Yesterday i have made post about Bitcoin Unlimited bug which was fixed. If you are not familiar with whole case get to my profile, follow me and.. read yesterdays post ;)
Now the bug have been fixed, nodes updated and it seems BU is back on its feet - better than before.
Last 144 mined blocks have BU setup, their hashrate jumped to 21% today sitting at 20.6% right now when writing.
Worth noting that ViaBTC (the pool that will accelerate your lost TX) has almost 50% of the network now.
BU and SegWit really close in last 1000 blocks
Bigger picture:
Litecoin to add SegWit
If enough miners vote, LTC will have SegWit soon. In exactly 2 days the signaling (actual number of votes) will show up.
Worth noting that this may be a price skyrocket signal as its gonna be a playground for BTCs SegWith supporters. Some users claim if LTC gets this faster they may move big portions of their money into LTC.
And on what side are you and why? Tell me in comments!
BU seems to be the best way to align the interests of miners and users. Most of those pushing for SegWit on social media come off as hateful/spiteful and as a result, I am completely turned off by them.
other than the fan camps, is one actually a clear winner in regards to the future stability and usability of bitcoin?
The best way to achieve stability is to do nothing, which is what most people are doing. Bitcoin is stable now. Any changes to bitcoin can bring only the same level of stability, or reduce it.
I think inactivity is the biggest risk at all at the moment.
I do believe most of the bitcoin value is built on a promise that bitcoin will be a viable payments technology - to get there we still need more adoption and more growth in transaction volume. As compared to other crypto currencies, the most significant value with bitcoin is the network effect - to keep staying there we also need growth in adoption and transaction volume. We are currently hitting the ceiling, we are at max throughput - all due to an artificial block size limit that was "temporarily" added to the system in 2009 or 2010 (when average block size was few kilobytes) to avoid a rogue miner to create extremely big blocks. There is no room for adoption or growth!
yep, immaturity abounds.
I know too little about the coding details to have a preference.
Only hoping others smarter than I will do good.
ViaBTC does not have almost 50% of the overall hash power. However, they do have 50% of the hash power among miners mining for Bitcoin Unlimited.
yes thats what ive meant :))
It's looking more and more like Bitcoin Unlimited is going to win. Anyone who has looked in depth about the problem knows the best and simplest solution to the blocks being full is to make them bigger. Anything else is a Rube Goldberg solution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rube_Goldberg_machine
People do not agree that full blocks are a problem. The simplest possible "solution" to a non-problem is to make no changes.
I would like you too look at this link and then reconsider your statement. Notice the column on the far right.
https://blockchain.info/blocks
I am aware that the blocks are full of transactions. I don't agree that that's a problem. A transaction backlog is acceptable. Most bitcoin transactions do not belong in a global ledger... unless, of course, they wish to pay the market value for that space.
Linked in https://steemit.chat/channel/Activism_For_Real_Change
Cool!
I agree with @starscream. Thanks for sharing this awesome post, Kingscrown! I really enjoyed reading it.
Upvoted & Followed you as well.