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

161–170 of 253 posts

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#161

Post by wol_ »

lawn wrote: post #143
wol_ wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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://ww…

so countless bitcoin developers acting in their own self interest is somehow a sign of a Blockstream takeover, but handful of people that got together to decide on the fate of a fork with idiot one developer is business as usual. you'd have to be a moron to believe that.

an article from Dec 2016 in no way disproves the reality of today. a huge amount of value has entered the network, fees are low and the number of transaction per block have increased, segwit adoption is increasing and the community is strongly in favor. I don't know this jaqen dufus, and and Rizun is an incompetent fool. The 'chief scientist' has no clout and his BU software was complete failure and joke in a long line of takeover attempts and subversions including classic and others. segwit is the most thoroughly reviewed code that's ever been written, a vulnerability in SSL was revealed and patched as a result of this work but if you don't like segwit please use BCH instead, lol.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#162

Post by wmf »

xwvvvvwx wrote: post #151
xiphias wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What are the technical reasons that mean bitcoin has such a long time between blocks? Other large chains (Ethereum, Litecoin) have significantly lower confirmation times.

Lower block times increase orphan risk and increase the size of the chain (because there are more block headers), but I suspect Satoshi pulled 10 minutes out of the air and now it can't be realistically changed.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#163

Post by byset »

Kiro wrote: post #93
byset wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess people say all kinds of things, but I don't recall anyone arguing that Bitcoin was going up because of the impending fork. It certainly wasn't the conventional wisdom.

> It certainly wasn't the conventional wisdom. It was for sure. Where do you get your Bitcoin news?

From places that don't promote silly theories, apparently.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#164

Post by xwvvvvwx »

wmf wrote: post #162
xwvvvvwx wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the technical reasons that mean bitcoin has such a long time between blocks? Other large chains (Ethereum, Litecoin) have significantly lower confirmation times.

Lower block times increase orphan risk and increase the size of the chain (because there are more block headers), but I suspect Satoshi pulled 10 minutes out of the air and now it can't be realistically changed.

now it can't be realistically changed

why?

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#165

Post by ifdefdebug »

icey wrote: post #44
bpicolo wrote: post #14

So bitcoin went up because they were going to fork, and now it's going up again because they will not? k Edit: Otoh, looks like it's seeing a bit of a drop now, but I doubt it will hit the pre-anticipation levels.

It's possible that either decision attracted a different class of buyer. Altcoins have been dumping recently as people sold their holdings to buy Bitcoin in case there was a fork in order to get more of the forked coin (like what happened with Bitcoin Cash). Canceling Segwit2x may have caused traditional investors (e.g. those with less risk appetite) to feel that there are fewer questions about which chain survives a…

> waiting to put money into the market until there was a clear sense of which Bitcoin fork would be the successful one.

I don't know, only if they did not understand that it's a win-win-win situation... they would have equal amount of coins on both chains so none of the three possible outcomes would be actually losing.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#166

Post by nosuchthing »

Anm wrote: post #152
nosuchthing wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reposting this as pertinent: In economics, the Gini coefficient is the standard measure of how inequitable a society is. This is tricky to determine for Bitcoin, as it's not quiet a "society" in the Gini sense, one person may have multiple addresses and many addresses have been used only once or a few times. (The commonly-cited figure of 0.88 is based on one small exchange in 2011.) However, a Citigroup analysis from…

For context, those numbers came from 2014. http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-inequality-2014-1 I can't find any more recent study specific to the Gini coefficient, however these[1] charts show an improvement over this snapshot[2] from May 2015. [1]: https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.... [2]: https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/1-bitcoin-community-controls...

The original studies suggests early mining rewards were distributed mostly to a small group of users. It also shows attempts by large stakeholders to hide their large holdings by distributing funds across several wallet accounts.

If someone were to have monitored IP addresses in the swarm it may be possible to correlate attempts from single users hiding their funds across many wallets. Simply looking at the blockchain balances of single addresses will not necessarily indicate a single person controlling many addresses.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#167

Post by nosuchthing »

mrhappyunhappy wrote: post #157
nosuchthing wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reposting this as pertinent: In economics, the Gini coefficient is the standard measure of how inequitable a society is. This is tricky to determine for Bitcoin, as it's not quiet a "society" in the Gini sense, one person may have multiple addresses and many addresses have been used only once or a few times. (The commonly-cited figure of 0.88 is based on one small exchange in 2011.) However, a Citigroup analysis from…

How can they possibly identify 47 individuals and what does that even mean in bitcoin context? Would an exchange fund holding millions of people’s coins be considered a single individual?

IP addresses in the swarm, among other unique indicators of identity.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#168

Post by asciimo »

gtrubetskoy wrote: post #30
nikcub wrote: post #11

Considering the history of spoofed messages aimed at manipulating the market, they should have cryptographically signed the message That said - if this is true, they've done the difficult but right thing.

It is my understanding that signed messages are generally frowned upon in the Bitcoin community, Satoshi never signed his messages. This is because it is more important what is in the message than who wrote it.

Do you have a citation for your understanding? Seems plausible but this is the first time I've ever heard this part of the mythology. I'm especially interested because Craig S. Wright went on and on about how uncomfortable it made him to sign a message with an alleged Satoshi key. I wonder if he created this story.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#169

Post by matthewbauer »

bpicolo wrote: post #14

So bitcoin went up because they were going to fork, and now it's going up again because they will not? k Edit: Otoh, looks like it's seeing a bit of a drop now, but I doubt it will hit the pre-anticipation levels.

I guess a "rising tide lifts all boats". Or at least a bubble does.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#170

Post by AgentME »

ifdefdebug wrote: post #165
icey wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible that either decision attracted a different class of buyer. Altcoins have been dumping recently as people sold their holdings to buy Bitcoin in case there was a fork in order to get more of the forked coin (like what happened with Bitcoin Cash). Canceling Segwit2x may have caused traditional investors (e.g. those with less risk appetite) to feel that there are fewer questions about which chain survives a…

> waiting to put money into the market until there was a clear sense of which Bitcoin fork would be the successful one. I don't know, only if they did not understand that it's a win-win-win situation... they would have equal amount of coins on both chains so none of the three possible outcomes would be actually losing.

It's possible that confusion and conflict coming from there being two chains (imagine if a user sends bitcoin to a retailer who then claims they never received a payment because they were actually expecting coins on the b2x fork) could depress the price. Now we know that won't happen.
Post reply on HN