I believe that Bitcoin Unlimited's path to solve Bitcoin's scaling issues is better than Bitcoin Core's

[rogerver]

In reference to Bobby's tweet:
https://twitter.com/bobbyclee/status/837983836839395328

I'd like to point out that:
https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/838085440108294146

So I made a new poll on this very topic that can't be rigged:



It will be interesting to see just how different the results will be.

Feel free to vote in both and tell us what you think

[Thetamind]

What about a new solution??

Why can't bitcoin team with a new cryptocurrency like Dash, imagine bitcoin being a bank, where people store their funds, and transfer it to dash, to use as a payment network for every day exchanges, like people withdraw cash from the bank....

I think that a team effort, using bitcoin and dash ( or another currency) could create a good bridge without having to alter bitcoin at all. Bitcoin is a system that wasn't really meant to be changed, and who knows what may occur if it splits and causes bitcoin to be worthless. I would suggest not trying to fix a system that isn't broken, but evolve it into something better. Like youtube and facebook work together, or instagram and facebook work together.... Bitcoin and dash can work together to bring about the best experience for both, those interested in long term investments, and day to day networks, as well as being able to be anonymous. We can have the best of both worlds. I think trying to force bitcoin to do anything is the wrong way, and could destroy bitcoin in the process. I really don't want to see that happen... So lets evolve instead of fix.

[Thetamind]

Bitcoin is good, like gold, and I don't think it's meant to be used as a payment system since it cannot handle the world using it. Its simply not designed for it.

It can be used as a way of storing large sums of money, and its value maintained with integrity, if its used as a commodity.

If bitcoin were to team up with dash, or some other crypt, and be easily integrated, as bitcoin being a bank, and another crypto being the cash, people could do both, and I think this is where the real solution lies. This is how crypto will revolutionize the financial world, for everyone. Bitcoin is perfect as it is. It is the new world bank. Another crypto will be the new world currency, and they will deposit that currency into the bank when its not being used.

Am I wrong?

[rogerver]

Bitcoin is good, like gold, and I don't think it's meant to be used as a payment system since it cannot handle the world using it. Its simply not designed for it.?

Please go read the original white paper.
From day one, Bitcoin was designed to be P2P cash for the whole world to use via on chain transactions.

[rogerver]

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/838127790637494272

[rizzlarolla]

Anything is better than Core.
The only thing worse than long delays (getting longer) and high fees (getting higher) is the threat of segwit ever being adopted.

Satoshi designed bitcoin to be hard to break. Core will fail in their attempt, i trust.

[bitkilo]

Is this an early April fools joke, paying bitcoin fees with a credit card, this is insane!

[OgNasty]

Not that my opinion means anything, but I think segwit enables some pretty cool stuff and should probably be activated. That being said, Core was unable to get it activated (I'm making that assumption). At this point a HF to 2mb in order to garner support for segwit and alleviate network congestion seems like a decent compromise for all involved.

[Decoded]

I do agree that Core's actions are a strong conflict of interest, but Unlimited isn't ideal either.

What I think should happen is a temporary blocksize increase that doesn't require a soft fork (something like segwit, or even segwit itself). Once we have figured everything out and found a good solution, we can revert changes and do the actual hard fork.

[rizzlarolla]

I do agree that Core's actions are a strong conflict of interest, but Unlimited isn't ideal either.

What I think should happen is a temporary blocksize increase that doesn't require a soft fork (something like segwit, or even segwit itself). Once we have figured everything out and found a good solution, we can revert changes and do the actual hard fork.

The blocksize cannot be increased without a hardfork, even temporarily.
Once you understand that, maybe you can start to understand why a simple hardfork could be easy to achieve.
And why i think it will happen quickly, in a time of utter congestion and massive fees, forcing action upon the consensus hashpower to save their businesses.

Segwit also requires a soft or hardfork, and cannot be undone if it is adopted, even temporarily, without massive rollback and blood on the carpet.

[klaaas]

for now, 52% Bitcoin Core: SegWit

It is what i also prefer as first option.

[Decoded]

I do agree that Core's actions are a strong conflict of interest, but Unlimited isn't ideal either.

What I think should happen is a temporary blocksize increase that doesn't require a soft fork (something like segwit, or even segwit itself). Once we have figured everything out and found a good solution, we can revert changes and do the actual hard fork.

The blocksize cannot be increased without a hardfork, even temporarily.
Once you understand that, maybe you can start to understand why a simple hardfork could be easy to achieve.
And why i think it will happen quickly, in a time of utter congestion and massive fees, forcing action upon the consensus hashpower to save their businesses.

Segwit also requires a soft or hardfork, and cannot be undone if it is adopted, even temporarily, without massive rollback and blood on the carpet.

Maybe not in actuality, but psychologically, a soft fork is MUCH easier to implement, is it not?

You and I both know that if we were to have a hard fork now, Bitcoin would fall to pieces. There's no doubt about it.

Again, rolling back segwit would be easy, it's just another psychological barrier. You could simply have consensus at a certain date to change the block version.

[patrick.miller]

I will NOT participate in your absolutely rigged and worthless polls. Bitcoin Unlimited IS NOT what the users, exchanges, miners, or community wants. Stop trying to ram this down our throats with your $$.

I can't believe how disingenuous you guys are being Roger & Jake.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5 ... t_bitcoin/

[patrick.miller]

Maybe not in actuality, but psychologically, a soft fork is MUCH easier to implement, is it not?

You and I both know that if we were to have a hard fork now, Bitcoin would fall to pieces. There's no doubt about it.

Again, rolling back segwit would be easy, it's just another psychological barrier. You could simply have consensus at a certain date to change the block version.

YES, SegWit is backwards compatible upgrade and a COMPLETELY SAFE way to upgrade transaction capacity, fix tx malleability, allow script versioning, and many other amazing innovations to come forth with ease (Lightning, sidechains, improved TumbleBit, Sprite, schnorr signature aggregation, RingCT confidential transactions, and MANY MORE).

But you see, these guys DO NOT CARE about facts or Bitcoin. If they cared about Bitcoin, they would work WITH the community not trying to DIVIDE the community.

Instead of working TOGETHER, they want to TAKE OVER BITCOIN.

NO THANKS!

[bchMike]

Patrick, thank you for coming here, first of all.

Secondly, disingenuous describes a twitter poll that can be manipulated with literally unlimited accounts being created to vote one way or the other. Voting based on cryptographic signatures with verifiable bitcoin holdings is NOT disingenuous—quite the opposite

Please feel free to add your vote to the totals, as I have. It seems the majority of BITCOINS want BU, at least as far as Bitcoinocracy suggests. Is this meaningless?

I will NOT participate in your absolutely rigged and worthless polls. Bitcoin Unlimited IS NOT what the users, exchanges, miners, or community wants. Stop trying to ram this down our throats with your $$.

I can't believe how disingenuous you guys are being Roger & Jake.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5 ... t_bitcoin/

[bchMike]

I have been a btc holder since 2012. I support Bitcoin Unlimited. To say that others with significant bitcoin holdings "don't care about bitcoin" is not only absurd but reveals an almost willful ignorance.

I implore you, a seemingly intelligent and free man, to explain what you think Mr. Ver and others with large holdings have to gain from "dividing the community".

Is it at all possible, according to your enlightened position, that Roger Ver, BU, or the vilified Chinese could actually be working to save or help bitcoin?

I am dying to know the answer to this question: Is supporting SegWit unilaterally the only way that one can be on "the right side" of the bitcoin world?

Maybe not in actuality, but psychologically, a soft fork is MUCH easier to implement, is it not?

You and I both know that if we were to have a hard fork now, Bitcoin would fall to pieces. There's no doubt about it.

Again, rolling back segwit would be easy, it's just another psychological barrier. You could simply have consensus at a certain date to change the block version.

YES, SegWit is backwards compatible upgrade and a COMPLETELY SAFE way to upgrade transaction capacity, fix tx malleability, allow script versioning, and many other amazing innovations to come forth with ease (Lightning, sidechains, improved TumbleBit, Sprite, schnorr signature aggregation, RingCT confidential transactions, and MANY MORE).

But you see, these guys DO NOT CARE about facts or Bitcoin. If they cared about Bitcoin, they would work WITH the community not trying to DIVIDE the community.

Instead of working TOGETHER, they want to TAKE OVER BITCOIN.

NO THANKS!

[patrick.miller]

Patrick, thank you for coming here, first of all.

Thank you.

Secondly, disingenuous describes a twitter poll that can be manipulated with literally unlimited accounts being created to vote one way or the other. Voting based on cryptographic signatures with verifiable bitcoin holdings is NOT disingenuous—quite the opposite

Every poll to date posted on r/btc, r/bitcoin, twitter, strawpoll.me, bitcointalk, what have you, has shown that the community trusts Bitcoin Core and SegWit. Why do you think the majority of nodes run Core? Over 50% of nodes are running Segwit compatible Core releases. Over 80% run a Core release. This is the only legitimate way to measure support. Thank goodness we do not have proof-of-stake in Bitcoin because we know exactly what would happen -- the big holders will eventually collude to gain control of the protocol through manipulation of consensus.

Please feel free to add your vote to the totals, as I have. It seems the majority of BITCOINS want BU, at least as far as Bitcoinocracy suggests. Is this meaningless?

I already told you I will not vote with my bitcoins so please do not mock me. I do not believe in a Bitcoin Dick Swinging contest, I believe in technological merits and the BIP process for testing and releasing code.

Look Mike, before I go further, let me just say that this whole complaining about censorship on reddit is a joke. Censorship is what governments do to people when they shut down their political websites and arrest people for harmless free speech in public places. Reddit is the easiest forum in the world to manipulate --- many videos have been produced showing how this works, and everyone knows it. Reddit is for memes and sound bites, not for technical discussion. Because of this, it has to be moderated. Otherwise, all you see is a bunch of crap! R/btc is the most toxic subreddit I have EVER seen!! I stopped posting anything in r/btc because I got downvoted and couldn't post more than 10 minutes. Anytime I said anything in support of SegWit or against BU, I had NO WAY to respond within a reasonable time-frame. I deleted my account on reddit because it was POINTLESS. If you want technical discussion, we all know that bb forums are 1000x better for back and forth discussions. Even your own moderators quit because they said that place is a sh*t hole!

Is supporting SegWit unilaterally the only way that one can be on "the right side" of the bitcoin world?

Yes, at this point in history it is. SegWit is BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE ... meaning it has NO DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS on existing users and nodes.

We can work together to make Bitcoin work for everyone, but you and Roger have chosen to NOT work together with Bitcoin Core or the community. Instead, you have chosen to take a stand when there is PRODUCTION CODE ready and deployed RIGHT NOW that can solve almost ALL of the problems with Bitcoin in its' current state.

Since you you guys don't want Lightning or Sprite channels, you don't want privacy, or fungibility, or SegWit, or fixing transaction malleability, or Tumblebit, or Confidential Transactions, or Schnorr Signature aggregation, or script versioning then why the hell would I want to have anything to do with you guys?

If you cared ONE IOTA for any of the amazing innovations that are available RIGHT NOW if we were to activate SegWit, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion... so NO... OF COURSE I cannot ever support BU.

[Decoded]

Patrick, thank you for coming here, first of all.

Thank you.

Secondly, disingenuous describes a twitter poll that can be manipulated with literally unlimited accounts being created to vote one way or the other. Voting based on cryptographic signatures with verifiable bitcoin holdings is NOT disingenuous—quite the opposite

Every poll to date posted on r/btc, r/bitcoin, twitter, strawpoll.me, bitcointalk, what have you, has shown that the community trusts Bitcoin Core and SegWit. Why do you think the majority of nodes run Core? Over 50% of nodes are running Segwit compatible Core releases. Over 80% run a Core release. This is the only legitimate way to measure support. Thank goodness we do not have proof-of-stake in Bitcoin because we know exactly what would happen -- the big holders will eventually collude to gain control of the protocol through manipulation of consensus.

Please feel free to add your vote to the totals, as I have. It seems the majority of BITCOINS want BU, at least as far as Bitcoinocracy suggests. Is this meaningless?

I already told you I will not vote with my bitcoins so please do not mock me. I do not believe in a Bitcoin Dick Swinging contest, I believe in technological merits and the BIP process for testing and releasing code.

Look Mike, before I go further, let me just say that this whole complaining about censorship on reddit is a joke. Censorship is what governments do to people when they shut down their political websites and arrest people for harmless free speech in public places. Reddit is the easiest forum in the world to manipulate --- many videos have been produced showing how this works, and everyone knows it. Reddit is for memes and sound bites, not for technical discussion. Because of this, it has to be moderated. Otherwise, all you see is a bunch of crap! R/btc is the most toxic subreddit I have EVER seen!! I stopped posting anything in r/btc because I got downvoted and couldn't post more than 10 minutes. Anytime I said anything in support of SegWit or against BU, I had NO WAY to respond within a reasonable time-frame. I deleted my account on reddit because it was POINTLESS. If you want technical discussion, we all know that bb forums are 1000x better for back and forth discussions. Even your own moderators quit because they said that place is a sh*t hole!

Is supporting SegWit unilaterally the only way that one can be on "the right side" of the bitcoin world?

Yes, at this point in history it is. SegWit is BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE ... meaning it has NO DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS on existing users and nodes.

We can work together to make Bitcoin work for everyone, but you and Roger have chosen to NOT work together with Bitcoin Core or the community. Instead, you have chosen to take a stand when there is PRODUCTION CODE ready and deployed RIGHT NOW that can solve almost ALL of the problems with Bitcoin in its' current state.

Since you you guys don't want Lightning or Sprite channels, you don't want privacy, or fungibility, or SegWit, or fixing transaction malleability, or Tumblebit, or Confidential Transactions, or Schnorr Signature aggregation, or script versioning then why the hell would I want to have anything to do with you guys?

If you cared ONE IOTA for any of the amazing innovations that are available RIGHT NOW if we were to activate SegWit, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion... so NO... OF COURSE I cannot ever support BU.

You could essentially say the same thing for Blockstream, with them trying to push a concept that is widely known that will not reach consensus. You see bitcointalk threads about this, pages upon pages of people saying it won't work. I understand that there may be good intent, but hey.

You want my opinion? We need something new, something that will actually work, something that will sway the community. Segwit is sh*t. BU is sh*t. They both have good ideas and concepts, just the people that support both of these are simply binary thinkers. One fork is either good or bad. All you diehards better see the light, or we'll never fork and we'll be stuck with a 1MB blockchain forever.

But hey, at least Simplex, a centralised bitcoin payment gateway is making money.

[patrick.miller]

Decoded: why are you diverting the discussion to Blockstream. They are not the users, nodes, miners, exchanges, wallets. Those are clearly choosing Core by large margins if you look at the numbers.

As for you criticizing those of us trying to get past this impasse, what is your solution?

If you can't offer a solution such as a backwards compatible upgrade that increases TPS and provides many bug fixes, then what more can you offer to this discussion?

I am open to TEEchan hardware scaling except it's not open sourced by Emin and there's no documentation or proof presented that it even works.

I'm open to Sergio's Lumino proposal, but I doubt the BU developers can accomplish anything in collaboration with the developer community.

So, I am open to all possibilities -- I would even be open to BU if it were tested with the public testnet or on an altcoin for a period of time. I don't want to release massive changes consensus that goes from static variable to dynamic, adding a new layer of game theory complexity.

[patrick.miller]

It does appear that Antpool is now signalling for Bitcoin Unlimited, ratcheting up the stakes quite a bit. Considering 80+% of nodes are still Bitcoin Core and only 1mb compatible, and over 50% SegWit compatible, but will not accept BU blocks over 1mb, it's a clear step towards brinkmanship.

Will BU adopt SegWit and Core's 0.14 changes? Will Core give in and adopt "emergent consensus"?

Since neither seem likely, it's only brought things slightly closer to a potential hard-fork or a miniscule chance of a network split. I think we are still very far away, and that it's mostly psychological signaling, but doesn't provide any clear path still.