Hot search keywords

Hot search keywords

ViaBTC: Firmly supports BU and only one Bitcoin should exist

ViaBTC has officially reiterated  its support BU’s solution  to Bitcoin’s scaling and noted that it will not admit the so called BCC or BCU.

With its hashpower accounting for 7% of the full network, ViaBTC is the one the first mining pools that publicly support BU.

Below is the its announcement.

1. We support Bitcoin Unlimited(BU)

It is an urgent issue to find a solution for scaling  as the increasing transaction backlogs in the network have compelled many Bitcoin users to leave. ViaBTC is the first global public pool to run Bitcoin Unlimited protocol, while ViaBTC has also been actively promoting BU to other pools  as well as helping them to take concrete actions .

We believe BU is best solution to fundamentally solve the scaling issue.  The Bitcoin network can be easily updated to BU according to  Miner Guide: How to Safely Hard Fork to Bitcoin Unlimited. However, as there’s still a possibility that Bitcoin blockchain would split into two chains, ViaBTC has made this statement.

Screen Shot 2017-03-25 at 12.55.10

2.We only admit one Bitcoin

We don’t accept “BCC”, “BCU” or any other other illegitimate Bitcoin. If the current Blockchain splits into two chains, we will follow the philosophy of Bitcoin Whitepaper: only one chain will be the validated as the legitimate chain, which means there will be only one Bitcoin. We will only support a scaling solution based on  extensive consensus. We only admit that a chain that has the biggest  PoW and that is the longest should be the only legitimate chain. The chain that has less hashpower will gradually be invalid  owing to the choice of the market and industry.

3. ViaBTC’s  plan for a Hard Fork.

Hypothetically speaking, if hard fork happens,  ViaBTC will take two measures as following:

1) Pool/Cloud Mining: If a hard fork happens, our pool and cloud mining products will only support the mining of the legitimate Bitcoin.

2) Bitcoin Withdrawal for chain with less hashpower: If a hard fork happens, we would instantly freeze accounts of our users meanwhile confirm the balance of accounts on the chain with less hashpower on a 100% basis.  As a hard fork may lead to technical risks such as replay attacks and unstable network, we will evaluate all the risks before we decide the timing for customers to withdraw the balance. For users of the chain with less hashpower, if they do not withdraw their Bitcoin within our given time (3 months) or if the chain gets invalid due to lack of hashing power support, their account balance will be removed.

Additionally, ViaBTC will ensure assets safety of its uers. ViaBTC will also continue to concern the fork issue and will give responses as soon as possible to help promote the healthy and sustainable development of Bitcoin ecosystem.



  • bitlop
    6 years ago bitlop

    ViaBTC shows its unwavering support of Satoshi’s vision for Bitcoin: a universal peer to peer digital cash with an on-chain transaction capacity to match.

    So Bitfury, BTCC, and other miners signalling Segwit: when are you going to signal bigger blocks to support Satoshi’s vision?

    Whoever controls Bitcoin controls its fees and rewards: are you really going to continue to support Blockstream Core who wish to take control of Bitcoin away from miners for themselves?

    Are you really going to continue to support Blockstream Core who are preparing to destroy your businesses by changing from Bitcoin’s PoW?

    Bitcoin has value when it is free, permissionless, and uncontrolled by any entity. A captured Bitcoin is a worthless Bitcoin.

    So Bitfury, BTCC, and all other miners who are yet to commit to bigger blocks and freedom from Blockstream Core: act soon and act decisively; we the bitcoin users and hodlers need you!

  • forstuvning
    6 years ago forstuvning

    I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. There is only on Bitcoin – the one with the most work.

    Thank you <3 ViaBTC <3 !

  • ForkiusMaximus
    6 years ago ForkiusMaximus

    Or just firmly support his plan to fork to 2MB, using any client or mod. Core paternalism is a fading dream. Time for the stakeholders to take matters into their own hands.

  • bitheyho
    6 years ago bitheyho

    there is going to be only one coin. its stupid to to split up something so great as the bitcoin just to fight for selfish block fees with onchain scalling. once bitcoin scaled x1000 offchain its value will be enough for big miner fees.

  • GrixM
    6 years ago GrixM

    Firmly supporting only one side is a great way of guaranteeing that multiple Bitcoins will exist. The only way to keep united is to make compromises.

  • Osiris1295
    6 years ago Osiris1295

    What changes when we give miners the power? Wont users not be able to provide nodes anymore? Doesnt that mean during the next hardfork the decision wont be up to the users like this one is?

  • jungans
    6 years ago jungans

    Good luck with that.

  • GrixM
    6 years ago GrixM

    I know right. I’m quite pessimistic of the future of bitcoin these days. Stubborn human nature is ruining everything.

  • btcnotworking
    6 years ago btcnotworking

    If you look, they are both backed up by Digital Currency Group. I believe DCG sees their biggest revenue potential in sidechains. The sidechains market will be larger if the blocksize is kept small and they will have first mover advantage since they probably have already infrastructure in place for SWSF.

    Having said that, it will be insanely stupid to go with minority chain for all of their businesses. Right now all their comments and support are just to try to keep larger blocks from happening.

  • jungans
    6 years ago jungans

    That is not pessimistic it is just how things are. There is no one to reach a compromise with. Just a company trying to bend Bitcoin to suit their business. If you can’t see this I wish you good luck.

  • ICheckedOut
    6 years ago ICheckedOut

    One would think that a compromise that we could (or should) all agree on is that the most POW chain wins. After all, that’s what Bitcoin has thrived on for eight years.

    And I think that one side has compromised to that point, but the other hasn’t.

  • H0dl
    6 years ago H0dl

    The best strategy here is to get BF/BTCC isolated away and committed to some renegade SW chain so that the rest of the majority miners can destroy them so as to get rid of their cancer once and for all.

  • H0dl
    6 years ago H0dl

    Not with BU. You’ll always be able to run one with pruning at the very least.

  • DaSpawn
    6 years ago DaSpawn

    core has expected everyone else to “compromise” for over 2 years, and they HAVE! (this would have been over 2 years ago if not for cores unwillingness to work with anyone on actually scaling Bitcoin itself)

    the only ones unwilling to compromise is the “core” dictators trying to force Bitcoin down a different path from what Satoshi designed as they never believed it could work 7 years ago

    core could literally raise the block size to 2MB right now and all of the BU signaling nodes will accept their blocks

    TL;DR core is 100% causing this split with their unwillingness to work with the network/community. core leaders never believed Bitcoin could scale/work so they are not in any way focused on scaling Bitcoin

  • tl121
    6 years ago tl121

    Continually making compromise after compromise is a great way of guaranteeing that no Bitcoin will exist.

  • DaSpawn
    6 years ago DaSpawn

    the BU code is based on core, the last hard fork was cause by core, the first recent bug was originally in core, and the last bug was only a communication optimization not everyone uses

    BU had 2 flaws recently that did not significantly affect the Bitcoin network in any meaningful way, the propaganda it was spun into however has severely affected many people, including you

    and look how professionally they handled those flaws. look how core has been unable to fix a known bug easily fixed for over 2 years

  • Osiris1295
    6 years ago Osiris1295

    What is it about BU that does that, what’s pruning?

  • awemany
    6 years ago awemany

    It is also the whole point of mining in Bitcoin. To make sure just one chain exists.

    The alternative would be to make Bitcoin a DAG, like git, where everyone makes his or her own variant of Bitcoin.

    Freedom for everyone, I hear the Core kids who accuse us of ‘digital violence’ and ‘going against the NAP’ cry.

    What bullshit. Hashing is a non-violent action. Orphaning blocks is non-violent. Incentives are the essence of Bitcoin.

  • bitsko
    6 years ago bitsko

    I like the idea, I just thought it might be possible to get bobbyclee to play along..

  • taxed4ever
    6 years ago taxed4ever

    ViaBTC has done so much for Bitcoin and its users, thank you!

  • H0dl
    6 years ago H0dl

    Trim down storage of the blockchain to whatever size you want.

  • Osiris1295
    6 years ago Osiris1295

    So you wouldnt need to store the beginning of it?

    Adding on to that..
    So what happens when only a few can afford to store the whole chain, can they change/manipulate it if they all agree to do it?

  • mcr55
    6 years ago mcr55

    Segwit is the compromise.

    But min technical people wanted to weigh in how to do the 2mb.

    But you blocks+extended blocks are 2mb

  • 8BTCnews
    6 years ago 8BTCnews … ViaBTC: Firmly supports BU and only one Bitcoin should exist

  • H0dl
    6 years ago H0dl

    Adding on to that.. So what happens when only a few can afford to store the whole chain, can they change/manipulate it if they all agree to do it?

    there will always be enough full nodes owned by individuals. me for instance. storage is cheap and getting cheaper all the time. my coin values have appreciated so much that even if it requires storing a server in my home to run one, i will and can afford it.

  • Exeunter
    6 years ago Exeunter

    Edit: in the deleted post Leaky_gland said, name one time that Bitcoin Core had to release a hotfix.

    March 2013: the blockchain accidentally forked starting from block 225430 due to the change from BerkeleyDB in bitcoind 0.7 to LevelDB in bitcoind 0.8. Bitcoin Core had to convince miners to roll back to 0.7 while they worked on a fix.

    August 2010: block 74638 triggered an integer overflow bug. Bitcoin Core released a hotfix that forked the blockchain, but not before 24 blocks were mined on the old chain and a $10,000 double-spend was pulled off against OKPay.

  • Jay
    6 years ago Jay

    Thanks for the reading guys and time will tell(:

Please sign in first