Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

You know when you start by calling your opponents positions "propaganda" that it kinda impeaches your argument before you've even begun.

Bitcoin has already gone from 1-4mb max blocks this August, going to 8mb is unproven.... and it does reduce security because it increases centralization. The great firewall of china is a real thing, and I've seen first hand that 1mb blocks have trouble crossing it. Absolute number of full nodes is not a relevant measure in this issue... miner centralization is.

Untested is true... the 700 nodes that were spun up in the past could of days are not running a test network, and thus it is untested, and also 700 insta-clone AWS instances that are there just as part of the attack do not constitute testing.

The fact that BTC1 is months behind is in fact a problem, its one developer has clearly been working on his alt, and there's no indication that the code will be maintained going forward-- especially since it is months behind already.

I think it's hilarious to rephrase "Wanting to steal the bitcoin of SPV wallet users" as a "feature" of "not having to upgrade." BCH put in replay protection and did a good job of trying to be a good citizen and still people lost money.

You guys are flagrantly pushing malware that hides its nature and ARE going to cause people to lose funds... hell, you guys have been talking about straight up attacks on bitcoin as part of your attempt to launch your scam coin.

It's not hostile to disconnect incompatible nodes that are going to cause a hard fork-- you guys keep redefining terms and putting spin on your actions in a way that tells me that you know you're supporting a scam.

Nodes that do not follow the consensus rules will be disconnected anyway, this is the way bitcoin works, disconnecting immediately simple saves the network a lot of effort to discover the incompatibility... but hiding it is great if your goal-- as has been stated by you guys on multiple occasions-- to attack bitcoin.




"Propaganda" is literally what you are doing. But it also is not as negative as how you seem to interpret it. Definition of propaganda: «information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause»

«it does reduce security because it increases centralization»

Very large blocks, on the order of 100+ MB, would certainly increase centralization. But in practice a segwit2x block is going to be around 4 MB. 4 MB does not increase miner centralization. 4 MB is peanuts. There is no technical evidence showing that 4 MB would increase miner centralization.

«1mb blocks have trouble crossing it»

No they do not. If there was trouble, we would see many empty blocks being mined by Chinese miners. Currently only a small minority (<1%) of blocks are empty or close to empty. Maybe you encountered problems trying to naively run a full node on your hotel's wifi while being in China? Doing so is not evidence that the GFW prevents 1 MB blocks from crossing it.

«past could of days are not running a test network»

Another false claim. There is a testnet: https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-segwit2x-testnet-fork-scali...

«just as part of the attack»

Why does everyone think it is an attack? Segwit2x is not an attack! See my long reddit post https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7508mh/eli5_please_exp...

«its one developer has clearly been working on his alt»

No, it is one dev working on the ref implementation on behalf of the entire group of signatories who signed the NYA. And there is only 1 dev because Segwit2x is a very small patch against Core: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0.14...btc1:segwi...

«I think it's hilarious to rephrase "Wanting to steal the bitcoin of SPV wallet users" as a "feature" of "not having to upgrade."»

That is exactly the point. Segwit2x is meant to be an upgrade. This has been said many times.

«You guys are flagrantly pushing malware»

It is not malware. Stop using that word. You do not know what malware is.

«talking about straight up attacks on bitcoin»

No we have not. Radicals exist in both camps (segwit2x and no2x) and they have talked about "attacks". But the words/lies of radicals do not represent the intent of each camp.

«It's not hostile to disconnect incompatible nodes that are going to cause a hard fork»

Nodes are not incompatible between now and the HF. It is hostile to disconnect them today. It would, however, not be hostile to disconnect post HF. But it would also be pointless because 2MB blocks are going to be automatically rejected by Core nodes anyway.

«disconnecting immediately simple saves the network a lot of effort»

It does not save a lot of effort. Literally 1 block will ever be transmitted unnecessarily (the first block with a segwit weight over 4 million), and all subsequent blocks will automatically be rejected.

«you're supporting a scam»

It is not a scam. Stop using that word.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: