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

Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

lists.linuxfoundation.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 253 posts

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#141

Post by bonestamp2 »

Marazan wrote: post #104
Kiro wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the other way around.

It's actually more complicated. With previous bubble spikes bitcoin price starts rising first then search term follows but search term then peaks before the price peaks.

I know everyone is going to say it is, but what if it's not a bubble... What if the huge demand and very limited supply is the driving factor behind the current price? I mean, even if you don't like bitcoin, there are a thousand more coins and there might be something in there for everyone... but you typically need to buy bitcoin first before you can get most of those coins.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#142

Post by hudon »

lawn wrote: post #139
hudon wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pure speculators I know invest in smaller cap cryptocurrencies to maximize their gains. The only people I know invested in bitcoin are in because they believe in its long term value. Anyway at this point you're trying to predict the future and I'm sharing anecdotes so we're not getting anywhere, let's tackle your main point: > The lack of arguments against on chain scaling, backed by actual research, is what's la…

So your only focus is on full nodes. So where's the research of how expensive nodes are and how many nodes would be lost if an upgrade to 2MB would happen? How big of a loss would be acceptable? Ideally how many nodes should exist in the network for it to be sufficiently decentralized? How much bandwidth is needed? How long can we expect our storage to last? There is no credible research done , there are no numbers,…

> So where's the research of how expensive nodes are and how many nodes would be lost if an upgrade to 2MB would happen? How big of a loss would be acceptable? Ideally how many nodes should exist in the network for it to be sufficiently decentralized? How much bandwidth is needed? How long can we expect our storage to last?

> There is no credible research done

That's precisely my point. Contributors have shown that full nodes are necessary to preserve the security of the network (see the links I posted), but the proposal of S2X was executed without ever engaging on a discussion to answer the very questions you are asking now.

They are good questions, and we should discuss them and we should answer them. But Jeff Garzik and the 5 other CEOs did not attempt to do this research and instead steamrolled ahead with btc1/s2x.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#143

Post by lawn »

wol_ wrote: post #135
xwvvvvwx wrote: post #110

I still don't really understand why people were so against a block size increase. I get that there are centralisation risks if the block size increases too much, but it doesn't really seem as though increasing to 2mb really make such a big difference? Am I missing something?

Segwit activation in August was a blocksize increase, and a much more elegant solution than just doubling the blocks. An agreement was made by a few corporate entities to allow for segwit after a long standoff. They also decided on doubling the blocksize later in the year to appease the miners. Miners reneged on the agreement when Bitcoin Cash or BCH was forked when a small minority thought a better solution was to a…

> Segwit activation in August was a blocksize increase, and a much more elegant solution than just doubling the blocks

Segwit is a technical failure as it was implemented in a soft fork as a hack. It's scaling is inefficient. Did you see the capacity increase when it got activated? It was abysmal.

https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-...

It also decreases the security of the network:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoFb3mcxluY

> Had this been a success it would have signaled the transfer of control of Bitcoin from the many developers and contributors to corporate banking and wall street interests. it would have been the end of decentralized crypto network open to many and the start of a corporate controlled network open to only a few.

Now who's pushing conspiracy theories?

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#144

Post by deadmetheny »

olegkikin wrote: post #128
xwvvvvwx wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet I don't see people claiming it's the fault of C++ A major driving force behind the development of Rust is that exact claim.

I doubt software written in Rust has no bugs.

Please don't summon the Rust Evangelism Strike Force

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#145

Post by ChrisClark »

xiphias wrote: post #124
xwvvvvwx wrote: post #110

I still don't really understand why people were so against a block size increase. I get that there are centralisation risks if the block size increases too much, but it doesn't really seem as though increasing to 2mb really make such a big difference? Am I missing something?

SegWit was a soft-fork block size increase with other scaling improvements. I'm strongly against having any hard fork in Bitcoin. The last Ethereum hard fork (when half of the devs wanted to cancel it because of the bug that was found) showed how dangerous it is. At this point Bitcoin is worth so much, that it's better to not touch it at all without a formal proof that the network is not harmed at all. The biggest di…

> The last Ethereum hard fork showed how dangerous it is.

The last hard fork was on Oct 15, 2017. It did not split the chain, it went smoothly and added great new features. Ethereum has had many hard forks. Only the DAO one was controversial. Using hard forks to upgrade the network is smooth and works great.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#147

Post by [deleted] »

bdcravens wrote: post #85
olalonde wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to explain Bitcoin price movements is a futile exercise.

Not in this case; it's actually pretty simple. There was anticipation of "free" coins after the fork, as there was when Bitcoin Cash forked. Price rose as people bought coins that would later be forked. Now it's cancelled, "free" coins are gone, so people see no need to tie up that money.

[deleted]

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#148

Post by xwvvvvwx »

hudon wrote: post #134
xwvvvvwx wrote: post #110

I still don't really understand why people were so against a block size increase. I get that there are centralisation risks if the block size increases too much, but it doesn't really seem as though increasing to 2mb really make such a big difference? Am I missing something?

I'll copy a response I left below: The value of full nodes is widely understood by bitcoin contributors [0][1][2]. Increasing the block size directly increases the amount of resources required to run a full node. Increased bandwidth requirements is especially a problem. It is up to the candidate (s2x), not the incumbent (core) to show that no, it won't be harder to run full nodes, or to show that you can have just as…

Why would a full node be more secure than an SPV node?

I had understood that SPV nodes store only the merkle root of all the transactions in each block, so as I understand it should be able to verify whether a given transaction is valid or not?

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#149

Post by sillysaurus3 »

Marazan wrote: post #103
pwaai wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Market fundamentals seem non existant here. At least a few years ago, when there were bad news the prices would reflect that. Now, it seems to go up anytime bitcoin is mentioned at all, regardless whether the market understands the implications or not.

Bitcoin price matches the Google trends search graph for Bitcoin.

Sort of? https://imgur.com/a/SlGHw

Not really.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#150

Post by thefalcon »

tlrobinson wrote: post #15
thefalcon wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand this desire to immediately assume bad faith in these situations. It's a complicated situation, involving a lot of actors. Yeah, probably some of them are acting in bad faith. But probably most of them are just trying to develop a functional cryptocurrency. This stuff is very hard, and having it all so decentralized only makes it harder. Personally I was hoping for the 2x fork to succeed, or, barrin…

What’s your opposition to SegWit?

I have more of a general aversion to the actions of the (Core) people who support SegWit, including false promises, censorship, and other shenanigans like the 2x trojan horse which we've just seen play out: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/duplicates/6iecx7/if_segwit_act...
Post reply on HN