nadaviv

The messages the post points out to are not duplicates, though. They have a very similar meaning, but uses entirely different wording so that they won't appear duplicates. In other words, someone went through the trouble of trying to cloak the fact that they're duplicates.

We've already got a 2x block-size/capacity increase in the form of SegWit.

> increase the block size, but unfortunately Bitcoin Core developers refuse to do it

This is simply untrue.

> If the transaction doesn't get its first confirmation before then, it expires

I don't think that's true. To the best of my knowledge, they lock-in the rate if the transaction appears on the network within the 15 minutes window, regardless of when its confirmed.

1) The 1.7 figure is outdated, the latest one from a research by BitFury in November 2016 is 2.1MB [0]. It's probably somewhat higher now. Yes, it does require wallets to upgrade - but most of them (and all of the major ones) already have segwit implemented [1]. In addition, once a few of the major players that produce lots and lots of transactions upgrade, the fee pressure will level down for everyone, even these who did not upgrade for SegWit.

Yes, it is a one-time increase, but one that is sufficient for now. Let's start by doubling the block size first, collect more data, then decide how to further increase the blocksize as the need arises.

2) I'm not seeing that they're going against the community. The technical, business and wide bitcoin community are all looking forward eagerly for segwit's activation.

Edit: also, in the case of a hard-fork, users who don't upgrade gets cut off the network entirely. is it not preferable to keep them a part of the network, with somewhat higher fees but a functional wallet otherwise?

[0] https://www.weusecoins.com/eli-segwit/

[1] https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/

The lack of support among the technical bitcoin community is very glaring: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support#Developers

And very few companies signed that New York agreement. Most of the prominent exchanges and businesses have not agreed to the 2x portion of segwit2x: http://nob2x.org/

Where is the large portion of the ecosystem that supports 2x? Where it 2x's community? r/btc had already moved on to Bcash. There's no one cheering for 2x, just an agreement that people signed in the hopes of getting segwit activated. Segwit is activated now, they're just still stuck with the agreement for now.

Lite clients (also called SPV clients) don't fully validate the network rules, but instead follow whatever the miners say blindly.

That's unlike a full node, which fully validates every block and transaction on the bitcoin network on his own. Full nodes will insist on following the network rules they're familiar with, regardless of what the miners say.

The title is misleading. This is not an "upgrade", its a new altcoin that's being pushed forward without wide community consensus, just like BCash.

Recommended read: https://medium.com/@morcos/no2x-bad-governance-model-97b8e52...

It isn't supported by any of the prominent developers that participate in Bitcoin's open, consensus-driven, transparent development process.

The censorship claims are pure nonsense being blown out of proportion. r/bitcoin engages in standard moderation, not different from what I would expect to see in any other subreddit. Their job is more difficult than normal, though, due to all the voting robots and narrative manipulation that the bitcoin community has been suffering from in recent years [0].

[0] https://medium.com/@shesek/observing-forced-narratives-and-m...

> I can attest at least that my own entry is accurately represented and I have not been in contact with any other developer who has expressed that they have not been able to add their own entry or that luke-jr or Theymos have otherwise misrepresented their entries.

As a technical participant of the bitcoin community and the CEO of a company in the bitcoin space (in my profile, for anyone interested), I have the same experience. The entry for our company is accurate and I'm not aware of anyone claiming to be misrepresented on that page (also, I'm not personally familiar with any technical person in the bitcoin space that supports the 2x proposal. not even one!).

Agreed. The title is very misleading.

The opposition to 2x is not led by Blockstream. Nearly every prominent bitcoin developer objects it strongly[0], not just the few that are Blockstream-related. My own company, Bitrated[1], objects it strongly as well[2].

Also, many of the major bitcoin exchanges, wallets and businesses aren't signed on the New York agreement [3]. Segwit2x doesn't have as strong as a consensus as its supporters try to make it appear.

[0] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support#Developers

[1] https://www.bitrated.com/

[2] https://medium.com/@shesek/why-i-dont-support-the-compromise...

[3] http://nob2x.org/

All of these companies already supported segwit before that. This whole show was for pleasing Bitmain, who were blocking segwit for nearly a year. The companies couldn't care less about doing an hardfork to double the capacity again after segwit, they just caved in to Bitmain's demands.

> that's really what matters

Bitcoin would be quite useless if this were the case! If the miners were the ones deciding the system's rules, why shouldn't they increase the inflation rate and pay themselves more?

The entire value proposition of Bitcoin is based on the fact that everybody validate the rules, and not even the miners can change them.

> I still think this is a good thing. The Bitcoin Core developers have restricted the Bitcoin network for too long.

Restricted it how?

> Segwit has locked in, which while being a "soft fork", already breaks compatibility with the original "Bitcoin".

How so? The very definition of a softfork is that its backwards- and forwards- compatible. Segwit is a softfork that is backwards- and forwards- compatible.

Bitcoin Cash had no chance to take over the Bitcoin brand. It was a move played out alone by Bitmain with no industry support. Segwit2x, OTOH, does have a chance the take over the Bitcoin brand (though not a very good one, IMO). This makes all the difference in the world.

There's a common misconception that Blockstream showed up and started hiring bitcoin developers. That is not the case: Blockstream was founded by developers that contributed to bitcoin for many years before starting a company together.

> Blockstream employees have for years been extremely vocal opponents of increasing Bitcoin's block size

Yes, for many years, years before Blockstream even existed!

Edit: note that these very same developers are also pushing for segwit, which doubles the block size and the on-chain transaction capacity of the bitcoin network. It's quite odd to say they're "opponents of increasing Bitcoin's block size" given that they want to double it. What they're really against is specific proposals for increasing the blocksize, proposals which break compatibility and introduce a chain-split risk for no good reason.

The sentiment in the global technical bitcoin community is definitely against segwit2x, very strongly so. There may be some very few outliers, but the big picture is quite clear.

See: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support#Developers

Lightning is 5 different working codebases, developed by different groups of developers in different languages under the same protocol specification [0].

[0] https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc

It'll eventually (around 3-4 days at most) be evicted from the mempool of enough network nodes so that you'll be able to send a conflicting transaction (spending the same inputs) and get it mined instead.

Not all transactions has to be on the main chain. Scaling will happen on top and to the sides of bitcoin, using sidechains, extension chains, off-chain payment solutions like Lighting and TumbleBit, and new solutions that we haven't thought of yet.

The amount you're sending is irrelevant, bitcoin charges you by the size of your transaction in bytes (that is, by the number and complexity of inputs/outputs your transaction has).

Also, one could use the satellite data as an additional source of data, just as-if its another peer on the p2p network. In this case, this would strictly improve your security and protect against partitioning attacks with no downsides at all.

Broadcasting transactions is easy and trustless: you can give it to anyone who has an internet connection (over radio, SMS, in-person, physical mail, pigeons...) and the worse they can do is not broadcast the transaction. If you send the transaction to multiple parties, you can reduce this risk without introducing any additional risk. It's also something that you don't do very often.

Figuring out Bitcoin's best chain (PoW-wise longest) and remaining in consensus with the rest of the network is the hard part: it requires on-going communications on a reliable uncapped/high-capped internet connection, introduces trust, and adds the risk of fraud (someone feeding you with an alternative best chain that's not recognized by the rest of the network as such could execute double-spend attacks against you [0]).

[0] Blockstream satellite is no different in this regard: Blockstream could feed incorrect data into their satellites. But as a farmer in India, I would feel more comfortable trusting a satellite signal from an internationally known company that many other people are also getting (and audit, and hopefully sound an alarm if something goes wrong) then trusting, say, some internet-connected device two villages away.

    No one seems to have much idea what their business model could be.

It's not such a mystery, really. One of their investors, Reid Hoffman (LinkedIn co-founder, sits on Blockstream's board of directors) laid it out pretty clearly:

> In this instance, the first objective is to increase the public good by strengthening the overall openness and functionality of the Bitcoin ecosystem through “sidechains” technology. Delivering returns to investors is an objective as well – but it’s a secondary objective. ...

> And that’s why I’m participating in this first-round financing as an individual investor, and why Blockstream itself will function similarly to the Mozilla Corporation. Here, our first interest is maintaining and enhancing Bitcoin’s strong open ecosystem. And the structure we’ve chosen will give us the freedom and flexibility to prioritize public good over returns to investors.

> Over time, I believe this ecosystem-first approach will ultimately create massive economic value – for everyone in the Bitcoin universe, including individual users, businesses of all types, developers, entrepreneurs, and investors.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141117154558-1213-the-futur...

    quite involved with bitcoin core development

There's a common misconception that Blockstream showed up and started hiring bitcoin developers. That is not the case: Blockstream was founded by developers that contributed to bitcoin for many years before starting a company together.

I'm pretty sure their main product is sidechains?

https://blockstream.com/about/

> Blockstream's primary area of innovation is in sidechains, a technology invented to extend the capabilities of Bitcoin's blockchain. Sidechains create the opportunity for new models of trust, extending and improving upon the properties of Bitcoin.

I regularly send payments with 5c-10c in fees and it works just fine. Sometimes takes a bit longer, if we're in a high-demand period or going through a spam attack[0].

The "small block policy" view[1] is held by nearly every technical participant of the bitcoin space[2][3], myself included. Claiming that blockstream are somehow "forcing" anything is pure conspiracy nonsense.

[0] https://bravenewcoin.com/news/bitcoin-spam-attack-stressed-n...

[1] that is, the "let's start by doubling the blocksize with segwit first, analyze the results and then talk about further increasing it" view. not sure how valid the "small block" label is, considering that the people you're labeling with it want to double the block size.

[2] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support#Developers

[3] https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/

The same thing holds true for gold, diamonds, art paintings and fiat currencies.

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.