BUIP113: (closed) Support Bitcoin SV with an Official Implementation

[Griffith]

Thank you

 

[imaginary_username]

If this is rejected while BUIP 114 passes, does that mean BSV support will live on as a git branch of BUcash?

 

[Griffith]

@imaginary_username yes. this is similar to BUIP 063 that separated off BCH into its own client, this would do the same for BSV

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

The idea of bu was that no blocksize limit is needed and that miners and orphans create an emergent consensus.

BSV represents this idea. I can't remember a vote to opt out of this vision, like ABC opposed on bch.

Plus, ABC opted out of the roadmap bu members agreed upon with the vote for the may 2018 hardfork.

Also, ABC opted out from being compatible with the membership vote of bu regarding the november 2018 hard fork.

Despite the ticker symbol bu should never have developed a client for ABC coin.

 

[torusJKL]

Do I understand correct that we have the following four possibilities:

• BUIP113 and BUIP114 are not accepted: status quo
• BUIP113 and BUIP114 are accepted: Both versions will be released as their individual releases
• BUIP113 is accepted BUIP 114 is not accepted: BSV has its own release and BUCash is compatible with BCH and BSV using the HF config params
• BUIP113 is not accepted and BUIP114 is accepted: BU does not support BSV anymore in any release

 

[Griffith]

@torusJKL that would be correct
[doublepost=1555935361][/doublepost]I will take up the task of making the appropriate changes to code based on the voting results

 

[Roy Badami]

The idea of bu was that no blocksize limit is needed and that miners and orphans create an emergent consensus.

BSV represents this idea. I can't remember a vote to opt out of this vision, like ABC opposed on bch..

To the best of my knowledge, ABC supports the excessiveblocksize parameter in the config file, allowing miners to choose the blocksize they will accept, just like BU. Indeed, my understanding is that ABC stands for Adjustable Blocksize Cap.

That miners seem unwilling to change this parameter on their own initiative is a problem - but certainly not a new one.

 

[Griffith]

the EB param in ABC is a hard limit, in BU it is a soft limit

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Lol, adjustable blocksize cap ... But only by Amaury. Good thing that bu is about to end supporting the only chain with a blocksize limit not set by a developer committee ... Voting against the main purpose of bu.

 

[freetrader]

Lol, adjustable blocksize cap ... But only by Amaury. Good thing that bu is about to end supporting the only chain with a blocksize limit not set by a developer committee ... Voting against the main purpose of bu.

@Christoph Bergmann : did ABC remove the blocksize cap as a user-configurable parameter?

(hint: I know the answer)