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

231–240 of 253 posts

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#231

Post by lawn »

xorcist wrote: post #196
lawn wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

That there is no credible research done should be an argument against untested proposals for change, not against status quo. It is overwhelmingly clear that cryptocurrencies in general is in an early phase and that more research is needed on the subject. Especially since it seems like we'll be running these systems on an even larger scale in the future. It does however seem like more energy is spent spreading soundbi…

Full blocks is a change to how Bitcoin has been run. The limit was always meant to be raised as it was introduced as a spam protection. The full blocks policy has not had any research backing it at all.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#232

Post by lawn »

hudon wrote: post #186
lawn wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The damage the 1MB limit has done and is doing to Bitcoin is far more than possibly a couple of lost nodes would mean after an upgrade to 2MB. This has been a problem for years . For example Gavin thought 16MB would be perfectly safe. There's research being done now examining 1GB blocks and how that would affect propagation time. A lousy 2MB is honestly laughable. Doing nothing isn't the pragmatic or sane approach, i…

In one post your criticism is that there is a lack of research, and I agree. But now you're making unsubstantiated claims again... the damage done to bitcoin? All meaningful metrics from BitPay's transaction volume [0] to on chain USD volume [1] to the price [2] shows that Bitcoin is doing fine and does not need saving. Public data shows that even though a fee market is developing, Bitcoin is still rising quickly in…

> But now you're making unsubstantiated claims again... the damage done to bitcoin?

How about comparing Bitcoin's percentage of total market capitalization [0] which crashed from ~80% down to ~40% when the blocks became full? The last month has regained that quite a bit but you could speculate it's because the promise of long overdue on chain capacity increase.

> I know you want to take the quick approach and just LOWER FEES NOW

It's been years since the limit should have been increased. Yet here we are with no on chain scaling for Bitcoin even remotely close to reality.

> that a cowboy attitude with blockchains makes it trivial to lose a lot of money

You're really comparing apples and oranges if you compare raising the block size with Ethereum's poorly designed smart contracts.

[0] https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#233

Post by koonsolo »

pwaai wrote: post #51
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.

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.

> Market fundamentals seem non existant here.

I think you are looking at the wrong market fundamentals.

People getting into bitcoin right now, buy because it can double their money in 6 months. They do not understand anything about Segwit2x.

They see news about bitcoin, look at the price again, and say "Damn, why didn't I buy it already?", and buy. That's your market fundamental right now. That is the value of bitcoin right now: "double your money in half a year".

I'm not saying bitcoin doesn't have any other value, or that it is overvalued right now.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#234

Post by Marazan »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #149
Marazan wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin price matches the Google trends search graph for Bitcoin.

Sort of? https://imgur.com/a/SlGHw Not really.

Google trends compresses badly over longer time periods.

If you look at, say, the 2010 to 2013, the first two big bubbles then you get something that looks like

http://i.imgur.com/JHLmkq6.png

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#235

Post by Marazan »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #149
Marazan wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin price matches the Google trends search graph for Bitcoin.

Sort of? https://imgur.com/a/SlGHw Not really.

And then a bit later

http://i43.tinypic.com/2wbrjx3.png http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/chart.png?width=940&m=mtgoxU...

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#236

Post by davidmanescu »

tpallarino wrote: post #199
davidmanescu wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interested parties on either side would have been better off buying pre-fork and selling the one they didn't want, rather than buying after the fork, even though the end result is the same. That is irrational.

If people trade based upon information asymmetry, then the fact that Bitcoin Cash actually had miners, didn't crash fatally, and was capable of sending transactions constitutes an enormous change in the information landscape. Pre fork BTC price + risk premium ~ BTC post fork + BCH Pretend like the fork actually taking place and working successfully as comparable to a company's earning reports. The second that news co…

Very true - neither the person who wants BTC (but has no opinions on BCH) nor the BCH buyer wants to take the risk that the other coin will drop before he/she can sell it. In other words the risk premium isn't zero.

However a rational (impartial?) actor should be willing to take that risk if the premium is big enough. That could mean buying pre-fork or selling pre-fork if there is an obvious opportunity. Which means in an efficient market the risk premium should be zero "on average". It's hard to reason about averages with one sample but that sample was distinctly not zero!

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#237

Post by tlrobinson »

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…

I don’t buy the argument that Core opposed Segwit2x because it threatens Blockstream’s business model or influence in the community.

First of all, if Segwit2x did succeed then Core could swallow their pride and simply update Bitcoin Core’s consensus rules to match btc1’s, and I think most users would prefer to continue to run Core.

Second, if Bitcoin is eventually widely used it would need more than doubling of the block size to scale, even with sidechains or LN. Also, scaling isn’t the only use for sidechains.

Third, many of Blockstream’s founders and team are long-time Bitcoiners and cypherpunks. I’d like to believe they would not compromise Bitcoin for the benefit of their company alone, but perhaps that’s naïve.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#238

Post by jiggunjer »

MichaelBurge wrote: post #115
bdcravens wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

correlation != causation

I think that searching for Bitcoin is causally related to market demand for Bitcoin(i.e. the price). Because if you want anything(like cheese or furnace filters), you'll then search for it on Google.

It could be people were just curious, and after being served ads by Google they got an impulse to buy.

Just playing devils advocate.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#239

Post by sobani »

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.

I guess it's comparable to a company who is being investigated and risks a large fine. Most of the time when the fine is determined, the stock price goes up.

The uncertainty keeps the price down. People expect a fine, but not how large it will be. I believe there are even cases where a company got the max possible fine and still their stock price went up.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#240

Post by IncRnd »

panarky wrote: post #67
IncRnd wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is there a market for futures on cryptocoins?

BitMEX, CBOE, Deribit, and others all offer bitcoin futures, with new exchanges appearing all the time. The Chicago Mercantile Exchange says they'll start trading Bitcoin futures by year-end.

Thank you. I wasn't aware of Chicago Merc. That holds a lot more interest to me than the others. I'll look up your reference to Chicago.
Post reply on HN