocol upgrade.  It's impossible for it to be an altcoin.  Hard forks, however, are not backwards compatible.  Equally, people who owned Bitcoin in 2014 automatically owned CLAM as well, doesn't make CLAM Bitcoin.

[Decoded]

Litecoin is in a quote precarious situation. I don't think it's alright that the price should jump multiple times higher over what it was in expectation of a new update. Sure, it will be a interesting and possibly great move forward, but I think the alt is overhyped at the moment.

Unlimited has its share of bugs, but I think it's great that they're ironing them out and notifying users of them. You can't say the same about Core's reactions to bugs.

[franky1]

Nobody is against Bitcoin Unlimited forking and becoming what it is (an altcoin).

What we don't want is what they are doing: Trying to subvert BTC so they get to steal the BTC token. It's all a war for the BTC token, nothing more.

If they really thought their solution was better, they would fork already and use their own token and compete against BTC and people would freely choose, but they choose drama instead, at expense of every holder.

if you ignore the reddit propaganda scripts you will learn that things like BU, classic, XT, nbitcoin, BTCD and all the others do NOT want to dominate and OWN/control bitcoin.

they want a diverse and decentralised PEER network of many brands on THE SAME CHAIN/network.
all they ask is that the blocks are not stifled at 1mb

yt the blockstream protagonists want to stifle the block to make people move their assets into the
blockstream:ELEMENTS:LN
blockstream:ELEMENTS(patented):sidechain
blockstream:ELEMENTS:segwit keys

simple solution

a true community uniting manatory activation of a 1 merkle 4mb block. where by native(legacy) key asset holders get more space AND segwit key opt-in users can disarm themselves to then be allowed to use voluntary services like sidechains/LN.

everyone becomes happy and the network remains peer, with only the services tiered.

however the blockstream soft agenda is a TIER network where people need to move funds to segwit keypairs to be top of the tier.

please look passed the reddit scripts, look passed the brand drama and look at things from the position of a diverse decentralised peer network. all will become clearer to you

[BillyBobZorton]

Nobody is against Bitcoin Unlimited forking and becoming what it is (an altcoin).

What we don't want is what they are doing: Trying to subvert BTC so they get to steal the BTC token. It's all a war for the BTC token, nothing more.

If they really thought their solution was better, they would fork already and use their own token and compete against BTC and people would freely choose, but they choose drama instead, at expense of every holder.

if you ignore the reddit propaganda scripts you will learn that things like BU, classic, XT, nbitcoin, BTCD and all the others do NOT want to dominate and OWN/control bitcoin.

they way a diverse and decentralised PEER network of many brands on THE SAME CHAIN/network.
all they ask is that the blocks are not stiffled at 1mb

yt the blockstream protagonists want to stifle the block to make people move their assets into the
blockstream:ELEMENTS(patented):LN
blockstream:ELEMENTS(patented):sidechain
blockstream:ELEMENTS(patented):segwit keys

simple solution

a true community uniting manatory activation of a 1 merkle 4mb block. where by native(legacy) key asset holders get more space AND segwit key opt-in users can disarm themselves to then be allowed to use voluntary services like sidechains/LN.

everyone becomes happy and the network remains peer, with only the services tiered.

however the blockstream soft agenda is a TIER network where people need to move funds to segwit keypairs to be top of the tier.

please look passed the reddit scripts, look passed the brand drama and look at things from the position of a diverse decentralised peer network. all will become clearer to you

The network doesn't improve by having competing clients, as adviced by satoshi: everyone should stick with the official (satoshi client) version. If you want different clients, create your own altcoin. This delusional notion of bitcoin being strengthened by different competing clients is stupid.

Segwit, LN, and so on are all open source protocols and anyone can develop anything they want on it. Don't confuse patent protection against trolls like Craig Wright with trying to monopolize technology.

Also /r/btc loons are already on it!

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6a3l86/bitcoin_unlimited_nodes_being_attacked_again/

[-ck]

Unlimited has its share of bugs, but I think it's great that they're ironing them out and notifying users of them. You can't say the same about Core's reactions to bugs.

I'm baffled by these two statements. Unlimited's bugs are showing up in production. Core's bugs are quashed in testing. When did core not respond to bug reports?

[franky1]

The network doesn't improve by having competing clients, as adviced by satoshi:

thats back when satoshi was beginning to realise people were becoming too dependant on him..
thats about his personal time and sanity may be stretched too far.. nothing to do with network security

EG instead of one person trying to help out 12 brands (should satoshi be still here today)
EG instead of 400 people trying to help out 1 brands hoping to get paid by some VC cartel

400 should help out 12 brands

infact he was happy with people having their own versions.
EG he worked on his version that was on sourceforge right up until when he disapeared. and gavin had a version on github.

by the way the version on github started by gavin mid 2010(not satoshi's sourcforge of 2009) , expanded and then rebranded and then taken over by the now "core" group.
by the way the github version actually has had 7000+ forked implementations from it where people tweak it and run on the SAME network.

its actually GOOD to not have a single point of failure
its actually GOOD to tweak things and see what works and doesnt where by some versions are wrote in GO or ruby or java.
using different database structures. but all following the main consensus rules. and all only changing the consensus rules if all/majority see benefit of such.

if blockstream want to solely run an implementation.. seeing as they only came into existence in 2014.. THEY should go play with an alt..
wait they already are
elements
monero
hyperledger
litecoin

[franky1]

The network doesn't improve by having competing clients,
...
 This delusional notion of bitcoin being strengthened by different competing clients is stupid.

smart mindset
bitcoin nodes have a bug, but diverse enough to not bring down the network.. = strong network = we can trust value in the network.

now imagine if every node was running the exact same line for line codebase and a bug happened... network stops.. loss of trust.. price crash

if you care more about blockstream control of a TIER network rather than a diverse single peer network of many brands.. shame on you
if you care more about blockstream control of a TIER network that moves peoples funds to patented chains. shame on you

i actually hope blockstream does move onto litecoin or hyperledger.. and allows bitcoin to become properly diverse and decentralised to naturally grow without dev dictatorship..

let litecoin become the bankers new best friend. while bitcoin gets back to the open borderless zero barrier of entry as a free choice away from the controls of egotistic banker cartels

[Kprawn]

Bugs should be fixed first and then announced. If I had a bug in my code and I know this will be exploited by people... then I would patch it first

and then admit to it. Why tell everyone about it and then get it exploited until I have written something to patch it? Does that make any sense?

You are not hiding the mistake or the possible exploit, you just announce it after it was fixed. { This way you reduce the damage it might have

done }  

[jonald_fyookball]

Note to franky - SegWit is a backwards compatible protocol upgrade.

Do you even know what that means? 

The only thing "backwards compatible" is that nodes won't crash, because to them the segwit outputs appear as "anyone can spend"
... it doesn't mean they can meaningfully participate in the network without upgrading.

A hard fork is just as valid as far as a protocol upgrade.