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

Ethereum Fork Fails on OpenEthereum

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 108 posts

Re: Ethereum Fork Fails on OpenEthereum

#81

Post by swensel »

uncletammy wrote: post #67
w4llstr33t wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on this, are you a fan of Bitcoin Cash? I find it interesting how divisive the split in Bitcoin / SegWit / Lightning Network vs Bitcoin Cash has been.

I support any and every coin that aims to build Satoshi's version of peer-to-peer electronic cash. Right now, the coins that come closest are Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash, and Dash. Sadly all three have had to make some big concessions that make them look less like the original version. I also find the split interesting. I'm most interested in how effectively public perception was manipulated with regards to the split and…

What about Litecoin as peer-to-peer electronic cash? I don't see what benefits Bitcoin Cash has over Litecoin. It seems like the original idea for Litecoin was that it could be used more for day to day transactions, by reducing the block time. I question the need for Bitcoin Cash to begin with, when Litecoin was already available. I am curious of your thoughts on that.

I also saw you mentioned Dash. Is there a reason you didn't also include Z-Cash in your short list (I am genuinely curious).

I am aware of the r/bitcoin vs r/btc controversy and understand the r/bitcoin censorship concern. On the other hand, r/btc is not censored but they seem so anti Bitcoin Core / Lightning Network, it looks to me like they don't consider the other side at all.

From what I can tell, the Lightning Network could be a scaling solution. It is awesome to know that many BCH devs aren't opposed to a lightning implementation on BCH. I'd love to see these communities converge.

Re: Ethereum Fork Fails on OpenEthereum

#82

Post by rfd4sgmk8u »

swensel wrote: post #81
uncletammy wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I support any and every coin that aims to build Satoshi's version of peer-to-peer electronic cash. Right now, the coins that come closest are Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash, and Dash. Sadly all three have had to make some big concessions that make them look less like the original version. I also find the split interesting. I'm most interested in how effectively public perception was manipulated with regards to the split and…

What about Litecoin as peer-to-peer electronic cash? I don't see what benefits Bitcoin Cash has over Litecoin. It seems like the original idea for Litecoin was that it could be used more for day to day transactions, by reducing the block time. I question the need for Bitcoin Cash to begin with, when Litecoin was already available. I am curious of your thoughts on that. I also saw you mentioned Dash. Is there a reason…

That's the problem, bcashers ignore technical reality. Actual pro-bitcoin altcoin project like Zcash and Litecoin are ignored for the altcoins that fell into the bcash camp and memes.

Litecoin is a better "bitcoin" than bitcoin cash, and with its move towards Mimblewimble Extension Block's, will have additional privacy that does not exist in bcash. But accepting that would require more a technical understanding of mathematics and cryptoeconomics.

Re: Ethereum Fork Fails on OpenEthereum

#84

Post by shawnz »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #72
capableweb wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In a different blockchain they go by different rules" yeah no shit, of course. Ethereum is not Bitcoin because Ethereum doesn't want to be Bitcoin, otherwise Ethereum wouldn't have existed in the first place. That's like complaining that GCP is not following the advice of AWS "leaders", of course they are not gonna do that, otherwise they would work together, not on two different projects... Also, no matter what Sat…

> "In a different blockchain they go by different rules" yeah no shit, of course. That's a terrible summary! It's like saying it's obvious that GM should ignore anything Henry Ford ever said about making cars. There might be good reasons to act differently, but simply being a different organization isn't one.

I think you have it backwards. It's more like saying that not every single thing Henry Ford ever said actually describes the best possible way of making cars. Henry Ford was capable of getting things wrong.

I don't think anyone is claiming that Ethereum should do things differently just to be different. The claim is that actually that Ethereum isn't necessarily worse just because it is different.

Re: Ethereum Fork Fails on OpenEthereum

#85

Post by etherael »

rfd4sgmk8u wrote: post #79
uncletammy wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roger Ver had nothing to do with the BCH fork. In fact, he was many months late in showing any public support for it. He was dead silent until it started to look like the core devs were going to reneg on their agreement to support 2mb blocks in exchange for passing Segwit. And as expected, they did reneg on that, immediately after they got what they wanted. BCH is not Roger Ver. BCH is all of the old school Bitcoiner…

I beg to disagree. No oldschool bitcoiner I know (including myself) takes bcash seriously. I would request that you to name any technical public figure that supports bcash. All that is left in this community is new suckers, and antibitcoin non-technical folks. Segwit DID change in blocksize weighting, with a fee incentive model to use segwit. These false antiblockstream tropes should have died out in 2018, but bcashe…

Congratulations, you made me come out of retirement purely to disagree with you. No chain more richly deserves death than BTC and BCH is one of the best chains in existence. I'm prepared to sign this message with a Bitcoin key from 2011 if you doubt the fact I've been active that long.

It's the unfortunate and poorly informed post 2017 split BTC adherents who have no idea what's going on. I watched the entire thing unfold first hand and the BCH camp simply has it correct. The fact that the market is largely completely ignorant of this is one of the most glaring indications of just how irrational it presently is.

Until BTC dies, the entire cryptosphere is little more than a joke. Witness the tone very technically proficient but not "in the cult" people like George Hotz have when they're discussing the block size debate; there's no doubt whatsoever that core is utterly wrong, to the point that any suggestion to the contrary is nothing more than a joke. Deep link to the exact part in a recent interview he addresses this https://youtu.be/_L3gNaAVjQ4?t=2635

Re: Ethereum Fork Fails on OpenEthereum

#87

Post by vmception »

axiosgunnar wrote: post #2

Can somebody explain the significance? Is this related to the conflict between devs and miners where devs want to reduce the mining fees and miners responded by creating a fork?

It is only related to the Parity/OpenEthereum team continuing to have distractions on things more important to them like their own blockchain projects

Nobody should be using their client software

Re: Ethereum Fork Fails on OpenEthereum

#88

Post by thebean11 »

rfd4sgmk8u wrote: post #28

Satoshi wrote in 2010: "I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint." https://bitcoint…

I really don't like the "Satoshi wouldn't have liked this" arguments.

Have you ever worked with a really smart, visionary guy who changed his opinion on something? Have you changed your opinion? Satoshi is gone, and we can't just assume what his opinions would be today.

I think death of the author definitely applies here. It's an open protocol. I respect Satoshi as a visionary and inventor, but he does not have the final say.

Re: Ethereum Fork Fails on OpenEthereum

#89

Post by nivexous »

rfd4sgmk8u wrote: post #79
uncletammy wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roger Ver had nothing to do with the BCH fork. In fact, he was many months late in showing any public support for it. He was dead silent until it started to look like the core devs were going to reneg on their agreement to support 2mb blocks in exchange for passing Segwit. And as expected, they did reneg on that, immediately after they got what they wanted. BCH is not Roger Ver. BCH is all of the old school Bitcoiner…

I beg to disagree. No oldschool bitcoiner I know (including myself) takes bcash seriously. I would request that you to name any technical public figure that supports bcash. All that is left in this community is new suckers, and antibitcoin non-technical folks. Segwit DID change in blocksize weighting, with a fee incentive model to use segwit. These false antiblockstream tropes should have died out in 2018, but bcashe…

Mike Hearn, Gavin Andreson, Roger Ver, and countless names I interact with on a regular basis support big blocks and were involved since the beginning. Folks, this what BTC does. Eventually the lies runs out.

Re: Ethereum Fork Fails on OpenEthereum

#90

Post by nivexous »

dogman144 wrote: post #69
nivexous wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Non-authoritative" ... this is why BTC people just suck to talk to. Everyone DYOR. It is indisputable that Satoshi wanted big blocks. Here are a couple quotes: The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. https://www.bitcoin.com/satoshi-archive/emails/mike-hearn…

I hear ya. The view is that by references to a large network, split bt SPV and miner nodes, the miner nodes can run expanding blocks and the Rec users just hold block headers, more or less. That implies bigger blocks can occur, will occur at scale, and the miner can roll with it, users are still able to verify, and SN saw nothing wrong with that. Similar evidence as yours exists elsewhere. I tend to think it’s too ea…

There's no problem - the word farm is being used differently in different contexts. In the quote you posted, farm is in reference to hashpower. You can have many smaller miners (zombie farms, in your quote) that know nothing about the transactions they are mining. That is how mining pools work today. All that is required is one big central node that can validate the transactions and build the block, which is what my quote was referencing with farm.
Post reply on HN