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

201–210 of 253 posts

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#201

Post by makomk »

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…

The reason the capacity benefits from Segwit haven't fully appeared yet is because people haven't switched to using it yet. The 2X fork required everyone to switch to it at once via software that wasn't exactly well tested or thoroughly reviewed. That's why it failed.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#202

Post by 659087 »

It would be incredibly interesting to see who opened short positions shortly before this announcement.

I'd be willing to bet at least a few of the names at the bottom of that message are among them.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#203

Post by topmonk »

searine wrote: post #53
paulpauper wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

up a whole $10 ..not exactly 'making a fortune'

A $10 shift is a fortune in arbitrage. If you have insider info about the direction of a market, then you have a much reduced risk. You can move in big, take your bite of the change, and then cash out.

In something as volatile as crypto, ethereum's 3.3% shift is not worth the risk.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#204

Post by wmf »

makomk wrote: post #200
wmf wrote: post #63

Sadly, this exact scenario was predicted by multiple people and could have been avoided by making segwit and 2MB activate atomically at the same time. This is a huge embarrassment for big blockers; they have been completely politically out-maneuvered.

The likely reason Segwit was activated when it was is because there was a movement by non-2X supporters to forcibly activate it around that date, and the 2X side blinked first. It's as simple as that. Also, 2X is inherently harder to deploy than Segwit because it's a hard fork, which means that everyone everywhere would have to upgrade their software. Even the proposed timeline for 2X was quite aggressive - more so e…

Yes, in retrospect this was a huge win for the UASF because they got segwit activated and no block size increase.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#205

Post by rothbardrand »

gtrubetskoy wrote: post #60
IncRnd wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Satoshi was in favor of digitally signing Bitcoin transactions to provide non-repudiation as an underpinning of Bitcoin ownership. > it is more important what is in the message than who wrote it. That statement actually favors the signing of this textual message, since digital signatures provide integrity control in addition to non-repudiation of origin.

Satoshi could be a whole building of people, we don't know who he was, and so it's not even clear what "authentic" would mean in his case. Integrity of the message doesn't matter - if you see a message and it makes sense to you, then that is all that is necessary. You can agree or post a response to argue a point. If it's something stupid, what does it matter that it's signed? And if it is from "Satoshi Nakomoto", ho…

We know who satoshi is. We can't prove it, of course and we respect him enough to leave him be in peace, given what he has done (and the fact that the current team is stronger than him.) He doesn't like the attention he gets even now when only some of us have worked it out.

Please feel free not to believe me-- you shouldn't, I could be shilling for Craig Wright (ironically the one person who has proven that he isn't Satoshi) ....

At this point Satoshi is a principle and a philosophy and bitcoin needs to survive without him.

The person who used that alias would be offended at the idea that the direction of bitcoin should be determined by him.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#206

Post by rothbardrand »

chatmasta wrote: post #75

The idea of “consensus” in the bitcoin network is interesting to me. The code expresses “consensus” mathematically, and there exists a binary truth of whether a consensus has been “reached.” That’s simple and straightforward. It’s easy to reason about what happens once a consensus has been tautologically reached. However, answering the question of “do we have a consensus yet?” is far less precise. Answering “what com…

Bitcoin core has a consensus mechanism and it is a very good one. What gets into the code is only that which has near unanimous agreement. which means proposals are discussed and altered and improved until everyone is happy.

Believe it or not this is working well, and bitcoin is moving forward at a very rapid pace (especially given the difficulty of doing blockchain systems right)... people just don't realized it because few people read the release notes.

Those who think bitcoin needs a consensus mechanism to determine its direction usually think that it doesn't have one and that some cabal is in control.

That's not the case.

Remember, Segwit and LN were from outside the community, the LN developers are mostly not part of core, and in fact one of the authors of the paper is an ethereum guy.

They both got support in core quickly because they are good ideas.

Both were announced in the fall of 2015 and cores support was in the code by May of 2016!

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#207

Post by rothbardrand »

wmf wrote: post #63

Sadly, this exact scenario was predicted by multiple people and could have been avoided by making segwit and 2MB activate atomically at the same time. This is a huge embarrassment for big blockers; they have been completely politically out-maneuvered.

You don't seem to realize that blocks can be up to 3.7mb for segwit transactions.

This whole issue has never been about block size- that's the lie they tell to try and take control.

It's all about governance and an attempt for the suits to take bitcoin away from the engineer meritocracy.

I understand that-- arguing with core people is sometimes frustrating-- but at the end of the day, core is doing a fantastic job.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#208

Post by stepik777 »

wmf wrote: post #63

Sadly, this exact scenario was predicted by multiple people and could have been avoided by making segwit and 2MB activate atomically at the same time. This is a huge embarrassment for big blockers; they have been completely politically out-maneuvered.

Big blockers made an agreement among themselves, what did they hope for?

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#209

Post by stepik777 »

mbgaxyz wrote: post #102
wmf wrote: post #63

Sadly, this exact scenario was predicted by multiple people and could have been avoided by making segwit and 2MB activate atomically at the same time. This is a huge embarrassment for big blockers; they have been completely politically out-maneuvered.

It's an embarrassment for the industry as a whole. The "New York Agreement" was a blog post, it was never a legally binding and enforceable contract. There's a strong argument that the "agreement" was designed to fail, as it's hardly a compromise when party A gets what they want immediately, but party B has to wait. In future, all "agreements" should be ignored.

> The "New York Agreement" was a blog post, it was never a legally binding and enforceable contract.

More important is that those who signed simply have no power to change Bitcoin.

> There's a strong argument that the "agreement" was designed to fail, as it's hardly a compromise when party A gets what they want immediately, but party B has to wait.

Yeah, especially when party A doesn't even sign any agreement.

Post reply on HN