Bitcoin Unlimited with a new Genesis Block

[Tsontar]

i think the better idea is having everyone forced to work together.

For this, you will need a permissioned coin.

The whole reason we have permissionless money in the first place is to render such "force" completely impotent.
[doublepost=1461782837][/doublepost]

you will accept the will of the majority or we will use cyber-virtual-deadly-51%-DOS force.
welcome to bitcoin
resistance is futile

This is so silly. There are a dozen competitive altcoins on the market today stealing Bitcoins market share every day. Just look at the bottom chart. Where's your awesome firepower against them?

Blockchains have already demonstrated themselves to be extremely resilient to attack. I have no doubt that the fork would be just as resilient as Ethereum or Litecoin or Dogecoin, none of which can be DDoSed out of existence.

The only attack you can make is an economic attack. But that's the point of non-coercion: it isn't even considered an attack! I welcome you to sell me your coins on the new fork. I've no doubt they'll be worth a fraction of what a Bitcoin costs today- but you can use the free money I'm handing you to buy more Bitcoins. You are literally better off than you are today: you get free Bitcoin, and the troublemakers go away. Two birds with one stone.

 

[adamstgbit]

Why is it bitcoin didnt fork earlier if its such a good solution to the difference in opinion?
because everyone recognizes how messy that is and how it create a "war".
and we understand that the best solution is one which makes compromise and attempts to satisfy everyone. we went from 20MB to 8MB to 2MB because the small blockers have a legitimate point.
we are not forced to work together but there are strong incentives to not forking bitcoin spinoff style. and i think thats a good thing, the more the merrier, if we start splitting off, it will become easier to come to consensus on future changes, and thats not a good thing... its good that devs/poeple are sorta forced to all agree on changes.

the altcoins are tolerated because they are not an attempt at replacing bitcoin, they dont pretend to be bitcoin. they stand apart.

spin off is a different story....

 

[johnyj]

Why is it bitcoin didnt fork earlier if its such a good solution to the difference in opinion?

because everyone recognizes how messy that is and how it create a "war".
and we understand that the best solution is one which makes compromise and attempts to satisfy everyone. we went from 20MB to 8MB to 2MB because the small blockers have a legitimate point.

we are not forced to work together but there are strong incentives to not forking bitcoin spinoff style. and i think thats a good thing, the more the merrier, if we start splitting off, it will become easier to come to consensus on future changes, and thats not a good thing... its good that devs/poeple are sorta forced to all agree on changes.

There was a "50 bitcoin forever" fork when we had the first reward halving, for some reason (I guess the forker is just a casual programmer, thus did not adjust difficulty), that fork did not grow due to no hash power support

We did not have more spin off fork later on, since at that time all the devs were still catching up with the architecture of bitcoin and try to improve on it, they worked towards the same direction. Then BS had the idea of changing bitcoin into a settlement network by limiting on chain capacity

In fact I supported that idea from the beginning: Even Fedwire does 4 tps and handles thousands of banks in US, why can not bitcoin? But I'm against core not because of the technical reasons, but because they are against the consensus of economy majority. No matter how genius an idea is, without major consensus, it should not be implemented

Then we had the second consensus meeting at HongKong, I found out that BScore devs clearly prioritize their agenda above consensus, and even want to manipulate consensus through social engineering like back door meetings with miners. Then the whole thing changed

After spending some time and look carefully at those arguments by small blockers, I tends to believe that they are just excuses to drag the development into BS's direction. There is no evidence that a large block will create nodes centralization, it is all imaginary threat

The only valid concern is that a large transaction with huge amount of OPSIG will take a long time to verify, but that has been limited by the new code in the latest releases, so that argument does not hold any more

In fact, the mining centralization has always been magnitudes worse than node centralization TODAY, and no devs cares or find a way to fix it, so it further proved that all those talks about node centralization are just excuses

In an ideal world, it will be good that blocks can be as small as possible, and move lots of micro transactions off chain, since low value transactions don't need blockchain level security. But anyway, consensus must be reached first. It does not hurt to raise the block size to 2MB following major consensus and explore a better off chain solution at mean time

 

[adamstgbit]

I'm against core not because of the technical reasons, but because they are against the consensus of economy majority. No matter how genius an idea is, without major consensus, it should not be implemented

I think the same way.
the majority should have the final say, not one small group of devs.
but i think the core dev team has managed to make their idea favored by the majority.
the means by which they achieved this is disgusting, Censorship, LYING to the miners etc...
( I believe the bullshit about 2MB HF at the HK round table was lies. flat out lies to keep the miners from switching to classic... )

so if this isn't a good enough reason to HF bitcoin with a spin off idk what is.

I think the concerns i express in this thread are exaggerated a little and people have good reasons to think it wont be so bad.

let's do it.
let's fork off.

 

[adamstgbit]

I do believe that getting 51%'ed is a real possibility and could kill the fork pretty fast if we dont plan ahead.
if we do fork off i believe we'd have <1% of bitcoin hashing power backing us, so it wouldn't be very hard for 1 large miner to come in and have >51% of BU hashrate.

we could change the POW algo, this would make us considerably safer, since all the bitcoin asic's couldn't mine on the new fork... but i'm not a fan of this idea.

we need a way to ignore blocks from the 51% attacker.

its actually rather simple, we come up with a bunch of checks on a block which all BU miners do, if the block checks out ( no double spends from a 51% attacker ) we dont ignore it, if it doesn't check out, we ignore it even if it looks like >51% is hashing on this chain. Basically during a 51% attack the minority of miners will simply and automatically "fork off" again.

does that make any sense?

 

[adamstgbit]

also we need to put on a show

first thing we need is some hashrate willing to follow us down the rabbit hole.
with this hashrate we can mint a block that is 4MB big, this block gets rejected by the BTC network and BOOM the BU network is born.

 

[Tsontar]

we could change the POW algo, this would make us considerably safer, since all the bitcoin asic's couldn't mine on the new fork... but i'm not a fan of this idea.

Changing PoW is essential, not optional.

Bitcoin is only permissioned insofar as people do not cede permission / authority to others. Continuing with the existing algo is like handing the current miners the keys then asking permission from them to change.

Users have the power to delegate to themselves the ability to mine. But they must exercise this power, else it's toothless.

 

[adamstgbit]

changing the algo, means all the bitcoin miners will for sure never switch over to BU. we aren't giving miners the same freedom of choice as we are the hodlers.
i'm not sure this is a good idea.
i think if we can't spin-off by literally creating a fork in bitcoin ( mining a block which gets rejected and then continuing down this new chain ) then we've created an altcoin, its not as cool.

 

[johnyj]

also we need to put on a show

first thing we need is some hashrate willing to follow us down the rabbit hole.
with this hashrate we can mint a block that is 4MB big, this block gets rejected by the BTC network and BOOM the BU network is born.

There are many ways to do a hard fork, you don't need any hash power support to fork. But you do need hash power support to mine future blocks. Changing the POW would be the last resort and you must get support from merchant and service providers too, but they won't support an insecure chain with tiny hash power, so a PoW change would be easy to get them on board

Still, it's too early to discuss such a hard measure, more research must be done. I still believe chinese miners are not that stupid to put their own fate in the hand of BS. They might veto any change at all until there is a consensus or crisis

 

[adamstgbit]

@johnyj
if we put on a show as i said, this will add a lot of validity to the fork.
miners create 4MB block which is rejected but created the BU network!
it makes for a good story for the press to run.
we dont need much hashing power
somthing that can produce 1 block in 24-48hours would do nicely

we could even buy the hashrate required.

i'd trade 1BTC toward activating the BU fork

and its not like that money is wasted we do end up with a new block with 25 BU bitcoins... might cost 30BTC to create this Block....

 

[johnyj]

@adamstgbit
Chinese miners' agreement is that without a 2MB hard fork baked together in core's segwit release, they won't run it. Of course this move is stupid (since once segwit is in the code, raise the cap to 2MB will require 8MB bandwidth), but as I understand, someone inside core would never implement such a hard fork 2MB raise, that means no one will move forward, forever 1MB original satoshi design is also not a bad idea (the worst idea is segwit sf, I will avoid it at all costs), so that people can use third party LN solutions like 21inc's LN at mean time, waiting for a stronger consensus

If it takes 18 months to reach consensus for a block size increase, then it would take at least 36 months to reach consensus for segwit, which almost no one understand what kind of risk it brings

 

[adamstgbit]

@johnyj
all i want is BU to fork off with a 4MB block that gets rejected by bitcoin's network and in turn creates the BU fork.

I'll pay 200$ for a front row seat to watch this live.

 

[freetrader]

@adamstgbit : It seems you also didn't understand how BU works.

The "BU network" (made of nodes with various acceptance settings) might accept a larger block for a while as long as it is part of the longest valid (in their eyes) chain.

But this simply will not happen unless a majority of mining power builds on that chain.

It is a pipe dream - such a demo of a larger block or a minority fork of BU.

 

[adamstgbit]

@freetrader

I'm saying we should change it, and have BU mining nodes purposely make a 4MB block, which in turn causes a minority fork BU choose to follow.

forget everything i said before, I want a war!

 

[freetrader]

@adamstgbit : You've talked out of your ass before, I think this time it's no different.

I'm saying we should change it, and have BU mining nodes purposely make a 4MB block, which in turn causes a minority fork BU choose to follow.

Then you make it happen. It's the Bitcoin way.

 

[tramese]

There is actually an alt-coin created to address this blockchain size debate. The source code is exactly like bitcoin, except with 2MB already coded...and anything updates with Bitcoin core will be applied to the coin as well. It also comes with 10x supply, 210 million coins instead of 21 million, so it should be 1/10 value of bitcoin. 500 reward block starting instead of 50.

It was just created about 6 months ago, so mining is still relatively easy for those who want to start mining it.

It's also great for those who missed the original bitcoin train and want to start mining the cheap coins.

You can read more at bitcointalk thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1541329.0

Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/cbit/

The coin is called C-bits XCT.