Quote from: BillyBobZorton on February 01, 2017, 11:37:47 PM

Bitcoin Unlimited as been debunked numerous times, the developers are just not cut for the job that is making a digital safen that guarantees things will be where they should be decades from now. Only conservative adults can get the job done so Core will remain as main devs.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5rfuc0/xpost_from_the_other_sub_what_are_the_main/

Here you can read more.

Of course franky1 will disregard everything as "/r/bitcoin" cultism while not seeing how the actual cultists are the /r/btc morons.

lets address some of the r/bitcoin comments

Quote

BU is a political coup similarly to XT and Classic. The developers of these Bitcoin-incompatible softwares

BU XT classic, and other dozen implementations are running with full features active.
xt's 8mb block and classics 2mb block are this(laymens):anything BELOW X is acceptable.
1mb is below X so its acceptable
again they have been running on the mainnet for months/years.
... let me predict the rebuttle. 'but blocks are not 2/8mb so their feature is not working.
to which i say
'so cores 1mb feature was not active in 2009-2015 when blocks were not 1mb. wait cores 1mb feature is not active now because we even today
have some empty blocks and blocks that are only 990k.. not 1mb.. think about the subtle illogic of that.

Quote

This process by its own is unacceptable. If a proposal that changes the fundamental rules of Bitcoin has any merit, than it should be peer-reviewed by Bitcoin Core contributors and implemented in Bitcoin Core, the reference implementation.

guess this guy never heard of decentralised and diverse network.
if core are needed to appraise a implementation then core control bitcoin. total opposite of what bitcoin is about. sorry. not gonna fly.
bitcoin should not have any 'kings' on any side. it should be the NODES that form consensus. not devs.
make me wonder what doomsdays will cry out when devs are not needed. remember folks bitcoin should function without reliance of a master.
let the network consensus be the decision maker. not the devs. (next statement explains itself later) devs 'are just the employees of bitcoin'. not the masters.

Quote

On a more technical level, BU consists in giving the miners the possibility to create blocks as big as they wish while not bearing any of these costs (full-nodes use disk, bandwidth and cpu to validate and store the blockchain).

nodes set the limits. pools follow whats acceptable. if nodes cant handle it then nodes dont go for it. meaning pools dont go for it. no harm no foul
however. core devs, avoided letting nodes decide a core feature and handed power to devs. yep. core done what this guy is wrongly suggesting BU are doing. letting the pools decide, even when half the nodes wont fully validate, but be downgraded to 'compatible'
core done this knowing if things screw up, core devs can shift the blame onto the pools. if things work out, devs can take the glory...

Quote

In summary, increasing the blocksize centralizes Bitcoin and makes it more vulnerable to state sponsored attacks and capture.

again if nodes cant handle it, nodes dont vote for it, meaning pools dont make it. no harm no loss no centralization.
however with core wanting to activate a feature with only 50% fulll validation node acceptance, then offer them same nodes the ability to prune off data. then offer the community an alternative client that uses a lightning network. thus diluting the full node count even further. i see core causing more issues to the node count.

Quote

This is unnecessary and unacceptable for a large part of the community, especially considering the fact that Bitcoin Core has much superior scaling solutions (SegWit + Lightning Network) to increase transaction throughput.

LN's abilities away from the glossy pamphlet sales pitch has less utility than you may think. it is not a solution to common people, its penalties and locks end up giving usrs the same experience as paypal.
some people are happy to let LN have a go as a voluntary side service. as long as onchain real diverse dcentralised dynamic scaling is allowed where NODES set the rules. not devs, not pools.

Quote

I suddenly understand why /u/Theymos and other Bitcoin experts call miners the employees of Bitcoin: Bitcoin is a system to transact money, not one to create money. Miners are the only party in the system who work hard to secure the system and thus get paid. They are the only party in the system getting paid. They are actually hired to help the system. They are not the main entity of the system. Their earning money is not the purpose of the system but the means. "Employees" is quite a perfect analog for such "hired paid helpers".

i have to agree with this quote.

Quote

With that understanding, it's clearer what BU is trying to achieve: They represents miners. They are trying to hijack Bitcoin so that it becomes a tool of creating money for miners. This is a complete betrayal of Bitcoin' purpose.

BU do not want bilateral forks. neither did classic or xt or the other dozen implementations. they want consensus. it is core devs that have desired bilateral forks and said how great ethereum was for doing it.

Quote from: gmaxwell on October 18, 2016, 08:21:30 AM

What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.

I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--

as you can see the other implementations rejected causing an altcoin. and now the r/bitcoin are desperate to make other implementations move to an alt. while at the same time crying that the other implementations will create an alt.
to me thats like poking the bear to make it bite just to play the victim. every desperate method to make core the king controller

Quote from: gmaxwell on December 28, 2016, 05:40:35 AM

If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90% ... then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.

as we can see he will intentionally split the network by ignoring blocks of the opposition to force a soft fork in.
if he is willing to risk making an alt. why not avoid a hard bilateral, avoid a soft bilateral. and instead do a hard consensus. get the node count up. because obviously its the nodes that matter most.. to then give the pools the confidence boost that nothing bad will happen.

Quote

Well for one, the development team is incompetent: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5qwtr2/bitcoincom_loses_132btc_trying_to_fork_the/

firstly BU never had 13.2btc to lose. in there are 20+ pools working non stop. getting a reject is the same as not solving a block. it didnt cost 13.2btc, bu simply didnt win 13.2btc, just like the other 19+ pools didnt win either.
secondly, it was a reject, dealtwith and thrown aside in 3 seconds

Quote

2017-01-29 06:59:12 Requesting block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5
2017-01-29 06:59:15 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-blk-length, size limits failed (code 16)

drama over in 3 seconds.
yet cored based pools cause rejects and orphans every day.
i even remember Sipa's bad code causing a 12 hour tail of orphans in 2013 (LevelDB bug). yep Sipa caused that boo boo

and now because those in r/bitcoin love their memes ill leave this for them