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

241–250 of 253 posts

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#241

Post by IncRnd »

gtrubetskoy wrote: post #155
IncRnd wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. That doesn't matter, because people can independently look at the design of the crypto. Your point about authentic in this context is meaningless. > 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. That…

> You don't sign to check stupidity Right, you use your brain to check for stupidity, and once that check is complete, identity, authenticity and consistency of the message does not matter. Bitcoin is a trust-less protocol, you cannot and should not trust any node, miner, developer, any online or offline post. Trust is not a thing in the Bitcoin world, and the tradition of not signing communications is generally root…

Trust in digital signatures is 100% of how Bitcoin works, and other nodes, miners, and developers are definitely trusted.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#242

Post by sobani »

tlrobinson wrote: post #237
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…

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 b…

Your first point is not a contradiction. You can disagree with something for whatever reason, but still want to participate in whatever proposal 'wins'.

If you prefer baseball over football, but all your friends are playing football, would you rather join your friends, or play by yourself?

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#243

Post by xorcist »

lawn wrote: post #231
xorcist wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, it's really not. It was there from the beginning. Satoshi himself put it in place, years before blocks got even close to that size. When other people wanted to lift the limit he argued against it. He clearly did not deem it important enough to even research what limit was appropriate.

There's also the fact that Satoshi put a pretty agreesive schedule for the deflationary aspect of Bitcoin. Fees were designed to gradually take over as the miner's reward. You and I may or may not agree with that policy, or the schedule it follows, but it is a policy that was designed in from the beginning.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#244

Post by lawn »

xorcist wrote: post #243
lawn wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, it's really not. It was there from the beginning. Satoshi himself put it in place, years before blocks got even close to that size. When other people wanted to lift the limit he argued against it. He clearly did not deem it important enough to even research what limit was appropriate. There's also the fact that Satoshi put a pretty agreesive schedule for the deflationary aspect of Bitcoin. Fees were designed to g…

You're confusing the limit with full blocks. For all good it did the limit could just as well not have existed since blocks never reached it.

Furthermore Bitcoin used a soft limit which miners themselves increased. This is now no longer possible.

Satoshi introduced the limit as spam protection and he also explained how it could be phased in using a hard fork (although the term was coined at a later date).

I quote:

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#245

Post by icebraining »

bpicolo wrote: post #39
askmike wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most bitcoin people I've met are very much in favor of everything free market, it's the goverments / central banks they don't trust.

You're looking at a group of 6 people that have relevant influence on bitcoin. You've still got centralized trust.

The fact that 6 people tried and failed to get their way should imply the opposite, no?

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#246

Post by grover_hartmann »

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…

Go back to r/btc with your propaganda.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#247

Post by runeks »

srwx wrote: post #119
runeks wrote: post #116

I guess this is one of the merits of proof-of-work: force miners to mine on one chain only, and if the token on the fork is worth less compared to their relative increase in hash rate on the fork, they lose money. In my opinion, the financial motive of miners played a big role in this decision, and that’s exactly what proof-of-work is supposed to achieve: consensus through selfish miners. Has anyone done the math on…

It's graphed in real time: https://fork.lol/

Awesome! Not as clear-cut as I thought, though.

The BCH income also seems a lot less stable than for BTC; shooting up to twice as profitable as BTC and then down to half as profitable. I assume there’s quite a lot of variance in the time-between-blocks in the BCH network.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#248

Post by tim333 »

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.

It's not actually true for gold. The market is supported by non fools buying jewelry.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#249

Post by tim333 »

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 you look at the graph from Stocks For The Long Run it's been about the most constant thing in value over a 200 year time frame http://www.pacificinvestmentadvisory.com/graphics/stoxGraph....

I daresay constant is not great. Goes up is better.

Re: Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended

#250

Post by saalweachter »

tim333 wrote: post #249
saalweachter wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 you look at the graph from Stocks For The Long Run it's been about the most constant thing in value over a 200 year time frame http://www.pacificinvestmentadvisory.com/graphics/stoxGraph.... I daresay constant is not great. Goes up is better.

That graph is kind of meaningless since gold was pegged to the dollar pre-1970s. Well, vice versa.
Post reply on HN