Bitcoin Is Having a Civil War as It Enters a Critical Month

Post by colordrops » Mon, Jul 17, 2017, 11:41 PM UTC

placeybordeaux wrote: post #104

I just moved ~20% of my crypto holdings from BTC to LTC. The rest I'll likely keep close to 40% of my cryptoholdings in BTC, but move it onto my own wallet. If a fork actually happens, I'd prefer to be in control of the private keys. It's kind of odd that there is still so much FUD about segwit, as it has already activated on LTC. It hasn't appeared to open any security holes.

Post by Laforet » Mon, Jul 17, 2017, 11:55 PM UTC

xorcist wrote: post #259

buttershakes wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would take years for the difficulty to adapt to a 10 minute block time if the hash power dropped that much, there is a limit per two week adjustment period. More than likely the code would have to be modified to accommodate a rapidly dropping difficulty. See my other post, but that essentially destroys the security of the minority chain. BTC rich people are on both sides of the debate, expect to see some dumping a…

Realistically, what will happen if mining power moves to an alternative chain but Bitcoins are still what is traded at exchanges, is that miners will move back very quickly. The first one to move will gain the most economically, so game theory dictates the move back will be swift. In the end, miners mine what people buy. It's that simple. Any speculation as to what happens if all miners move as one, motivated by ideo…

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jul 18, 2017, 12:26 AM UTC

fpgaminer wrote: post #180

woah wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do any of these optimizations even get close to a 10x improvement? The network needs a 10000x improvement.

> The network needs a 10000x improvement. Says who? Would I like Bitcoin to support 10,000x more transactions per second than it does now? Of course. But just because I _want_ it to, doesn't mean it's magically going to be able to. Bitcoin is what it is. I'd like ships that can go faster than the speed of light, but physics isn't going to bends its rules just because I want it to. We cannot, physically, increase Bitc…

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jul 18, 2017, 12:47 AM UTC

jbondeson wrote: post #56

timq wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Because what I see from my point of view is a dozen of Blockstream employees pushing for segwit, with barely no support from the community nor the miners. And on the other side I see a growing majority of miners, a growing majority of the community asking for a simple block size increase, wich is a matter of 10 lines modified, compared to 5 000 lines and a great bunch of compl…

I find it sad (but not at all surprising) that this is the state of the Bitcoin community. The level of discourse for what is supposed to be a technology that is billed as "liberating money from the whims of governments" has neatly conformed to exactly that of the current state of political discourse. Everyone who disagrees with you is a shill/troll or an idiot. Adding math and "decentralization" doesn't magically pr…

Post by statoshi » Tue, Jul 18, 2017, 1:15 AM UTC

timq wrote: post #226

statoshi wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Core developers never had control in the first place. No one has control; it's weird to see so many people applying authoritarian concepts to an anti-authoritarian system.

By design, miners control Bitcoin. Before Ethereum, miners were fine with Bitcoin core because they were still making tons of profits, and blocks weren't full. They were almost all following core and that's why core has a lot of power. Now that Bitcoin hit a scaling ceiling and a competitor who can scale way beyond Bitcoin is rapidely taking the lead, they finally realize why Core/Blockstream strategy is bad for them…