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

221–230 of 253 posts

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#221

Post by b1daly »

bonestamp2 wrote: post #141
Marazan wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Generally, huge demand and limited supply are necessary for any bubble to get going. I can see no way that the Bitcoin price is not a bubble.

It's rise in price is none-the-less astonishing, and is somewhat a testament to the soundness of the security model.

The whole system does require new money coming in all the time to maintain current price levels, as miners need to sell their bitcoin to get paid. It's less than a zero sum situation, as some of that money coming in goes directly to paying for the mining costs.

Since the overall awareness of Bitcoin is relatively low, in terms of actually knowing what it is, and how to get some, this bubble could run a long time, as there is a lot of money in the world, in need of investing.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#222

Post by byset »

Kiro wrote: post #175
byset wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Alright then. Where do your get your information? I'm apparently living in a bubble. (honest question, would love to get out of it if that's the case)

Ah, then sorry for the flip reply. I look in on Reddit's r/bitcoin from time to time but there can be a low signal to noise ratio. I guess I follow the journalists Kyle Torpey (who has an email newsletter), Aaron van Wirdum of Bitcoin Magazine and other outlets, and Paul Vigna of WSJ. Adam Back, Jameson Lopp, Peter Todd, Pierre Rochard, and Pieter Wuille are good community members and Twitter follows.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#223

Post by guiambros »

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 more complicated than just a fork. Differently than the previous hard fork that split blockchains and created Bitcoin Cash, SegWit2X didn't offer replay protection, which means it was basically like a self-inflicted 51% attack [1], orchestrated by the core devs and other proponents.

The fact that is was called off gave temporary relief to the markets. It's hard to predict what will happen now, but at least it avoided tanking the market next week (for now).

[1] https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-bogeyman-cometh-segwit2x-5...

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#224

Post by hndamien »

saalweachter wrote: post #216
jiggunjer wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

If there is a fool born every minute, and we have 10 minute blocks, then this can continue ad infinitum and therefore produce a great medium of exchange and store of value. It is like a better version of Hawala. If this is the case, then it would appear to be that the greater fools are the ones holding onto a depreciating currency.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#225

Post by hndamien »

lawn wrote: post #117
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?

There are no real technical arguments against increasing to 2MB, only political. The main actors against a block size increase are Core developers who are also part of a company called Blockstream. Blockstream's business model is about selling side chains. But why use side chains if you can use on chain transactions instead? Well if you limit on chain scaling users would be forced on to your side chains... The moveme…

There is also the contention that increasing blocksize would make running full nodes harder (at least by some margin) which therefore means an increase in centralisation (by a proportional margin). It would also set a precedent that miners are in control (or alternatively it could be interpreted as no-one is in control). The question then transaction speed and low fees are more important than the marginal increase in centralisation. Core would argue that any increase in centralisation is too much. Not sure why they think middle men are acceptable though.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#226

Post by tomc1985 »

mason55 wrote: post #185
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…

Please don’t quote large blocks of text like that, it’s impossible to read on mobile because of HN’s crappy web layout

But on desktop it looks rather nice

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#227

Post by keratin »

trielm100sqr wrote: post #217
baddox wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

#228

Post by rcdwealth »

> Bitcoin remains the greatest form of money mankind has > ever seen, and we remain dedicated to protecting and > fostering its growth worldwide.

How sad that people are lured into "money" and selling and buying "money" while not understanding that provision of products and services are the most valuable in the world, and that any money is just a certificate of trust exchangeable for such products or services.

Bitcoin is nothing but speculation and this kind of forks cannot make it better. Basic agreements especially relating to money shall never be changed or people loose trust in it.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#229

Post by lawn »

xorcist wrote: post #197
lawn wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no real technical arguments against increasing to 2MB, only political. The main actors against a block size increase are Core developers who are also part of a company called Blockstream. Blockstream's business model is about selling side chains. But why use side chains if you can use on chain transactions instead? Well if you limit on chain scaling users would be forced on to your side chains... The moveme…

There have been a number of technical arguments put forth on the mailing list, and the discussion is much wider than the few developers who work for Blockstream. It is easy to introduce bias when following development through secondary sources. The development mailing list is mostly non technical enough that interested Bitcoiners can follow along, which would perhaps facilitate a more nuanced understanding how protoc…

Yes I do follow the moderated mailing list and also other more open ones. The argument still stands.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#230

Post by lawn »

hndamien wrote: post #225
lawn wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no real technical arguments against increasing to 2MB, only political. The main actors against a block size increase are Core developers who are also part of a company called Blockstream. Blockstream's business model is about selling side chains. But why use side chains if you can use on chain transactions instead? Well if you limit on chain scaling users would be forced on to your side chains... The moveme…

There is also the contention that increasing blocksize would make running full nodes harder (at least by some margin) which therefore means an increase in centralisation (by a proportional margin). It would also set a precedent that miners are in control (or alternatively it could be interpreted as no-one is in control). The question then transaction speed and low fees are more important than the marginal increase in…

> There is also the contention that increasing blocksize would make running full nodes harder (at least by some margin) which therefore means an increase in centralisation (by a proportional margin)

Yet there is no attempt to quantify by how much. The damage done to Bitcoin by full blocks is much more than what a potential increase to 2MB would cause. This zero tolerance policy rhymes extremely poorly when the fees makes Bitcoin more expensive to use than to run a full node.

> It would also set a precedent that miners are in control (or alternatively it could be interpreted as no-one is in control).

Miners are in control because the real power lies with them. The problem is that they aren't coordinated and so status quo is favored.

Post reply on HN