Quote from: JackH on January 09, 2016, 07:04:40 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on January 09, 2016, 02:36:35 PM

Quote from: JackH on January 08, 2016, 05:48:19 PM

Quote from: Peter R on January 08, 2016, 05:44:44 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on January 08, 2016, 04:00:22 PM

Quote from: alp on January 06, 2016, 01:36:43 AM

...
This is a clear intent to break everything and make it too chaotic to be usable.

Actually because of the defaults set in BU it is more likely to follow the longest chain regardless of what the blocksize will be. Therefore it can be argued that BU is better for end users since if they where using Core instead they would be forked off the network when the blocksize is increased. BU allows for continued compatibility with the Bitcoin blockchain regardless of what blocksize proposal is adopted, unlike both XT and Core which will need to be upgraded and or patched in order to maintain consensus with the economic majority depending on the blocksize proposal that is chosen. Bitcoin Unlimited on the other hand maintains compatibility with other proposals out of the box from day one using the default settings.

Indeed. For people who want to track consensus regardless of the who/what/where/when/why of the eventual block size limit increase, Bitcoin Unlimited is the best choice.

Why are you posting that picture? Is the RED supposed to induce a negative emotion? Is RED supposed to be wrong?

BU is full of flaws and allows for Sybil attacks.

The crowd here are capable of thinking for themselves, this is not some political campaign where you just utter the same words over and over and show us 4 colored boxes. It means absolutely nothing that you draw those boxes. Its insulting how you present your option.

Green stands for yes and red stands for no, there is nothing manipulative about this, unless you think that traffic lights and price graphs for example are also propaganda. These associations with colors are well established, and it is a fact that Core does not support an increased blocksize whereas BU does regardless of the blocksize limit and which blocksize increase proposal is chosen by the economic majority, so the way that Peter R depicts potential support and compatibility for these different implementations under different network conditions is accurate.

BU does not allow for Sybil attacks like you claim, since proof of work can not be Sybil attack, and it is proof of work which under BU would allow for a change to the blocksize limit, this is actually not any different to how the network already functions today, BU just further empowers participants by reducing the barriers to entry to effect such change.

Bitcoin Unlimited will just follow the longest chain regardless of the blocksize limit under the default settings, and proof of work can not be Sybil attacked, which is the primary reason why POW is even used in Bitcoin in the first place. It is supposed to be a reliable way to measure consensus since miners would not act against their own self interests by turning against the economic majority.

It is obvious you have failed at understanding the basic principles behind Bitcoin. A Sybil attack has NOTHING to do with Proof of Work.

The Sybill attack comes from nodes! Please do yourself a favor and read up on all the posts in this thread, where multiple examples are given for a Sybil attack against BU, without anyone explaining how to prevent it. No matter how many fancy animations Peter R creates, it still does not solve the technical challenges.

Exactly my point proof of work can not be Sybil attacked, and under Bitcoin Unlimited the blocksize limit is determined by the economic majority through proof of work. Not the nodes like you claim, therefore BU is not vulnerable to such an attack vector. Of course node count can be manipulated through Sybil type attacks. This is why it is not a reliable measure of consensus unlike proof of work. Bitcoin Unlimited does not change this, it is no different to how the network operates today.

I do not need to explain how to prevent such an attack since nobody has successfully explained how such an attack would even occur, once you have done that I can counter your critique, though I would presently consider this attack vector completely ineffectual under BU. Therefore the burden of proof is on your end. Since previous posts on this subject have already been discussed, to me it seems clear that BU can not effectively be Sybil attacked, not anymore so then Core can, presently at least.