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

211–220 of 253 posts

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#211

Post by rrhd »

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.

So if I send a faked message from this guy saying "we changed out minds, fork now" it's not going to be an issue at all?

Ridiculous.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#212

Post by rrhd »

rothbardrand wrote: post #207
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.

> attempt for the suits to take bitcoin away from the engineer meritocracy.

because it's not totally controlled by suits already? Who do think is pouring money into mining this stuff.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#213

Post by wmf »

stepik777 wrote: post #209
mbgaxyz wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think if all the NYA signatories had gone all-in on 2x they could have killed the 1x chain. Between the majority of miners and a bunch of exchanges and payment processors, they probably do have the power. But the backlash and financial losses would have been significant.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#214

Post by rrhd »

hudon wrote: post #73

"6 people called off the fork. Think about that." [0] A censorship resistant digital cash is being built, and it only took 6 small time CEOs to completely throw everyone off and almost derail the project. When someone like CME Group, who now has skin in the game, also starts pulling their weight, who knows if the bitcoin experiment will survive? [0] https://twitter.com/arronschaar/status/928316853092433920

> A censorship resistant digital cash

No, a way for a few people to get rich has been built.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#215

Post by jiggunjer »

rocqua wrote: post #193
saalweachter wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All Bitcoin news results in new people saying "I should buy some Bitcoin", so it doesn't matter so much what the news is as long as it reaches new people who will think they're missing out. Not to use the B-word, but bubbles will continue to inflate as long as there are enough new people to put new money in.

Count on that greater fool that will later be willing to buy for an even more ridiculous price than you did!

True for gold too, yet that bubble manages to be pretty stable over the decades.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#216

Post by saalweachter »

jiggunjer wrote: post #215
rocqua wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Count on that greater fool that will later be willing to buy for an even more ridiculous price than you did!

True for gold too, yet that bubble manages to be pretty stable over the decades.

I mean, it depends on your definition of "stable"? The yearly deltas in the price of gold between 2009 and 2015 are +31%, +8%, +9%, -28%, 0%, -12%. It's stable relative to, say, BitCoin, but if my salary changed that much I'd hardly call it "a stable income", and if my weight changed that much I'd definitely not call it "a stable weight".

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#217

Post by trielm100sqr »

baddox wrote: post #194
austenallred wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must be new to this. Literally any change shows that bitcoin will win. Something bad for bitcoin? And it still can't stop it! Look at how resilient it is! Something good for bitcoin? TOLD YOU SO to the moon!

I see the opposite phenomenon, where literally any change or news about any cryptocurrency shows how stupid and terrible cryptocurrencies are, at least as often and as intensely as the phenomenon you're describing. Price going up? PURE SPECULATION, DRUGS, AND MONEY LAUNDERING. Price going down? I TOLD YOU IT WAS A BUBBLE THAT WOULD CRASH. Price staying steady? JUST WAIT, IT'S A BUBBLE BEING HELD AT A PRICE ARTIFICIAL…

LOL that bubble guy again...

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#218

Post by PKop »

matthewbauer wrote: post #176
bdcravens wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess what's weird is the idea that you could split two coins and the two coins price is greater than the original. That doesn't make any sense even though it happened with Bitcoin cash.

Just like a tree forks into many branches allowing the tree to receive more sunlight and grow taller, Bitcoin forking into Bcash attracted more money into the market for both than original Bitcoin alone.

You could view Bitcoin + altcoins = total crypto market cap the same way..

You could also argue that if Bitcoin didn't fork previously, the total price of BTC alone would be higher than both forks now. Who knows?

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#219

Post by zik »

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's central innovation is the "Nakamoto concensus" algorithm which is essentially exactly this (at least as it applies to the protocol itself).

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#220

Post by zik »

sova wrote: post #59

The note states there was not enough consensus (only 30%) How much consensus would be quorum for this sort of shift? Making a hardfork is really a last resort. If we are trying to increase transaction capacity, is blocksize really the most efficient way to go about it (without screwing up the other aspects of BTC)?

The support for the earlier Segwit change was only 30%. The advertised support for this 2x change was over 80%.
Post reply on HN