Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
The Crypto Civil War (medium.com)
26 points by rajathalex 11 months ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 11 comments

I really dislike"crypto" referring to "crytocurrencies" and not "cryptography".

Ya, That's how I read it then I get annoyed when I turn up at the site and find its about btc or other-such.

God yeah, this has to stop.

oooh thats gotta suck, my whole world uses crypto in the digital asset context

Then I'd say you need to broaden your horizons, because that's niche usage.

"When Satoshi Nakamoto designed the system, he made the block size of each block in the bitcoin blockchain to be 1MB. There was a very technical reason for why he did this (I’m not going into the details, but it’s to maintain a decentralized control of the system at a high level)"

There is no way to know why the size limit was reduced from 32 MB to 1MB. There was only a commit but not an explanation. Over the years people have come up with different theories including the one that says it was to stop attacks against the network - many of the early blocks are empty and given blockchain is essentially an empty book, people could fill it with garbage data and bloat the size of blocks to size limit of 32 MB.

I thought this part in the cancellation notice somehow pointed to this result -

"As fees rise on the blockchain, we believe it will eventually become obvious that on-chain capacity increases are necessary. When that happens, we hope the community will come together and find a solution, possibly with a blocksize increase. Until then, we are suspending our plans for the upcoming 2MB upgrade."

I don't agree that it is in the miners best interest to have big blocks allowing for more transactions. The argument is that more transactions means more fees, but that is not really the case. With a block limit just a little under what there is demand for, transaction fees will grow significantly for those that need to compete to be included in the next block. If the block limit is above demand, then there is space for any transaction and so every transaction just has to pay some symbolic minimum fee. The sum of this will be lower than the sum of fewer transactions but with higher paying fees.

The argument is also that one big miner did not wish for Segregated witness because he apparently had an "invisible" advantage allowing him to mine block more easy than the rest of the network. Therefore he is pushing for a solution that has bigger blocks, but not Segwit.

Please, change the title as it is misleading and isn't about cryptography.

This attack (BCH) to hijack btc has been outlined way before it happened. Motive is money and not support for a better btc as bmking states. This is widely researched and known. Also, the track records of jihan an public lier roger ver also speak for themselves.


The best site in my opinion to keep track of Bitcoin (BTC) vs Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is


Most profitability calculators only take the price/difficulty into consideration, but Fork also includes the fees. Fees being high now gives an edge to mining BTC over BCH.

Also note the BCH just yesterday moved from the BTC difficulty scheme of changing difficulty every 2016 blocks to one where each block gets a difficulty based on a 144 block rolling average. This will presumably dampen the difficulty oscillations somewhat.

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