Will BU Fork Soon Rip the Network in Half?

[franky1]

okay, thank you for your replies.  It seems that Bitcoin wont' suddenly rip in half overnight.

But wait!  ...Ethereum did...suddenly there were 2 seriously competing versions of Ethereum.

So what's the difference? that means ETH suddenly split in half but Bitcoin won't do the same?  Is Ethereum not supposed to have a sort of clever consensus system also?  

ethereums split was not "sudden" it was intentional..
(avoid reddit/twitter as a research source as thats just propaganda.. try looking for real sources (hint: "--oppose-dao-fork" may help you weed through the fake fud)
its what has been called a bilateral split.. again it was intentional, via avoiding the consensus security mechanisms and literally banning nodes of opposition to make an altcoin INTENTIONALLY

ok if your a core devotee.. here is your lord and masters own words explaining both ethereums intentional split AND showing that those who are not blockstream endorsed do not want a split in bitcoin.. while also revealing that cores CTO reall wants the split (3birds one stone)

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 ... Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--

by the way.
a hardfork is not by default a bilateral split. by default with high consensus, only a small minority simply dont sync and instead see lots of orphans and end up turning off their node and joining the network by upgrading to the new rules.

by default with moderate consensus, a more moderate amount simply dont sync and instead see lots of orphans and end up turning off their node and joining the network by upgrading to the new rules

but there then becomes a possibility that the opposition can add code to literally ban communications with opposing nodes and make their own altcoin.
the surprising things is that even going soft there becomes a possibility that the opposition can add code to literally ban communications with opposing nodes and make their own altcoin.

[digaran]

Pools and nodes are the same, all the nodes are operating by pools and miners, if you are not a miner there is no reason for you to be running nodes, if you are not a miner and are running nodes then you can't do anything because miners/pools will be the ones running the majority of nodes all the times.

Of course if a pool with having the minority numbers of nodes tries to change the code then the majority controlling the nodes will block it but if a miner/pool wants to change the protocol they will first make sure to have the majority of nodes themselves.

Let's assume I am not a miner but running 200,000 full nodes I can only make miners work more difficult if they try to change something and my nodes refuse them, they'll have to out number my nodes to be able to change the code and their nodes accepts it as valid.

But why would I be running 200,000 nodes? I don't have any incentive and unlike miners/pools I can't afford to run nodes.

[franky1]

if you are not a miner there is no reason for you to be running nodes,

by suggesting people should stop running nodes is the cheapest way to get pools more control.. because telling non-mining nodes to shut down CREATES this situation

because miners/pools will be the ones running the majority of nodes all the times.

however by non-mining nodes continuing to run their nodes causes

Of course if a pool with having the minority numbers of nodes tries to change the code then the majority controlling the nodes will block it

non-mining and mining nodes have a symbiotic relationship

if a miner/pool wants to change the protocol they will first make sure to have the majority of nodes themselves.

Let's assume I am not a miner but running 200,000 full nodes I can only make miners work more difficult if they try to change something and my nodes refuse them, they'll have to out number my nodes to be able to change the code and their nodes accepts it as valid.

But why would I be running 200,000 nodes? I don't have any incentive and unlike miners/pools I can't afford to run nodes.

you dont need to run 200,000 nodes.. its much easier to get 200,000 merchants/people to run 1 node each.

or more realistically if there are 20~ pool nodes.. have over 6000 non mining nodes

[cryptoanarchist]

non mining nodes are not just database backups. nodes provide a crucial security mechanism too. which ensures that a simple 51% attack wont cause control issues. and pools have a security mechanism that prevents node sybil attacks wont cause control issues.

This has never been true.

Non-mining 'nodes' were never expected to secure the network. There is nothing in the original white paper or code to indicate that. The reason for downloading the full blockchain is so you can check it yourself and not have to trust a third party as to what the chain is.

They were NEVER intended to decide the protocol. Only MINERS that create blocks have any authority over protocol in a PoW system - period.

If people don't like that - use PPC...or Visa

[franky1]

not have to trust a third party as to what the chain is.

ill repeat your own words

not have to trust a third party as to what the chain is.

and again

not have to trust a third party as to what the chain is.

pools can collate the data in any way they like.. but its the NODE NETWORK and consensus, (unity of everyone)
that decides what is acceptable.

if nodes reject blocks, that pool cannot spend the reward in that block 16 hours later, because that block is trashed..
yea that block may exist in that pools list.. but not in the list of merchants and users who will have a different list, which due to the consensus/orphan mechanism ensures a united single chain of good rule following blocks.

a pool can make THOUSANDS of blocks and store them locally on their own system and build on them on thir own system, but if nodes are rejecting them then its just wasting the pools times making something only itself can see that no one else holds and as such that pool cannot spend.

pools learn very quickly unless there is little to no risk of rejection/orphaning, they wont change the rules.

even if pools are told they have been given the vote power. pools still watch the node network to see the risks of making a block
they can wave their ass/hat/flag all they like about preference. but they wont actually make a funky block unless the orphan risk was negligible

EG
even with the 1mb rule, pools in 2009 preferred to only make blocks under 250kb because of many factors, in 2013 there was a big event that caused pools to not want to make blocks over 500kb

pools wont do things if nodes are going to have trouble with the change.

EG
imagine you work in a factory making them yellow plastic bathroom ducks.. you decide "hmm today im gonna make green ducks"
you spend all day making thousands of green ducks, knowing you fellow employee's are making yellow ducks. and when you show your end of day produce, non of your bosses or the companies customers want green ducks. so you have just been told yo didnt meet your quata, you wont get paid.
you soon learn its far easier to just make yellow ducks

[cryptoanarchist]

not have to trust a third party as to what the chain is.

ill repeat your own words

not have to trust a third party as to what the chain is.

and again

not have to trust a third party as to what the chain is.

pools can collate the data in any way they like.. but its the NODE NETWORK and consensus, (unity of everyone)
that decides what is acceptable.

Not sure if we're disagreeing or just using different words.

My point is that if you're not mining, you have no say in generating consensus rules. If you don't match the chain, your only option without mining is to sell off and use a different coin (What many did with LTC yesterday). As far as affecting protocol with economic decisions like that, anyone who holds has that power.

If BU miners broke off today, and the minority chain was forced to mine BU or die, the non-mining 'nodes' would be forced to upgrade to use the network, and have no option to force code on the miners. Sure, the 'node' wouldn't accept the larger blocks, but that wouldn't force the network's hand, it would force them to upgrade their node to follow the BU chain.

If ASIC centralization is a deal-breaker for you, then you need to forget about bitcoin and switch to a coin that uses an asic-resistant algo.

[franky1]

Not sure if we're disagreeing or just using different words.

My point is that if you're not mining, you have no say in generating consensus rules.

you DO have a say
nodes are consensus.

read my examples i added
you as a non manufacturer only want yellow ducks, will refuse to accept green ducks. thus any manufacturer making green ducks is wasting its time.
yes it may have factories sky high filled with green ducks but if all the bathroom merchants and customers only want to buy yellow ducks.. the factory worker making green ducks is wasting its time.

its then the factory worker(pool) who then has to either make yellow ducks and get paid like everyone else. or.. resign and make his own factory and try and get some customers to buy his green ducks in a separate new market(altcoin).

[BillyBobZorton]

All they will have is an useless coin with a higher hashrate. Meanwhile 75% of exchanges and merchants will reject BUcoin.

The poll done by 21 suggest that around 75% of big players in the space want segwit and the  70.5% reject Buggy Unlimited explicitly:




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

Not to mention nobody buy Roger Ver runs nodes.

So it's pretty obvious BU is in general a failure.

[687_2]

I am expecting that once Bitcoin Unlimited gets over 50% of the hashing power then they will have enough confidence to attempt to win the battle of the block size.

Possible, but unlikely. Bitcoin is permissionless. Trying to make all miners adhere to a single plan is akin to herding cats. That said...

The most widely discussed plan os to achieve >= 75% of solved blocks, hold that until the next difficulty retargeting (0-2 weeks), hold it for an entire difficulty retargeting, then start building blocks larger than 1MB (soft cap at 2MB seems to have some support).

I'm curious how this would be possible. How much collusion between mining entities would be required? Has someone done some peer reviewed research on this?

[Nagadota]

But why would I be running 200,000 nodes? I don't have any incentive and unlike miners/pools I can't afford to run nodes.

Well yeah, same reason why one person doesn't seed on the pirate bay a million times just to make sure that all the data about a film someone receives is from them.

There's two key fallacies about nodes though:

1.  It's really hard to run a full node (it's not yet, as long as you have a decent computer and decent Internet).

2.  One person is irrelevant overall to nodes.

Obviously 200,000 is a network of individuals all contributing.  If anyone told themselves they didn't matter, nearly no one would be running nodes at all.

[franky1]

All they will have is an useless coin with a higher hashrate. Meanwhile 75% of exchanges and merchants will reject BUcoin.

The poll done by 21 suggest that around 75% of big players in the space want segwit and the  70.5% reject Buggy Unlimited explicitly:

Not to mention nobody buy Roger Ver runs nodes.

So it's pretty obvious BU is in general a failure.

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/billy 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

[Ayers]

I don't think that the hard fork of BU or Bitcoin Unlimited will rip the network in half because we can see that there is not much user of the that coin and a lot of people still use bitcoin and there is no chance for BU to cut the network in half because the supporters of bitcoin are too big and strong to be defeated.

that is not the reason, the reason is that exchange will view bu as an altcoin, which is a good think, because it allow core to remain the primal fork, if miners want BU they will make an altcoin, perhaps we end up like with ETH and ETC, both with different value

[Riptide999]

Let's not turn this into another blocksize debate.

Thank you for all answers.  I had been keeping all my BTC on paper wallets because I wanted the option to import them and own both the
BTC and BUcoin in the event of a sudden network fork & split.  My reasoning was along similar lines to having both ETH and ETC when Ethereum split.

I have a perfectly good Trezor which I'd rather use than paper wallets, but I was afraid to have my BTC on the Trezor because then I would only get the currency which Trezor follows (like only having ETH when Ethereum split).

[Sundark]

I am expecting that once Bitcoin Unlimited gets over 50% of the hashing power then they will have enough confidence to attempt to win the battle of the block size.  I am expecting that once they are over 50% they will start their hard fork and hence create two competing Bitcoins.  Then chaos for everybody.

Bitcoin is PoW system, hash power is the law.  But hostile takeover over bitcoin's network won't end well. It is no longer emergency rollback fork like ETH did.
It is forcing your will against community and minority of miners. It will be a disaster. It is stupid. They know it, we know it. It will crash BTC price and ruin BTC trust.

[Riptide999]

But Sundark, the way these guys are explaining it is that BU can't really fork now and cause a chaos scenario, they can only do it if the economy all comes to agree with BU first and by that point it's all cool with everyone anyways.  So no competing coins really.  At least that's my understanding (?).

[c789]

Core is not perfect, but BU is just sad. Might as well stand for Bugs Unlimited.

[BillyBobZorton]

All they will have is an useless coin with a higher hashrate. Meanwhile 75% of exchanges and merchants will reject BUcoin.

The poll done by 21 suggest that around 75% of big players in the space want segwit and the  70.5% reject Buggy Unlimited explicitly:

Not to mention nobody buy Roger Ver runs nodes.

So it's pretty obvious BU is in general a failure.

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/billy 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

If franky1 is not around (impossible because he lives on the forums) then jonald will spam the usual anti-segwit bullshit.

Sorry, facts are clear: Nobody in the industry supports Buggy Unlimited. It's game over, finished.

If you want bigger blocks, start thinking about a new name for your new bitcoin takeover attempt.

[CloudStrife]

I don't know why people still fall into so much FUD. Take a look at the BU bitfinex token, the price has dropped considerably, and the volume is really low. In addition to the fact that the hype has declined, it seems that people in the market are not willing to take the risk of investing into it.

[cryptoanarchist]

All they will have is an useless coin with a higher hashrate. Meanwhile 75% of exchanges and merchants will reject BUcoin.

The poll done by 21 suggest that around 75% of big players in the space want segwit and the  70.5% reject Buggy Unlimited explicitly:




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

Not to mention nobody buy Roger Ver runs nodes.

So it's pretty obvious BU is in general a failure.

Bitcoin is PoW (Proof of Work), not PoSP (Proof of Sybil Poll)

[BillyBobZorton]

All they will have is an useless coin with a higher hashrate. Meanwhile 75% of exchanges and merchants will reject BUcoin.

The poll done by 21 suggest that around 75% of big players in the space want segwit and the  70.5% reject Buggy Unlimited explicitly:




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

Not to mention nobody buy Roger Ver runs nodes.

So it's pretty obvious BU is in general a failure.

Bitcoin is PoW (Proof of Work), not PoSP (Proof of Sybil Poll)

Indeed, and bitcoin also needs users. 99% of people run Core software, nobody trusts Buggy Unlimited. This is why they just don't fork already and compete against bitcoin as an altcoin, because they know nobody would give a fuck. So they are trying to overtake bitcoin instead of fairly competing. If their solution was so good, then it would surpass BTC, but their solution is a joke, that's why they don't do it.
No matter how much hashrate a couple chinese idiots have, it's useless if there are no users and no good devs. Miners are easily replaceable, devs aren't, and people, merchants, and everyone else, will follow the devs, not the hashrate. There will be new miners to take the lead away from Jihad if he keeps mining his meme coin.