4 ms·

Here's your "propaganda". The segwit softfork may fix some things that make side chains more feasible, but that undersells it severely. It mainly solves a bug

by haakon 10y ago

Here's your "propaganda". The segwit softfork may fix some things that make side chains more feasible, but that undersells it severely. It mainly solves a bug in bitcoin that prevents a good implementation of Lightning Network (which is not a side chain), and it also upgrades on-chain transaction capacity by doubling it, while solving another bug in Bitcoin (quadratic scaling of sigops) which make such a capacity increase safer. More information here: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/

codys 10y ago
The concept of segwit is fine. The problem is that the implementation of it as a soft fork is questionable, and trying to position it as a capacity increase is even more questionable.
- Frogolocalypse 10y ago
  Only people who really don't understand how bitcoin works are pushing for a hard-fork over a soft-fork.
  - mchristen 10y ago
    https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-consensus-and-forks-c6a050c792e7#.hlo5gb230 https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-consensus-and-forks-c6a050... Mike Hearn would disagree with you, and he knows a lot about how Bitcoin works.
    - Frogolocalypse 10y ago
      The same Mike Hearn that referred to bitcoin as the failed experiment? https://medium.com/@coolbearcjs/the-mike-hearn-experiment-has-failed-40a31b7ea891#.hxoswbawj https://medium.com/@coolbearcjs/the-mike-hearn-experiment-ha... The same Mike Hearn that recently announced the failure of his R3CEV venture to deliver a blockchain solution for banking? https://twitter.com/Beautyon_/status/834152812405735425 https://twitter.com/Beautyon_/status/834152812405735425 The same Mike Hearn that tried and failed to push through a fork of the bitcoin network called Bitcoin XT that allowed for a personally controlled black-list? https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-xt-fork-can-blacklist-tor-exits-may-reveal-users-ip-addresses https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-xt-fork-can-blacklist... Yeah. That guy. He has an agenda, and it hasn't been aligned with bitcoin for quite some time.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - Fantastic_T 10y ago
        Hearn is right. The wider world simply doesn't know how dysfunctional Bitcoin is, mostly because of the censorship taking place on the main communication channels. You will literally be banned from /r/bitcoin if you post a comment notifying other users that comments are being deleted. The blacklist article is pure FUD, seemingly written with the sole intent of smearing Hearn.
zik 10y ago
Not that there's anything terrible about Segwit, it's just that we already have better solutions for everything it claims to do. For instance we have a solution for the transaction malleability issue - Flexible Transactions - which causes a tiny fraction as much technical debt while offering big benefits in future-proofing. Why bother with Segwit when we have a better solution? But that's neither here nor there because Segwit doesn't even solve the actual problem that everyone wants fixed right now - block size. The small, one off, slow to deploy solution offered by Segwit isn't a scaling solution at all. It's likely that take-up of Segwit wallets will be fairly gradual which means it'll probably never even prevent the blocks being full. Even if it does we'll be back in the same hole in a few months time anyway because of the small one off change. What's needed is a solution which actually fixes the problem.
- Frogolocalypse 10y ago
  > What's needed is a solution which actually fixes the problem. That solution is the lightning network, which the transaction malleability fix of the segwit patch fixes and makes possible.

by haakon 10y ago

codys 10y ago

The concept of segwit is fine. The problem is that the implementation of it as a soft fork is questionable, and trying to position it as a capacity increase is even more questionable.

Frogolocalypse 10y ago
Only people who really don't understand how bitcoin works are pushing for a hard-fork over a soft-fork.
- mchristen 10y ago
  https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-consensus-and-forks-c6a050c792e7#.hlo5gb230 https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-consensus-and-forks-c6a050... Mike Hearn would disagree with you, and he knows a lot about how Bitcoin works.
  - Frogolocalypse 10y ago
    The same Mike Hearn that referred to bitcoin as the failed experiment? https://medium.com/@coolbearcjs/the-mike-hearn-experiment-has-failed-40a31b7ea891#.hxoswbawj https://medium.com/@coolbearcjs/the-mike-hearn-experiment-ha... The same Mike Hearn that recently announced the failure of his R3CEV venture to deliver a blockchain solution for banking? https://twitter.com/Beautyon_/status/834152812405735425 https://twitter.com/Beautyon_/status/834152812405735425 The same Mike Hearn that tried and failed to push through a fork of the bitcoin network called Bitcoin XT that allowed for a personally controlled black-list? https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-xt-fork-can-blacklist-tor-exits-may-reveal-users-ip-addresses https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-xt-fork-can-blacklist... Yeah. That guy. He has an agenda, and it hasn't been aligned with bitcoin for quite some time.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - Fantastic_T 10y ago
      Hearn is right. The wider world simply doesn't know how dysfunctional Bitcoin is, mostly because of the censorship taking place on the main communication channels. You will literally be banned from /r/bitcoin if you post a comment notifying other users that comments are being deleted. The blacklist article is pure FUD, seemingly written with the sole intent of smearing Hearn.

zik 10y ago

Not that there's anything terrible about Segwit, it's just that we already have better solutions for everything it claims to do. For instance we have a solution for the transaction malleability issue - Flexible Transactions - which causes a tiny fraction as much technical debt while offering big benefits in future-proofing. Why bother with Segwit when we have a better solution? But that's neither here nor there because Segwit doesn't even solve the actual problem that everyone wants fixed right now - block size. The small, one off, slow to deploy solution offered by Segwit isn't a scaling solution at all. It's likely that take-up of Segwit wallets will be fairly gradual which means it'll probably never even prevent the blocks being full. Even if it does we'll be back in the same hole in a few months time anyway because of the small one off change. What's needed is a solution which actually fixes the problem.

Frogolocalypse 10y ago
> What's needed is a solution which actually fixes the problem. That solution is the lightning network, which the transaction malleability fix of the segwit patch fixes and makes possible.