Bitcoin.org to denounce “Segwit2x”
bitcoin.org
Bitcoin.org to denounce “Segwit2x”
1–10 of 14 posts
Re: Bitcoin.org to denounce “Segwit2x”
#2To quote the tweet that first led me to this post:
"In which bitcoin.org is used to fool users into refusing an upgrade we all voted on/approved months ago" -- https://twitter.com/deanpierce/status/916301905097142278
Re: Bitcoin.org to denounce “Segwit2x”
#3The outcome of the Bitcoin hardfork is highly unpredictable.
Re: Bitcoin.org to denounce “Segwit2x”
#4> The company will not under any circumstances list “Segwit2x” as “BTC” and/or “Bitcoin”. Note that Bitcoin is not ruled by miners, and miner actions cannot be used as a justification to redefine Bitcoin.
I thought it specifically is ruled by it's miners. They control what the neck block looks like, they control what goes into blocks, and they control what's considered consensus.
Re: Bitcoin.org to denounce “Segwit2x”
#5> The company will not under any circumstances list “Segwit2x” as “BTC” and/or “Bitcoin”. Note that Bitcoin is not ruled by miners, and miner actions cannot be used as a justification to redefine Bitcoin. I thought it specifically is ruled by it's miners. They control what the neck block looks like, they control what goes into blocks, and they control what's considered consensus.
There's one helluva lot more users than miners. The users determine the consensus. And the consensus looks like this:
Re: Bitcoin.org to denounce “Segwit2x”
#6> The company will not under any circumstances list “Segwit2x” as “BTC” and/or “Bitcoin”. Note that Bitcoin is not ruled by miners, and miner actions cannot be used as a justification to redefine Bitcoin. I thought it specifically is ruled by it's miners. They control what the neck block looks like, they control what goes into blocks, and they control what's considered consensus.
There's one helluva lot more users than miners. The users determine the consensus. And the consensus looks like this: https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/kycpoll/answers.php
350 answers does not look like a helluva lot users.
Re: Bitcoin.org to denounce “Segwit2x”
#7> The company will not under any circumstances list “Segwit2x” as “BTC” and/or “Bitcoin”. Note that Bitcoin is not ruled by miners, and miner actions cannot be used as a justification to redefine Bitcoin. I thought it specifically is ruled by it's miners. They control what the neck block looks like, they control what goes into blocks, and they control what's considered consensus.
There's one helluva lot more users than miners. The users determine the consensus. And the consensus looks like this: https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/kycpoll/answers.php
> the consensus
The consensus for bitcoin is made within the network itself. Not on a mentally unstable person's poll.
Luke-jr, aka the Blockstream coder/troll who has used his pool to maliciously kill other cryptocoins[1], made that poll based on Coinbase KYC info. That polling platform only has use within a tiny segment of Bitcoin users that trust Luke after his abhorrent actions and those that are also on Coinbase with verified accounts.
That is not consensus at all. Bitcoin as it turns out has mechanics for building and signalling consensus but Blockstream & co have been pounding sand trying to subvert it for years now.
Here is an enlightening thread on the type of awful actions Blockstream/Core has been up to regarding 2x and signals to support it among the Bitcoin community. Matt, Drak and the other Blockstream/Core thugs spend their time screaming at people on reddit/twitter while inventing lies[2] that necessitate being called out by their victims[3].
[2] https://twitter.com/btcdrak/status/901154579324301312
[3] https://twitter.com/barrysilbert/status/901162023819649024
Re: Bitcoin.org to denounce “Segwit2x”
#8> The company will not under any circumstances list “Segwit2x” as “BTC” and/or “Bitcoin”. Note that Bitcoin is not ruled by miners, and miner actions cannot be used as a justification to redefine Bitcoin. I thought it specifically is ruled by it's miners. They control what the neck block looks like, they control what goes into blocks, and they control what's considered consensus.
> They control what the neck block looks like, they control what goes into blocks, and they control what's considered consensus.
Not really. Bitcoin's rules define what qualifies as a valid block. Users apply those rules to decide what the current blockchain is. If anything, miners are dependent on users accepting the blocks that they mine in order to be able to sell their mining rewards and fees to pay (usually in fiat) for the electricity they use to mine.
The real "ruling" happens at the exchanges where BTC is valued.
The miners spend efforts finding blocks to add to the blockchain, and can be selective about what transactions they let in. But they are constrained by Bitcoin's rules. They could try changing the rules, but if users don't accept the changes then their blocks won't match the set of rules the users are using and their mining rewards and fees won't have value.
Miners are further constrained by "game theory" as they compete against each other. If one miner chooses to exclude transactions another miner is prepared to mine, then the transaction fee on those transactions won't be earned. Mining is competitive, and leaving money on the table like this widely can be expected to be loss making as the cost to mine a block is no lower if there are fewer transactions in it.
The one thing miners have going for them is that they already pool their resources so can organise. But so can the exchanges.
Re: Bitcoin.org to denounce “Segwit2x”
#9> The company will not under any circumstances list “Segwit2x” as “BTC” and/or “Bitcoin”. Note that Bitcoin is not ruled by miners, and miner actions cannot be used as a justification to redefine Bitcoin. I thought it specifically is ruled by it's miners. They control what the neck block looks like, they control what goes into blocks, and they control what's considered consensus.
There's one helluva lot more users than miners. The users determine the consensus. And the consensus looks like this: https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/kycpoll/answers.php
This is the same guy who said the sun revolves around the earth and that 300KB blocks already push the limits of the bitcoin even though there have been full 1MB blocks for well over a year and bitcoin cash has already demonstrated mining 8MB with no problem (of course).
Read through his reddit history and see if you still think he is something worth treating as an authority. It's full of extremist religious ramblings and nonsense about bitcoin with no technical backing.
Re: Bitcoin.org to denounce “Segwit2x”
#10The footnote got me curious about Segwit2x replay protection, so I went to find how it works[1].
Essentially, strong replay protection would work automatically but force wallets and other software to upgrade to use the forked chain. Opt-in replay protection allows existing wallets to be used with the fork immediately.
Whether this is good or bad really depends on who you ask, I suppose. From Bitcoin.org's perspective, they see this lack of strong protection as a way for the Segwit2x chain to steal coins from the 'real' chain. From the Segwit2x perspective, they see this as maintaining compatibility under the assumption that they will become the main (essentially only) chain.
Opt-in protection seems like a negative if the chains continue to coexist for a long time, since both chains will be vulnerable. It only makes sense if you think it one chain will die off. And yet, I could see Opt-In replay protection encouraging the chains to merge, as users are slightly incentivized to pick a chain rather than deal with replay protection indefinitely.
The beauty of the blockchain is that we will see this all play out publicly, and learn from the results [citation needed].
[1] https://bitcointechtalk.com/how-segwit2x-replay-protection-w...