Comment by lawn | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lawn | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This is the main narrative being pushed by Blockstream and Core who are afraid of loosing control over the main Bitcoin reference client, beware.

> I think you missed the key issue. Mining is largely centralized under the control of Bitmain, both via pools and indirectly via miners they have sold

False, bitcoin mining has never been as decentralized as it is now: https://coin.dance/blocks

> Segwit2X is a compromise-- but Bitmain does not like it because it activates segwit.

False, they are signaling Segwit2X and have been open to support segwit (except the arbitrary discount).

> So BitMain has announced they plan to do a forcible Hard Fork of Bitcoin, splitting off into another chain, that they will privately mine-- and they intend to neutralize segwit on it.

As per your own link, this is a plan against the UASF fork.

> They have publicly complained that segwit offers lower fees for transactions that use less resources.

And instead they back bigger blocks and flexible transactions which would give them even lower fees? If your statement was true then they wouldn't do that.

> The entire conflict (including the "scaling problems" which have recently been proven to be due to spam driving up transaction costs) is Bitmain attempting to increase and protect their near monopoly.

No, it is because Blockstream and Core wants to retain control. Do they support Segwit2X even when 90+ of all miner power signals it? No.

Segwit as a soft fork is a crappy implementation and reduces the security of Bitcoin. See:

https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-...

Flexible Transactions is a superior proposal:

https://zander.github.io/posts/Flexible_Transactions/

FlexTrans are far more crappy and far far less tested than segwit. It introduces its own weird format that nobody uses, that's sort-of-XML-but-binary (I mean, the authors said to themselves "I like XML so much I want it in a binary protocol") - 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!

I am not for UASF and I think it's moronic (since it will lead to chainsplit and user confusion); segwit is fine though and FlexTrans are not a serious contender

> 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?

My point is that you don't understand what you are talking about and are feeding us FUD based bullshit. And you have failed to give an explanation when called on it, just linking to someone else (also ignorant) as "proof".

You oppose Segwit2x AND BIP-148, but you like Segwit?

Segwit2x is sort-of-OK for me frankly.

I don't like the part where they rush to implement everything as fast as possible. And from apart (and I don't follow Segwit2x that much), the changeset seems too big from bitcoind.

And they say openly they plan hard-fork, not this UASF where the S is not really that S and is almost guaranteed to result in a split and confusion.

They signal Segwit in a compatible way, so it's OK. Just the timeline is crazy.

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" but what they call segwit is not really segwit. The UAHF article I linked to is not Segwit2X it is a new hard fork they propose because they don't like Segwit2X. If they actually supported it they could just let it activate.

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.

Blockstream doesn't have control. You're pushing an uninformed narrative that makes Blockstream out as some sort of evil corporation--- the reality is block stream employees are a minority of core, core development is done in the public eye (unlike even Segwit2X and certainly any of Bitmains's hacks, like BU which was closed source for awhile before people just gave up on it.)

You keep talking as if the miners are supposed to be in control, as if that's right. It's not. Bitcoin was designed to be a balance, and the only error satoshi made was not realizing that his PoW was vulnerable to ASICs, which have resulted in centralization. You act as if there are a lot of miners and they are the bitcoin community, they are not, they are the minority. Alas they have spent a lot of money to dupe people like you into thinking they are the good guys.

Your articles are non-technical nonsense full of FUD written by people who do not understand the bitcoin code.

Here's the real threat to bitcoin-- people who are not developers are easily mislead by conspiracy theories backed up by thousands of shills posting this kind of crap narrative.

Thanks for the down vote, too bad you didn't have a technical argument.

The great firewall of china is not going away. The centralization threat is real. Segwit is the most tested code put out by core... and a whole lot better than the shitshow of alternatives we've seen put out by those who are trying to take over bitcoin.

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 give lower fees than Segwit only.

> Blockstream doesn't have control. You're pushing an uninformed narrative that makes Blockstream out as some sort of evil corporation--- the reality is block stream employees are a minority of core, core development is done in the public eye (unlike even Segwit2X and certainly any of Bitmains's hacks, like BU which was closed source for awhile before people just gave up on it.)

The censorship in those channels are well documented.

> You keep talking as if the miners are supposed to be in control, as if that's right. It's not.

You don't understand the point of PoW in Bitcoin.

> You act as if there are a lot of miners and they are the bitcoin community, they are not, they are the minority.

Doesn't matter. And btw, you think UASF is the majority? Because they are not.

> Your articles are non-technical nonsense full of FUD written by people who do not understand the bitcoin code.

Where are the technical arguments against these supposed "non technical FUD pieces"? You provide none.

> 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.

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".

It's not semantics when you're talking about different activation mechanisms... that you think it is proves to me you don't really understand what's going on.

I point out a contradiction in Bitmains position and you say that means I'm not making sense? Once again, you are arguing that your ignorance somehow trumps the facts.

And of course, you resorting to insults is all the proof I could have needed.

Go educate yourself. Start at bitcoin.org

>This is not a narrative, this is the technical facts. You're pushing a narrative.

Then you immediately launch into narrative, one that avoids detailing how Jihan doesn't control the hashrate. Individual buyers and operators of Bitmain's mining hardware do. You are attributing things in plainly incorrect ways.

>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.

Nothing about the owners or the choices they can make with their hashrate. All some narrative about "evil Jihan."

I didn't avoid dealing with your lie, I stuck to the truth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com