Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomtomtom777 | Hacker News Reader

You are correct, but as it seems almost certain at this point that SegWit2X (btc1) will reach its threshold in time, we can simplify.

SegWit2x rejects non-SegWit blocks. So with the majority it has it can't cause a fork in the chain (until the HF 3 months later), and neither will BIP148.

So with the rather safe assumption SegWit2X reaches its threshold in the next few days, the only expected fork in the chain by August will be Bitcoin Cash (Bitcoin ABC/BU/big blocks) on one chain and Segwit on the other.

View on HN

the issue could be that they signal bip91, it's going to be activated, but they aren't running the actual code for rejecting the non segwit blocks

So to super-simplify it. Who wins with this assumed scenario, the scale on chain/big blockers or the off chain/blockstream faction?

It isn't that simple yet.

SegWit2X, which is about to activate is a compromise that gives both Segwit (improving off-chain) and a slight increase.

There is however uncertainty among big blockers about the increase as it is three months later, so it could still fail resulting in SegWit only.

The Bitcoin Cash (ABC) fork is addressing this by forking non-SegWit and bigger blocks, though its support is rather uncertain at this point.

So ABC is like a threat of forking if 2x doesn't happen 3 months later?

Is that 2x increase enough to appease the big blockers? As in, does it settle the discussion or this will happen again in 12 months?

Segwit2x is a compromise that gives the Blockstream faction what they want (Segwit), but ties it to a small (2x) block size increase. So they both win some and lose some.

However, the twist is that Blockstream gets Segwit first, while the 2x block size increase is 3 months away. During that time I expect Blockstream to be screaming to everyone that will listen to try to stop the block size increase from actually happening. They will likely not be successful but it will sadly continue to be a contentious issue until at least the end of October.

Seriously, "the Blockstream faction"? Jesus. Nearly everyone in the bitcoin ecosystem, myself included, want to get segwit activated for the technical improvements it brings to the table. This has nothing to do with Blockstream.

"Nearly everyone" is a lie. You're probably living in a bubble of /r/bitcoin, which is heavily censored.

Many people want larger blocks, we want on-chain transactions scaled way up. I'm yet to hear a good argument against large blocks. Storage is dirt cheap. Connections between servers are generally at least 1Gbps.

Nearly everyone.

https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/kycpoll/answers.php

> Connections between servers are generally at least 1Gbps

So much for peer to peer electronic cash, then...

Let me guess, that poll was posted on /r/bitcoin? Is that Luke-jr's website? Ha. Not biased at all /s

That's what happens when you're in a bubble. Your echo-chamber reflects the same ideas back to you.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not against Segwit at all, as long as the blocks are increased. So if someone wants to take their transactions off the chain, go right ahead.

> So much for peer to peer electronic cash, then...

Bitcoin is not peer to peer in the traditional sense, the money goes through the network of servers (nodes). It's called peer-to-peer, because there's no central bank, nor any authority that can stop the money flow.

I can't think of any Bitcoin discussing venue where it hasn't been posted, please feel free to post it to more.

Not "nearly everyone", plenty of people in the technical community who have worked on Bitcoin for a long time have grave reservations about Segwit. Considering that it is active on litecoin and protects basically no value should raise some warning flags.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com