I'm using Bitcoin for more than 2 years now, and I've known about it pretty much from the start ^{(the regrets are real there)}, and it's still confusing me. I'm not an expert, I'm a user. I've also noticed many users don't really understand the basics of Bitcoin, from fees to unconfirmed transactions.
In my opinion as a user: transactions are either too slow, or too expensive, and "the ones in charge" disagree on how to proceed from here, up to the point that "rumors" of a hard fork are getting stronger. I also think this is damaging Bitcoin, other coins are pumping up, reducing Bitcoin's market share (as percentage of coin market cap).

Another thing that's confusing: the name "BTU"! Wiki:
Please don't use this abbreviation for Bitcoin Unlimited! Call it BU, BTCU, BitU or UBTC, just not BTU.

Why doesn't Core just do this? This discussion has been going on for too long already.

Further reading (CoinDesk): Bitcoin Exchanges Unveil Hard Fork Contingency Plan
I'm kinda excited to see what will happen. I just know something should happen to improve Bitcoin's user experience.

You already are.

All bitcoin Core miners could start mining bigger blocks today if they wanted to.  Its a very small change to the source code and a quick compile.  The only reason they don't is because "nobody would be dumb enough".  Doig so would just create a block that would be ignored by the majority of the global hash power.  "Nobody would be dumb enough" is the ONLY reason that there aren't miners in Core already creating larger blocks.  As a matter of fact, then ENTIRE consensus system of bitcoin is built on the concept that "Nobody would be dumb enough" to break consensus without knowing that a significant majority will accept the new consensus.


Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on where you stand on various proposals) Bitcoin doesn't care what any particular self-proclaimed "expert" decides.  Bitcoin requires an overwhelming majority of users to agree.


The problem with a "pissing contest" is that no matter who "wins", everyone comes out smelling bad.


Been decided?  By what world dominating authority?  FUD is FUD and propaganda is propaganda.  Trying to dress it up any other way is dishonest and just makes you look bad.


Unsafe how?  What makes 1 megabyte so magical that it is the "perfect" size while 2 megabytes is "unsafe"?  Is 900 kilobytes better?  How about 1.1 megabytes?  What is the exact correct magical size that bitcoin blocks SHOULD be right now, and why?  "Because that is the size it is" is not a valid argument for what the "right" size SHOULD be.


What's wrong with having both?  Why not SegWith with a 2 MB max block size?

You make a fair point, but that's not what I was referring to. They seemingly want to fork at all cost, but whether or not this is just 'fear mongering' is yet to be seen.

That I am well aware of.

Exchanges (or well a fair amount of them for now). They decide how they want to list the (alt)coin (or not, for that matter).

https://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=522
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yulwv/any_examples_of_the_10_minute_script_thats_a

That would be an effective base size of 2 MB and the weight of 8 MB. The latter is likely the problem with that combination.

None so far.

Nothing.

"they" ?
they have been running for more than 2 years and have not pushed to split.
they have been running for more than 2 years and have not even pushed a deadline
they have been running for more than 2 years and have not pushed anything of the sort.

... but guess who is pushing

guess who does have an over zealous ban hammer
guess who does have a ban node and orphan block in their bip9
guess who does have a ban node and orphan block in their UASF

Have you not been talking to, or seen what is being written by e.g. Ver, Oliver, Jihan, etc.?

That is quite unfortunate, especially considering their latest major exploit incident.

As per code, it can't fork without at least 50%? I was not under the impression. I should look into that again.

The minority supports BU..

Disagree. Segwit -> big blocks with linear hashing. Nobody is planning on staying at 1 MB.

not as bad as the leveldb exploit of 2013.

oh.. and diverse nodes of different codebases mitigated the BU exploit. so the actual effect was only a few nodes went offline.. and the network carried on unhindered.

now imagine if the network was core only... and core had a exploit that took core nods offline.. boom.

now do you see why diversity is good

That is correct. I have been reading some facts about BU and that the same thing that I understand from reading some articles and FaQ. But there is something that I want to ask if I have now for example 10BTC and 10 BTU then if I sell my 10 btc will my 10 btu will disappear also or it will retain. If it will retain and I can sell it then I will have double profit.

They didn't feel dumb when they forked with far less than 50%. Instead they tried to pass off the annihilation of their coins and the banning of most of their nodes from the network as "just one of those days". Though to be fair, they do seem to have a lot of "those days".

You used to be quite reasonable, so I'll give you fair warning: by running BU, you are very likely to lose your coins to a currently undiscovered or yet-to-be introduced bug. It's only a matter of time given the BU developers' aptitude or lack thereof.

Thanks for the response! Very interesting stuff.

To be clear. Noob here when it comes to this content. Assuming it does come to pass, how am I going to get my BTCU coins? Do I simply need to install the client? What do I need to do to get my coins? There really is not a lot of content to explain exactly what is going to happen if it does pass to us simpler minded folk.

Thank you for the help!