The Fork Revolution! - returning BTC to Satoshi's original mission

[Windowly]

Like any good revolution, a Bitcoin Unlimited fork will return bitcoin to it's original mission -- a peer-to-peer cash that allows even the poorest of us to transact on the blockchain.

With Antpool switching over to BU, a majority BU fork seems much more likely. I thought the antsy pro-fork folk among us can use this thread to share predictions of when this fork will happen and the latest updates and news along the way.

So far Antpool has not completely switched over -- all of the USA servers are still signaling for the legacy Core implementation. The rest should switch over in the next few days.

However, our very own Bitcoin.com pool is at 88.7 PH/s and a new pool Canoe will open what has been called the biggest bitcoin mine ever in Hefeng Industrial park in Xinjiang, China. This should open on March 15 (in four days).

I imagine Bitcoin.com pool's percentage of hashing power will continue to increase in the next couple weeks.


According to coin dance Bitcoin Unlimited is now at 27.5% for the last 1k blocks. (And 33.3% for the last 24 hours!) In that case, how much hash power does Bitcoin Unlimited have after ten days? And what is the next step?

[Windowly]

Bitcoin Unlimited presently at 29.7%.

[rogerver]

It is up to 33.3% now!

http://nodecounter.com/

[Windowly]

It is up to 33.3% now!

http://nodecounter.com/

We're getting up there!

And just now over at Coin Dancethey're giving Bitcoin Unlimited an estimated rate of 34.56% at 1,172PH/s. BTC

[Windowly]

Meanwhile over at Coin Dance Bitcoin Unlimited has support from 22 industries in the bitcoin space already. (This list only started quite recently.)

[eddy1337]

But what about how big the blocks will be? And how much data have to be transfered to run a bitcoin client(full version) i alrady upload 10gb when just downloading 100mb, if it get 8-16(or even more)times bigger, it will be 80gb(120gb each 24 hours)

Wont that effect the numbers of nodes relaying transactions and desentralising the network? (Will be perhaps have to make e.g masternodes or somethihng like that as well? if we raise the block size?

[Windowly]

But what about how big the blocks will be? And how much data have to be transfered to run a bitcoin client(full version) i alrady upload 10gb when just downloading 100mb, if it get 8-16(or even more)times bigger, it will be 80gb(120gb each 24 hours)

Wont that effect the numbers of nodes relaying transactions and desentralising the network? (Will be perhaps have to make e.g masternodes or somethihng like that as well? if we raise the block size?

Some nodes will be forced off the network, and more nodes will come online as more people can use bitcoin.

There has also been some work done on having pruned nodes which would cut down on the amount of data people would have to store.

[eddy1337]

But what about how big the blocks will be? And how much data have to be transfered to run a bitcoin client(full version) i alrady upload 10gb when just downloading 100mb, if it get 8-16(or even more)times bigger, it will be 80gb(120gb each 24 hours)

Wont that effect the numbers of nodes relaying transactions and desentralising the network? (Will be perhaps have to make e.g masternodes or somethihng like that as well? if we raise the block size?

Some nodes will be forced off the network, and more nodes will come online as more people can use bitcoin.

There has also been some work done on having pruned nodes which would cut down on the amount of data people would have to store.

I dont think the nodes will handle it very good at this point as most people will use a lite wallet so they dont have to run a node and use 1000gb+ in monthly datatrafic. Perhaps in 5-6 years when fiberoptic internet is more widespread!

If an incrase in blocksize should be considered it have to be done in steps, first 2mb with an agreeement to follow up with 3mb, then 4, and after that perhaps 8 and 16.

Together with ofchains solutions and segwit 2-3mb block size is more than enough for at least 2-3 more years. We have to keep the network desentralised at as many specters of the tech as possible.. Nodes being the most important! Then miners! Then transactions and regular users..

By doing it step by step, the technology will unfold as we raise the limit.. But to raise it to 16 is just irresponsible with an unknown outcom!

[Windowly]

But what about how big the blocks will be? And how much data have to be transfered to run a bitcoin client(full version) i alrady upload 10gb when just downloading 100mb, if it get 8-16(or even more)times bigger, it will be 80gb(120gb each 24 hours)

Wont that effect the numbers of nodes relaying transactions and desentralising the network? (Will be perhaps have to make e.g masternodes or somethihng like that as well? if we raise the block size?

Some nodes will be forced off the network, and more nodes will come online as more people can use bitcoin.

There has also been some work done on having pruned nodes which would cut down on the amount of data people would have to store.

I dont think the nodes will handle it very good at this point as most people will use a lite wallet so they dont have to run a node and use 1000gb+ in monthly datatrafic. Perhaps in 5-6 years when fiberoptic internet is more widespread!

If an incrase in blocksize should be considered it have to be done in steps, first 2mb with an agreeement to follow up with 3mb, then 4, and after that perhaps 8 and 16.

Together with ofchains solutions and segwit 2-3mb block size is more than enough for at least 2-3 more years. We have to keep the network desentralised at as many specters of the tech as possible.. Nodes being the most important! Then miners! Then transactions and regular users..

By doing it step by step, the technology will unfold as we raise the limit.. But to raise it to 16 is just irresponsible with an unknown outcom!

There is no automatic raising of the blocksize to 16. Bitcoin Unlimited just gives power to miners and nodes to set a limit that works for them technologically wise and cost-wise.

[Windowly]

And good news -- Antpool has started switching over their USA servers. . . shouldn't be long now before we hit 40%. BTC BTC

[eddy1337]

Some nodes will be forced off the network, and more nodes will come online as more people can use bitcoin.

There has also been some work done on having pruned nodes which would cut down on the amount of data people would have to store.

I dont think the nodes will handle it very good at this point as most people will use a lite wallet so they dont have to run a node and use 1000gb+ in monthly datatrafic. Perhaps in 5-6 years when fiberoptic internet is more widespread!

If an incrase in blocksize should be considered it have to be done in steps, first 2mb with an agreeement to follow up with 3mb, then 4, and after that perhaps 8 and 16.

Together with ofchains solutions and segwit 2-3mb block size is more than enough for at least 2-3 more years. We have to keep the network desentralised at as many specters of the tech as possible.. Nodes being the most important! Then miners! Then transactions and regular users..

By doing it step by step, the technology will unfold as we raise the limit.. But to raise it to 16 is just irresponsible with an unknown outcom!

There is no automatic raising of the blocksize to 16. Bitcoin Unlimited just gives power to miners and nodes to set a limit that works for them technologically wise and cost-wise.

Why do you want to make a consiuss act to split the network? The price will plumit if you make that happen, and Bitcoin Classic/Unlimited will be born next to Bitcoin, Not any european exchange will sell Bitcoin Unlimited as i see it..

[eddy1337]

Some nodes will be forced off the network, and more nodes will come online as more people can use bitcoin.

There has also been some work done on having pruned nodes which would cut down on the amount of data people would have to store.

I dont think the nodes will handle it very good at this point as most people will use a lite wallet so they dont have to run a node and use 1000gb+ in monthly datatrafic. Perhaps in 5-6 years when fiberoptic internet is more widespread!

If an incrase in blocksize should be considered it have to be done in steps, first 2mb with an agreeement to follow up with 3mb, then 4, and after that perhaps 8 and 16.

Together with ofchains solutions and segwit 2-3mb block size is more than enough for at least 2-3 more years. We have to keep the network desentralised at as many specters of the tech as possible.. Nodes being the most important! Then miners! Then transactions and regular users..

By doing it step by step, the technology will unfold as we raise the limit.. But to raise it to 16 is just irresponsible with an unknown outcom!

There is no automatic raising of the blocksize to 16. Bitcoin Unlimited just gives power to miners and nodes to set a limit that works for them technologically wise and cost-wise.

But 16 will be default? Right? And when miners can choose they will always choose to transact as many tranaction as possible, then the next block have to verify that block, and all over the blockchain will be 10-16 times bigger! Find another solution that making the blocks so stupid big!

It will also destroy the desentralising as the chinese exchanges can transact most transactions in one block.. It will make for much more spam/ddos oppertunities, and it will make for a more unstable and unsecure network as well as a hell lot more expensive!

and if the mempool become completly empty, miners can corner the fee market very easy!(that is probably why they do it)

Why not make another blockchain that not produces bitcoin but just verifies transactions? (offchain)

[Windowly]

Today is a sad day for bitcoin -- our bitcoin market cap dominance index has reached the lowest it ever has -- at 73.6%. If miners don't move fast, I think bitcoin could loose it's dominance rather fast.

In addition, it seems in a lot of exchanges ethereum is getting more trading and more liquidity.

[Windowly]

This is one of the scarier graphs I've seen. Pretty evident what has been happening since July last year.

[eddy1337]

Today is a sad day for bitcoin -- our bitcoin market cap dominance index has reached the lowest it ever has -- at 73.6%. If miners don't move fast, I think bitcoin could loose it's dominance rather fast.

In addition, it seems in a lot of exchanges ethereum is getting more trading and more liquidity.

YES and that is because investors are afraid for a netsplit!! So stop fucking around with BU ffs!!!!!

[Windowly]

Another server in Antpool is propagating BU blocks. And Bitcoin Unlimited was able to present to Coinbase and clear up a lot of misconceptions.

[Windowly]

YES and that is because investors are afraid for a netsplit!! So stop fucking around with BU ffs!!!!!

To each his own. I'm not trying to convince anyone here, just looking forward to and chronicling the upcoming fork.

[eddy1337]

YES and that is because investors are afraid for a netsplit!! So stop fucking around with BU ffs!!!!!

To each his own. I'm not trying to convince anyone here, just looking forward to and chronicling the upcoming fork.

remember 85% i dont think it will reach that much hashrate

[eddy1337]

“Economic actors that wish to see the speed limit [block-size limit] at X or Y – thus dictating the free market – will lobby the Chief Scientist and other ‘core’ developers, individually, in private, in public, with carrots, and with sticks”, writes Mr. Garzik in the draft for BIP 100. “When [the] Bitcoin market cap [grows 10 times] or more, the lobbying [will be] even more intense. Yet there is no single human or commitment on the planet capable of picking a good speed limit”.

https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-block- ... ts-update/

Maybe this is the solution?

[Windowly]

“Economic actors that wish to see the speed limit [block-size limit] at X or Y – thus dictating the free market – will lobby the Chief Scientist and other ‘core’ developers, individually, in private, in public, with carrots, and with sticks”, writes Mr. Garzik in the draft for BIP 100. “When [the] Bitcoin market cap [grows 10 times] or more, the lobbying [will be] even more intense. Yet there is no single human or commitment on the planet capable of picking a good speed limit”.

https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-block- ... ts-update/

Maybe this is the solution?

Maybe. But I think having multiple competing implementations is the best way to decide contentious questions like this scaling one. There should be no 'chief scientist' for all of bitcoin, imho. Instead, let a hundred flowers bloom.

[chopstick]

The great forkening shall soon be upon us...

I'm so excited

Can't wait to dump corecoins everywhere.

[rogerver]

Recently I learned that all of the BU nodes being run by Bitcoin.com's mining pool are identifying themselves to the network as Core so they don't receive the same kind of attacks the forum and the rest of Bitcoin.com have been receiving the last few days.

I didn't realize that was the case.
Our CTO, who talks often with the other BU pools said that they are doing the same thing as well, so this means the actual number of BU full nodes on the network is higher than what sites like http://nodecounter.com/ have been reporting.

[Ferox]

Rogerver, are you planning to register a trade mark "Bitcoin unlimited" after the fork? You will be able to obtain your own cryptomoney and rule it like Buterin rules ethereum. I think you can do it... why not?

[Windowly]

Recently I learned that all of the BU nodes being run by Bitcoin.com's mining pool are identifying themselves to the network as Core so they don't receive the same kind of attacks the forum and the rest of Bitcoin.com have been receiving the last few days.

I didn't realize that was the case.
Our CTO, who talks often with the other BU pools said that they are doing the same thing as well, so this means the actual number of BU full nodes on the network is higher than what sites like http://nodecounter.com/ have been reporting.

Oh that's very good to hear! The progress we have made so far is quite heartening.

One thing I've noticed -- I can't access the forum at all through my vpn (maybe the cloudfare settings are too high?)

[Windowly]

And Core members (or some Core members)are trying to change Bitcoin from proof-of-work to something different.

Will this lead BitFury or other pools to switch over to Bitcoin Unlimited?

[rge]

How about we try this solution for the fork split (Double our bitcoin):
if we currently have 1 BTC, then we'll get 1 BTC and 1 BUTC for example after the split, so two Bitcoin in total.
It's the most fair method for fellow BTC users. It's like a stock split in financial terms.

We want to reward fellow BTC users to date for their dedication and efforts so we double their bitcoin. So it is a win win for all of us. Currently the bitcoin price is tanking because we're trying to split. Just like if a company is issuing more shares, the stock price will drop. But the price will be stable if it is a stock split.

Another reason is that I want to use both BTC and BUTC for diversification sake. If one fall, the other survives. I love bitcoin and we all should survive by using both BTC and BUTC.

If you like my idea, please send me a little something for reward. I'll post how much bitcoin I got, and that will show how much people like this idea.

[Windowly]

And Bitclub has joined the club.

I'm so pleased.

[Ferox]

And Bitclub has joined the club.

I'm so pleased.

And what does it mean? It means Rogerver will obtain his own cryptomoney, register his trade mark "Bitcoin unlimited" and become a powerful ruler of unlimited coins... But will any serious firm or merchant accept such money that belongs to a private person? I think none of them! So bitcoin unlimited future is to be a simple toy for its owner and gamblers to play.

[rge]

These people who talks a lot about BTU good things are either a miners or having some kind of collusion with BTU.
BTC investors are being dumb-strucked, and they may lose a lot on their investments.

What BTU should have done is give 1 BTU for every 1 BTC owned. But rather they start anew so the miners can easily mine BTU and sell it at a high price. Give me a break. This move is for profit to the miners. Of course it will come with the high cost of bitcoin reputation as a whole.

BTU should just disappear, you guys are probably scammer. What you guys are doing can be a borderline Financial fraud. You're lucky that most people are not very educated about it.

[rge]

Sorry, I think I was wrong saying what I said previously.
I read this article: https://medium.com/@johnblocke/there-wi ... .pgb7gguw3
I think we should manage without the split with what this guy says.