Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin Is Having a Civil War as It Enters a Critical Month

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 334 posts

Re: Bitcoin Is Having a Civil War as It Enters a Critical Month

#321

Post by flashdance »

xg15 wrote: post #269
flashdance wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe I'm misinformed, but aren't SegWit (without 2x) blocks backwards compatible? You're correct. However, I'm fairly sure OP was talking about Segwit (with 2x). If most users/exchanges/services don't get on board by the time the scheduled segwit2x hardfork happens, then those blocks would be considered invalid.

That makes sense. However from what I've read, the timeline is "SegWit -> multi-month transition period -> 2x HF". So by the time the 2x fork comes up, the segwit-enabled chain will already be in use for several months. Another point I'm wondering (sorry if that's a noob question) : Assume that some of the forks actually lead to a chain split with hashpower distributed 90%/10%. At some point, the difficulty of the ch…

Super late response, but...

> So by the time the 2x fork comes up, the segwit-enabled chain will already be in use for several months.

Correct. But there's an asterisk here: most people (78%) are running bitcoin core, some run Core/UASF (5%), and some run bitcore (2%). Together, that's 85% of nodes. Core 0.14, Core/UASF, and bitcore are all compatible with segwit, but not with the blocksize increase. Even if you wait multiple months, if people stick with Core (a possible outcome) then they will see 2x blocks as invalid.

> That sounds as if the minority chain could become effectively unminable for the rest of the difficulty period.

The chain wouldn't be unmineable, it would just get mined slower (mining profitability wouldn't be impacted for miners staying on the chain provided the price stays the same). But you're right, blocks will come slower, throughput will be lower, and the adjustment will take longer.

Re: Bitcoin Is Having a Civil War as It Enters a Critical Month

#322

Post by gomox »

cesarb wrote: post #246
gomox wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and I don't think it is all that risky, as long as you keep control of all three addresses. By "doing it by hand" I meant the following: - Original wallet A holds BTC before hard fork - Chain splits and forks coexist (lets call them C1 and C2) - New wallet W1 is created for use in the new chain C1 exclusively - New wallet W2 is created for use in the new chain C2 exclusively - You connect to network that uses C1, a…

A solution would be to add a dependency on the chain itself. By definition, in a hard fork you have blocks in one chain which won't ever be accepted by the other. Suppose C2 has a block, let's call it B2, which won't ever be accepted by C1 (because it's larger than the C1 maximum block size, for instance). Now get the block reward from B2, or some other coin which depends on it. This block reward, and any coin which…

> The only hard part, if you aren't a miner, is to get the "one-sided" coin

Indeed, but this is the kind of technical annoyance that cripples the "it just works" perception/marketing of BTC. I guess this is what makes people look forward to BTC ETFs as opposed to the real thing for their investo-gambling.

Re: Bitcoin Is Having a Civil War as It Enters a Critical Month

#323

Post by gomox »

9500 wrote: post #280
gomox wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and I don't think it is all that risky, as long as you keep control of all three addresses. By "doing it by hand" I meant the following: - Original wallet A holds BTC before hard fork - Chain splits and forks coexist (lets call them C1 and C2) - New wallet W1 is created for use in the new chain C1 exclusively - New wallet W2 is created for use in the new chain C2 exclusively - You connect to network that uses C1, a…

But by ensuring that A, W1 and W2 wallets are yours, you are able to try as many times as you want (provided you're willing to pay for the fees). And the more times you try, more your probability of success approaches 1.

Yes, but that's hardly practical. I guess someone will make software for this (with the corresponding caveats, bugs, security and trust issues, etc).

Re: Bitcoin Is Having a Civil War as It Enters a Critical Month

#324

Post by astrodust »

hudon wrote: post #149
buttershakes wrote: post #26

This is a fight for control of Bitcoin. It is business interests on both sides fighting for a position of authority. SegWit2x is an attempt to remove control from the core dev team, which while technically strong is full of zealots with questionable motives and terrible management skills. Bitcoin ABC and Unlimited have their own parts to play as factions. It's getting tense, but it's been years in the making. Groups…

> SegWit2x is an attempt to remove control from the core dev team I disagree. SegWit2x is a misguided attempt to make Bitcoin "more efficient" without realizing that it puts at risk the core value proposition of Bitcoin: censorship resistance. At the root of this debate is a disagreement about what the blockchain is for. On one side, you have all the developers working on the Core project and activists like Amir Taak…

Maybe the problem with Bitcoin as it stands is it's trying to do too many things at once. If you separated the transactional component from the value store you could have two independent but inter-related systems and consumers could elect to use the one that best fits their needs.

Maybe Ethereum will pick up the slack on the transactional side and Bitcoin will be only for "investment".

Re: Bitcoin Is Having a Civil War as It Enters a Critical Month

#325

Post by xg15 »

flashdance wrote: post #321
xg15 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes sense. However from what I've read, the timeline is "SegWit -> multi-month transition period -> 2x HF". So by the time the 2x fork comes up, the segwit-enabled chain will already be in use for several months. Another point I'm wondering (sorry if that's a noob question) : Assume that some of the forks actually lead to a chain split with hashpower distributed 90%/10%. At some point, the difficulty of the ch…

Super late response, but... > So by the time the 2x fork comes up, the segwit-enabled chain will already be in use for several months. Correct. But there's an asterisk here: most people (78%) are running bitcoin core, some run Core/UASF (5%), and some run bitcore (2%). Together, that's 85% of nodes. Core 0.14, Core/UASF, and bitcore are all compatible with segwit, but not with the blocksize increase. Even if you wait…

That's true - but then the potential split would be between segwit and segwit2x and not whether or not segwit is activated, would it?

Thanks for replying at all! That was really interesting and informative.

Re: Bitcoin Is Having a Civil War as It Enters a Critical Month

#326

Post by flashdance »

xg15 wrote: post #325
flashdance wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Super late response, but... > So by the time the 2x fork comes up, the segwit-enabled chain will already be in use for several months. Correct. But there's an asterisk here: most people (78%) are running bitcoin core, some run Core/UASF (5%), and some run bitcore (2%). Together, that's 85% of nodes. Core 0.14, Core/UASF, and bitcore are all compatible with segwit, but not with the blocksize increase. Even if you wait…

That's true - but then the potential split would be between segwit and segwit2x and not whether or not segwit is activated, would it? Thanks for replying at all! That was really interesting and informative.

>That's true - but then the potential split would be between segwit and segwit2x and not whether or not segwit is activated, would it?

Yep, you're 100% right.

Thanks for being interested, haha.

Re: Bitcoin Is Having a Civil War as It Enters a Critical Month

#327

Post by colordrops »

int_19h wrote: post #307
colordrops wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The arguments about Segwit are not about security holes. Segwit would enable off-chain transactions using systems that are patented and centralized, allowing others to control things on top of the bitcoin network. LTC isn't used for purchases, so Segwit hasn't had much of an effect there.

> Segwit would enable off-chain transactions using systems that are patented and centralized Why is that a problem, so long as it is enabled , not mandated ?

Didn't say it was a problem. I'm only saying that it being activated on LTC isn't an indicator of segwit's merits and faults.

Re: Bitcoin Is Having a Civil War as It Enters a Critical Month

#328

Post by andirk »

buttershakes wrote: post #252
hudon wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"peer to peer" payments don't require a blockchain: see Venmo, Square Cash, Facebook Messenger, PayPal, TransferWise, Uber (paying the driver), etc. Exchange trading is not really using bitcoin, it is buying/selling bitcoin. This is like saying buying a car is an application of cars... Having said that, Bitpay is processing more than I thought. The data in that article would mean it's about $5M per day... I'd love to…

Well, that's a narrow definition of P2P. All of those are centrally cleared systems vs a decentralized one. Buying a car is an application of money. The killer app for Bitcoin is better money, that's the vision I subscribe to and the one I would like to see proliferate.

I agree; I am here to see something become similarly as powerful as the almighty dollar, and I have faith that Bitcoin or another altcoin will.

Re: Bitcoin Is Having a Civil War as It Enters a Critical Month

#329

Post by shady5050 »

jerguismi wrote: post #41
buttershakes wrote: post #26

This is a fight for control of Bitcoin. It is business interests on both sides fighting for a position of authority. SegWit2x is an attempt to remove control from the core dev team, which while technically strong is full of zealots with questionable motives and terrible management skills. Bitcoin ABC and Unlimited have their own parts to play as factions. It's getting tense, but it's been years in the making. Groups…

"I suspect that SegWit2x will end up taking over the network" What? They had first release like yesterday, the project has released one tarball, no packaging, no very good marketing etc. The biggest marketers seem to be the tinfoil hat opponents who fear the fork so much that they speak about it everywhere. I don't think it is at all likely that segwit2x client will gain support. Or if it will gain support, it will t…

Let's assume the segwit2x is being activated, how long long will it take to start trading again?

Re: Bitcoin Is Having a Civil War as It Enters a Critical Month

#330

Post by shady5050 »

jerguismi wrote: post #41
buttershakes wrote: post #26

This is a fight for control of Bitcoin. It is business interests on both sides fighting for a position of authority. SegWit2x is an attempt to remove control from the core dev team, which while technically strong is full of zealots with questionable motives and terrible management skills. Bitcoin ABC and Unlimited have their own parts to play as factions. It's getting tense, but it's been years in the making. Groups…

"I suspect that SegWit2x will end up taking over the network" What? They had first release like yesterday, the project has released one tarball, no packaging, no very good marketing etc. The biggest marketers seem to be the tinfoil hat opponents who fear the fork so much that they speak about it everywhere. I don't think it is at all likely that segwit2x client will gain support. Or if it will gain support, it will t…

Let's assume the segwit2x is being activated, how long long will it take to start trading again?
Post reply on HN