Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin – Potential Network Disruption on July 31st

bitcoin.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 381 posts

Re: Bitcoin – Potential Network Disruption on July 31st

#131

Post by Cakez0r »

stale2002 wrote: post #35
runeks wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some people in the Segwit camp are tired of waiting so they are attempting to force the issue without the support of most miners. The date they picked is Aug 1. I don't understand why the bitcoin.org page sounds so alarmist. If the miners are not in on it why would some special Bitcoin blockchain (with alternative rules) matter, since miners could easily DoS this chain, if they wanted to, in case they don't support…

Kinda, they could DoS the UASF chain, but then the UASF chain could respond by doing a proof of work hard fork. If the community is behind it, then a POW change would render the 10s/hundreds of millions of dollars in mining equipment worthless. So the real question is whether or not the UASF side has the support of the community or economic majority.

You mean proof of stake? Is there a working implementation of proof of stake yet? I thought it was mostly theoretical and academic at the moment.

Re: Bitcoin – Potential Network Disruption on July 31st

#132

Post by rothbardrand »

lawn wrote: post #125
rothbardrand wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a narrative, this is the technical facts. You're pushing a narrative. Bitcoin mining has never been as centralized as it is right now with one man controlling over %70 of the hash rate via multiple pools. Many of those pools are just the same player operating under different names. Segwit2X is in fact a compromise, and I linked to a blog post where Bitmain complains about it. They want to "activate segwit…

You're repeating your arguments without any technical arguments yourself. You repeat the mistakes as outlined in this article: https://medium.com/@johnblocke/decentralization-fetishism-is... > They back a solution that gives them more control over the network and higher fees, not lower fees. You think they will give lower fees but you're uninformed about the current fee situation. How so? Because bigger blocks will g…

> How so? Because bigger blocks will give lower fees than Segwit only.

Who profits from high fees? Core? No. Miners. BitMain is very adamant about not wanting low fees. The idea that Segwit, which quadruples block size and offers a fee discount is an attempt to keep fees high is absurd on the face of it.

>And btw, you think UASF is the majority? Because they are not.

You're convincing me that you're operating from a script and have no technical knowledge of the situation.

Segwit2X IS a UASF.

> And btw, you think UASF is the majority? Because they are not.

Segwit2x is the majority of signaling right now. (Though it's a fake out because Bitmain plans a hard fork.)

Your personal attacks and failure to address the technical issues speak for themselves, so I have not quoted them, nor responded.

Re: Bitcoin – Potential Network Disruption on July 31st

#133

Post by spiralx »

VMG wrote: post #51
ented wrote: post #44

What is the max tx/s speed? Still no consensus???

With segwit, you can use http://lightning.network . Lightning network gives you essentially unlimited transaction speed.

Which doesn't actually exist yet, and doesn't solve the problem even theoretically:

https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-...

Re: Bitcoin – Potential Network Disruption on July 31st

#134

Post by lawn »

rothbardrand wrote: post #130
lawn wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and problems with types of formats is exactly where the various maleability problems come from! Which was reason for the segwit in the first place! You obviously have no idea what the maleability problem is and you didn't read and understand the linked articles.

Do enlighten us. Please be very detailed. Don't just link to some random article from a non-technical propagandist like you have been. Explain it. Segwit does fix malleability, and this is critical for bitcoins future, for many reasons.

The article contains a technical explanation... Don't be lazy and dismissive. It also explains that Segwit fixes the malleability and that Flexible Transactions also does (but in a non hacky way), so what is your point?

Re: Bitcoin – Potential Network Disruption on July 31st

#135

Post by nenreme »

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #58

> This means that any bitcoins you receive after that time may later disappear from your wallet or be a type of bitcoin that other people will not accept as payment. Can you imagine the uproar if Visa said the same thing? It would be totally unthinkable. Bitcoin can get away with this type of "disruption" because it's not really being used for anything other than a speculative vehicle.

> Can you imagine the uproar if Visa said the same thing? It would be totally unthinkable.

No, that's exactly what Visa says, they call it chargeback. That's why it is hard to buy bitcoins with bank cards.

Re: Bitcoin – Potential Network Disruption on July 31st

#140

Post by lawn »

rothbardrand wrote: post #132
lawn wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're repeating your arguments without any technical arguments yourself. You repeat the mistakes as outlined in this article: https://medium.com/@johnblocke/decentralization-fetishism-is... > They back a solution that gives them more control over the network and higher fees, not lower fees. You think they will give lower fees but you're uninformed about the current fee situation. How so? Because bigger blocks will g…

> How so? Because bigger blocks will give lower fees than Segwit only. Who profits from high fees? Core? No. Miners. BitMain is very adamant about not wanting low fees. The idea that Segwit, which quadruples block size and offers a fee discount is an attempt to keep fees high is absurd on the face of it. >And btw, you think UASF is the majority? Because they are not. You're convincing me that you're operating from a…

Uh I'm obviously referring to BIP148 when I say UASF, but way to argue with semantics.

> BitMain is very adamant about not wanting low fees.

Yet Bitmain supports larger blocks, you're not making sense.

> Your personal attacks and failure to address the technical issues speak for themselves, so I have not quoted them, nor responded.

What personal attacks? Sure, continue dismiss it as "FUD" or "non-technical people".

Post reply on HN