Quote from: monsanto on March 17, 2017, 08:15:00 PM

Quote from: silversmith on March 17, 2017, 04:58:26 PM

We are:

Bitfinex, Bitstamp, BTCC, Bitso, Bitsquare, Bitonic, Bitbank, Coinfloor, Coincheck, itBit, QuadrigaCX, Bitt, Bittrex, Kraken, Ripio, ShapeShift, The Rock Trading and Zaif

Wow, this is huge. This means payment systems will still be operating on core?

Well, what it really says is that all these exchanges plan on listing BU.

Disclaimer: at least two of the signatories have since announced that the text was changed after they assented to signing.

Quote from: Quickseller on March 18, 2017, 01:00:40 AM

If there was something in the BU protocol that makes a BU transaction not compatible with a blockstream coin transaction, then this would solve the problem.

Yes, but it would also gratuitously make BU 'not Bitcoin'. So it likely will not be implemented by BU. Clients already have all tools necessary for avoiding replay at their disposal. No protocol change needed.

Quote from: Wind_FURY on March 18, 2017, 03:04:49 AM

Yes but Brian Armstrong already declared his support for Core and Segwit activation months ago and that presumably is the unofficial statement from Coinbase.

There we have it, the top exchanges declaring their support for Core. Those people must know what is really going on. Behind all the technical argument, there is really politics.

Well, no:

Quote

If one chain receives an overwhelming majority of support from miners, users, and exchanges, we reserve the right to alter the name of chains or discontinue support for certain chains in the future. - GDAX (Coinbase)

source: https://blog.gdax.com/https-medium-com-adamlwhite-bitcoinhardfork-3f6ac05ceec6#.9eyge9yg0

Quote from: dinofelis on March 18, 2017, 06:28:15 AM

Miners don't want BU either.

Over 40% of the last 24 hour's blocks are signaling large block compatibility. 12 hours ago, it was even over half. Seems resistance to BU in the mining community is nowhere near universal. (https://coin.dance/blocks)

Quote from: monsanto on March 18, 2017, 09:21:29 AM

If Satoshi is adamantly against BU (and there are reasons to think he is)

I'd like to know what reasons there are to believe that "Satoshi is adamantly against BU".

Quote

he could dump it into the ground. ... He might help core by dumping on BU

He just as plausibly might help BU by dumping on core. Not that I think either eventuality is very plausible.

Quote from: franky1 on March 18, 2017, 11:08:58 AM

also pools wont just jump straight to 2mb on activation day. pools will try a 1.000250 block and see the orphan risk.

Possible, but I doubt it. Part of the fork dynamics is dependent upon BU delivering greater value. If BU forks at 75%, then the 1MB chain will be about a 40 minute average block time, delivering 25% of its pre-fork throughput. With a corresponding rise in fees due to the rise in blockspace supply. The BU chain will be about 13 minute average block time. If BU stayed near its pre-fork block size, its throughput would be on the order of 76% of its pre-fork throughput. If, however, BU went straight to 2MB, then it would deliver 150% of its pre-fork throughput. With corresponding drop in fees. Blowing through the backlog in relatively short time. Cheaper transactions, more transactions: greater value. Leading to increased incentive for fence-sitters to throw in to the BU side.

Future increases may be more probing, and therefore incremental. But I would expect the 2MB immediately. They'll fall after the backlog is cleared.

Quote from: Lauda on March 18, 2017, 12:08:40 PM

Dumping almost 1 million Bitcoin is "temporary price drama"?

Well, yes. That's exactly what it is. It would certainly be dramatic, price would tank, effect would be temporary. Kind of definitional, that.

Quote from: dinofelis on March 18, 2017, 01:47:37 PM

In a proof of work system, the consensus is made by those providing proof of work. But ultimately they will take into account those that pay for the joke, that is, the users in the market. And that's it.

Yes, but you are arguing against religious fundamentalists.

Quote

Tell me how nodes impose their will onto miners, if miners come to a consensus.

Um... by retroactively claiming that what the miners have done is exactly what the nodes wanted all along?