Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
Bitcoin Is in Wild Upheaval After the Cancellation of the Segwit2x Fork (fortune.com)
35 points by venturis_voice on Nov 13, 2017 | hide | past | web | favorite | 11 comments

> More profoundly, Bitcoin Cash’s hashrate, or network-wide cryptographic processing power, has surpassed Bitcoin’s.

This is not correct. BCH difficulty adjustment algorithm kicked in last night (difficulty +400%) [1] and BCH mining profitability tanked.

BTC is now ~3.5x more profitable to mine [2], and as a result most of the hashpower has returned to BTC [3].

It would seem that at least a large part of the movements this weekend were the result of miners gaming the BCH difficulty adjustment algorithm, combined with a dash of FOMO and pump / dump dynamics.

BCH hardforks today to make an emergency fix to the difficulty adjustment algorithm [4], so longer term it will be interesting to see what happens to the price, once the incentives for miners to game the difficulty algorithm disappear.

Hopefully the new algorithm allows the BCH difficulty to stabilise and the two chains can coexist.

It increasingly seems that forks will be commonplace, and as such the bitcoin protocol could probably benefit from built in replay protection and a more responsive difficulty adjustment algorithm.

[1]: https://fork.lol/pow/difficulty

[2]: https://fork.lol/

[3]: https://fork.lol/pow/hashrate

[4]: https://www.bitcoinabc.org/november

Given that the bitcoin community normally seems so enamoured with trustless systems, I did think it was extremely odd that people went along with Segwit2x when it was implemented in such a way that the Segwit camp got a trustless guarantee while the 2x camp got no such guarantee.

After all, if Segwit have already got their payoff, what incentive do they have to support 2x?

As far as I'm aware the Bitcoin developers never signed the New York Agreement. It was a group of people and businesses that came together to "fix" Bitcoin into something they saw an improvement. They just lacked developers and community support.

As far as I am aware the Bitcoin Core developers are just a group of people that called their client "reference client" and are themselves very entangled with Business interests of a particular company. They are not "official" and have no real authority to call their client "reference client" but somehow every time someone speaks about the NY Agreement it gets pointed out that Bitcoin Core has not signed.

Who cares what they signed or didn't sign? They did sign the HK Agreement and then broke it shortly after. They have proven that they don't give a shit about such agreements.

NY Agreement didn't lack developers (just not the Bitcoin Core Developers) and they didn't lack community support. Bitcoin Core is just very good at controlling communication channels through Censorship and Propaganda.

There are no well defined "camps" in the community. The tendency to define camps is part of the attempt to frame the discourse around project governance in single technical terms like "block size". Those descriptions seldom make any sense to describe the behaviours of the diverse actors in the ecosystem, and only serve to muddle the deployment scenarios of various improvements to the Bitcoin protocol.

Segwit2x did what it was intended to do, but what that was varied wildy between the various actors involved. It never bothered with deployment scenarios or any sort of definition what the intended end game was, and how it was to be managed going forward, not because the people involved were somehow incompetent but because those were not relevant to the initiative.

Some saw it as a golden opportunity to pump an otherwise uninteresting hard fork, some as a possbility to do an ICO, some as free publicity for their startup and some to make a name for themselves as narrators of the Bitcoin story. It did all that and more. We'll probably see more similar initiatives in the future, but the community will probably care less about them going forward.

This point was brought up directly after the agreement. Look and behold that was exactly what happened.

The theory I like is that they were too gullible and trusting. Their stated mission was to unite the two camps big blockers and segwit supporters and to avoid a divide in the community. What they didn't realize was that the community was already divided and it's impossible to unite Core's blind focus on off chain scaling with on chain scaling.

>> Bitcoin Cash is now heavily backed by Chinese traders and miners

I thought cryptocurrencies are fobidden in China now

VPNs and a lot of things are forbidden, it doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of people in China, and that they let themselves be stopped by minor roadblocks.

There's this idea that Bitmain might be one of China's national champion that is in collusion with the government. I find this idea highly interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_champions

ICOs are probably forbidden. Exchange of crypto currencies and yuan may or may not be forbidden.

It's complicated, basically.

I think you can trade Bitcoin OTC

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