Buggy Unlimited crashes, AGAIN!! Price rallies.

[Qartada]

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

Do you even know what that means?  

Yes.

For the ordinary user, SegWit is backwards compatible.  It needs a majority of the hashrate to avoid a chain split, but by default it doesn't cause one (as I understand it).  Therefore it would be an upgrade of Bitcoin with a consensus, and if in the future there was a split that separates from consensus that was agreed before, that one would be the "new coin" to put it that way.

Feel free to correct me on that but I'm pretty sure that I can call it backwards compatible.

[felipehermanns]

another crash?

Please sir, reset the timer, the next crash will be in the next 2 weeks.

ETA: 2weeks

go BUGGY coin, go to hell

[Uberse]

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

Looks to me like it's just a matter of time until SegWit dies, alas: https://coin.dance/blocks

[jonald_fyookball]

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

Do you even know what that means?  

Yes.

For the ordinary user, SegWit is backwards compatible.  It needs a majority of the hashrate to avoid a chain split, but by default it doesn't cause one (as I understand it).  Therefore it would be an upgrade of Bitcoin with a consensus, and if in the future there was a split that separates from consensus that was agreed before, that one would be the "new coin" to put it that way.

Feel free to correct me on that but I'm pretty sure that I can call it backwards compatible.

You are correct -- however:  Proposals like BitcoinXT, which require a majority of hashrate to activate, ALSO do the same thing, even though it is a hard fork... yet we still had plenty of shills/idiots trying to label it an "altcoin".

[franky1]

as for BU drama
689->281 =408 drop

still not beating last times 420 drop or cores recently 560 node drop or even the core node crash of 2013..

"biggest node crash in history"

um you forget the core 2013 DB event

hell because so many blockstreamist babies cry "why do i mention cores actual biggest boo boo of thousands of nodes" (for obvious reason)
but anyway lets look at more recent numbers..

by actually counting the nodes drops in the image sources that icebreaker used



so bu dropped 420

.. but wait.. core crashed 560 nodes on the 17th... hmmmm

so BU still has to get a 560 node attack to surpass cores loss

[felipehermanns]

BUG CARTEL

[franky1]

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

Do you even know what that means?  

Yes.

For the ordinary user, SegWit is backwards compatible.  It needs a majority of the hashrate to avoid a chain split, but by default it doesn't cause one (as I understand it).  Therefore it would be an upgrade of Bitcoin with a consensus, and if in the future there was a split that separates from consensus that was agreed before, that one would be the "new coin" to put it that way.

Feel free to correct me on that but I'm pretty sure that I can call it backwards compatible.

You are correct -- however:  Proposals like BitcoinXT, which require a majority of hashrate to activate, ALSO do the same thing, even though it is a hard fork... yet we still had plenty of shills/idiots trying to label it an "altcoin".

actually segwit is not as backward compatible as promised/promoted.. its stripped and tiered to be backward translatable.

but should there be an issue where nodes need to downgrade and go back to a single block.. (deactivating segwit). all the people with funds on segwit keys get stuck or end up having funds treated like anyonecanspend.
yep thats right.,, shocking revelation

also although segwit creates a tier network that filters out older nodes from receiving unconfirmed segwit tx's at normal tx relay(prior to block confirmation) a malicious person could MANUALLY copy and paste a tx from a segwit node and put it into a standard block and mess with that tx.

this is why blockstream are screaming for anything non-segwit to "f**k off" because of that risk.
this is why blockstream even if soo backward compatible blockstream dont just activate at any rate.
this is why blockstream even if soo backward compatible blockstream wont lt non-segwit pools add a normal block after activation.

i have already, multiple times said to gmax, if segwit is so backward compatible why not just make a segwit TX, hand it to BTCC and get BTCC to make a segwit block containing a segwit tx. to show that its network safe and backward compatible..

[mammon]

as for BU drama
689->281 =408 drop

still not beating last times 420 drop or cores recently 560 node drop or even the core node crash of 2013..

"biggest node crash in history"

um you forget the core 2013 DB event

hell because so many blockstreamist babies cry "why do i mention cores actual biggest boo boo of thousands of nodes" (for obvious reason)
but anyway lets look at more recent numbers..

by actually counting the nodes drops in the image sources that icebreaker used



so bu dropped 420

.. but wait.. core crashed 560 nodes on the 17th... hmmmm

so BU still has to get a 560 node attack to surpass cores loss

Well, you have to be very proud making this argument!

[franky1]

Well, you have to be very proud making this argument!

lol

nope, but when you stop playing the BU vs debate and start thinking about the network and thinking about the 120 years and the direction bitcoin is going. you start to see the big picture.

that trying to cause drama just to make teams x,y,z bad to give the network over to blockstream is actually worse then calling out bugs of other implementations.

also hiding cores issues to pretend they are perfect is not helping the network either.
hiding core issues does not help

if you care about bitcoin and are independent you would not be kissing anyones ass..
if you care about bitcoin and are independent you would not think or dream that your utopian god(dev) will still be around in 2-120 years to look after you.

it just sometimes takes a while to shake people out of their blockstream devotion dream

[jonald_fyookball]

i have already, multiple times said to gmax, if segwit is so backward compatible why not just make a segwit TX, hand it to BTCC and get BTCC to make a segwit block containing a segwit tx. to show that its network safe and backward compatible..

would that block just get orphaned immediately right now?

[franky1]

i have already, multiple times said to gmax, if segwit is so backward compatible why not just make a segwit TX, hand it to BTCC and get BTCC to make a segwit block containing a segwit tx. to show that its network safe and backward compatible..

would that block just get orphaned immediately right now?

nope(if the promise had merit/ were truly "backward compatible")
secretly YES, but shhhh

and thats the point in me saying for him to just do it.. because it then reveals its not as backward compatible and safe as promised.

what blockstream are not telling you is activation day is about changing the DNS seeds to make it so segwit nodes become the main tier of the network and old nodes are then manually add-noded as a secondary network layer

its ven in the documentation.. if you dont want to upgrade, you have to download segwit to use as a filter(gmaxbuzzword) / bridge(luk jr buzzword) to connect to the network

and then all the blocks are then stripped and formatted to the old nodes if the tier network allows old nodes to connect to it.
what will be noticed is the old nodes become part of a cesspit of incompatible nodes that connect and disconnect to other nodes that end up not having good block height, delayed syncing, or just prunned so that the amount of clean connectable nodes becomes harder to obtain.

as explained before

Franky,  you should explain what you mean by tier network.  I don't think anyone understands.

ever ask yourself why there are no 0.8 or below nodes on the network
and how easy it could be to start making other implementations not have access.
EG anything below 0.13.1 (70014) can find themselves 'lost' in the future

code in a DNS seed:  (70001 is v0.8+)

Code:

#define REQUIRE_VERSION 70001
 if (clientVersion && clientVersion < REQUIRE_VERSION) return false;

simply change to:  (70014 is 0.13.1+)

Code:

#define REQUIRE_VERSION 70014
 if (clientVersion && clientVersion < REQUIRE_VERSION) return false;

and anything not segwit just wouldnt get a list of nodes from a DNS

and most of the segwit users wont want to manually white list old nodes to offer up a nodes list the other way(addnode).
hence why even the segwit documentations says

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/#not-upgrading-1

The easiest way to prevent this problem is to upgrade to Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 or another full node release that is compatible with the segwit soft fork. 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”). The newer node is connected to the Bitcoin P2P network as usual.
For the older node, first wait for the newer node to finish syncing the blockchain and then restart the older node with the following command line parameter (this may also be placed in the Bitcoin Core configuration file):

yep if you dont want to upgrade. you have to still download a segwit node just to whitelist yourself, to be filtered down data from segwit nodes that ar upstream (a layer above, of a tier network).

which makes me laugh about the whole "everything is fine segwit is backward compatible and no need to upgrade" promises of segwit going soft

i hope this wakes you up to the TIER network of gmaxwells (upstream filter) and (luke JRs bridge node) word twisting of said tier network of control
where blockstream becomes top of the foodchain..

by tier, it means LAYERS. as oppose to a PEER network where the implementations are on the same layer (same level playing field)

[jonald_fyookball]

well maybe semantics Franky. 

Honestly, NOTHING is compatible without majority miner support, otherwise, you could simply do it today already without debate.

Now, assuming majority hashpower, even bitcoincore.org agrees that its not fully compatible but Greg likes to accuse BU of not being compatible because its a hard fork... because many readers don't really understand HF vs SF or don't understand how segwit SF works.

All the SF accomplishes is that nodes can continue to stay on the chain...however what segwit proponents don't usually tell you is that nodes that don't upgrade aren't really participating in the network because they cannot validate the chain for themselves.  They simply have to trust that segwit's "anyone can spend" outputs are valid.