10 ms·

Just to point out that SegWit is everything but "already adopted in the industry". It turns out that SegWit is the solution promoted by the developers of bitcoi

by needs 9y ago

Just to point out that SegWit is everything but "already adopted in the industry". It turns out that SegWit is the solution promoted by the developers of bitcoin core to allow for bigger blocks, and solve some issues like transactions maleability. It's more than 10 000 lines of code highly controversial because they require... A soft fork, and will change bitcoin in a fundamental ways. Not to add that a company called "Blockstream" have paid almost every developers of bitcoin core to push Segwit without a clear consensus from the community. Worse, this company actually support the huge censorship happening in bitcointalk and r/bitcoin. Blockstream received more than 75 millions from AXA, for obscure reasons. The paper only focus on Segwit, without mentioning that Segwit has nothing to do with ASICBOOST. The community and a growing majority of miners is actually switching to bitcoin unlimited, a fork of bitcoin core. Sorry for the little off topic comment but I love Bitcoin and I hate that a few dishonest people took control of it and try to destroy it.

efesak 9y ago
- there are ~5000 LOC of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7910/files https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7910/files and almost 3/4 of these lines are tests. - Segwit actualy block harmful form of ASICBOOST - by "growing majority" you mean handful of chinese miners and 2% of nodes (http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.html http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/softwar...)
- needs 9y ago
  > - Segwit actualy block harmful form of ASICBOOST It's - of course - not the only solution to this "problem", but somehow this paper doesn't propose anything else other than segwit, and his conclusion is a typical Bitcoin Core propaganda. > by "growing majority" you mean handful of chinese miners and 2% of nodes (http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/softwar... http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/softwar...) You aren't without knowing that in Bitcoin, miners establish consensus by voting with their hashrate. Nodes count doesn't prove anything because its really easy to host a node. The point is: there is more miners supporting BU than Segwit [1]. [1]: http://xtnodes.com/#bitcoin_classic_blocks http://xtnodes.com/#bitcoin_classic_blocks
  - midmagico 9y ago
    > but somehow this paper doesn't propose anything else other than segwit Literally there's another solution that has nothing to do with Segwit. gmax himself proposed it to block off covert ASICBoost. Here's a link: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017... Also, miners do not establish consensus. That is why if a miner mines an invalid block, even if other miners extend it, no nodes will accept it.
clarkmoody 9y ago
^^^ Summary of /r/btc, for those wondering Sigh > 10 000 lines of code highly controversial because they require... A soft fork, and will change bitcoin in a fundamental ways Most of those lines of code are tests. It would be nice for you to say why SegWit is controversial, beyond being proposed around the same time that fees got high. Bitcoin has had soft forks before. This one will do great many great things for transaction throughput and privacy. > "Blockstream" have paid almost every developers of bitcoin core to push Segwit without a clear consensus from the community Blockstream employed 5(?) Core devs, some of them part-time. > Worse, this company actually support the huge censorship happening in bitcointalk and r/bitcoin Censorship is horrible, but do you have proof that Blockstream supports it? > 75 millions from AXA Yes, they received funds from a bank. But what matters about code is what the code does, not who paid for it. Bitcoin is open source, so you can inspect what's going on. If you have legitimate economic or technical objections to SegWit, I'd love to hear them. If you're spouting FUD, then go back to /r/btc.
- lawn 9y ago
  ^^^ Summary of /r/bitcoin, for those wondering. Sigh > Bitcoin has had soft forks before. This one will do great many great things for transaction throughput and privacy. It's an inefficient hack. For example: https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-fork-too-far-87d6e57a4179 https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-... > Censorship is horrible, but do you have proof that Blockstream supports it? All signs points towards it. Do the Blockstream people even speak out against the censorship on /r/bitcoin? No. Do they prefer to use channels censoring opposing opinions? Yes. > If you're spouting FUD, then go back to /r/btc. Exactly the narrative Core supporters push.
  - clarkmoody 9y ago
    > It's an inefficient hack Sure. The creator of SegWit (Sipa) said in one of his first talks on the subject that if you could re-architect Bitcoin from scratch, then you would segregate the witness data. Nodes could potentially throw it away after witnesses were verified, to save disk space. The problem is that it would require a hard fork, which Core wants to avoid if at all possible. SegWit hacks the coinbase and transaction structure in order to be implemented as a soft fork. I'm not sure if it's inefficient or not, but it is a hack. Does the fact that it's a hack mean that it's bad for Bitcoin? That article talks about all sorts of developer troubles and losing coins without ever mentioning the testnet, which exists to allow you to lose worthless coins. If a company is pushing major updates to wallet software without conducting proper testing, then bad on them. Plenty of bitcoin has been lost to the current complexities of the transaction format. Remember those 100 BTC fee transactions? The article's conclusion bemoans the plight of the miners without mentioning the actual users of Bitcoin, other than a hand-wave at "community consensus." I'm not convinced. > Do the Blockstream people even speak out against the censorship on /r/bitcoin? No. Do they prefer to use channels censoring opposing opinions? Yes. Ok, so let's assume the whole lot is rotten and loves censorship. Does that change the nature of the code that exists in the Bitcoin codebase? Censorship sucks, but Bitcoin is what really matters. >> If you're spouting FUD, then go back to /r/btc. >Exactly the narrative Core supporters push. Anyone who tries the path of moderation and reason within /r/btc is downvoted into oblivion, resulting in de facto censorship of that sub. Edit: > Summary of /r/bitcoin, for those wondering. You forgot the roller coaster price gifs :-)
futuravenir 9y ago
I want to say that I've been on the anti-censorship boat and the 'AXA money is sketchy' and the unlimited train for as long as I've heard of it. Just recently, someone in the ecosystem that I've known since the beginning of my time with Bitcoin came out in support of Blockstream and Segwit with a backing of other Canadian support. https://medium.com/@francispouliot/canadian-bitcoin-economic-nodes-unite-against-bitcoin-unlimited-412786fb4bb6 https://medium.com/@francispouliot/canadian-bitcoin-economic... I don't know what to make of it all. I spoke with him a bit and he seems to believe that those pushing against segwit are paid by ASICboosters in China because they stand to make $100,000,000/yearly from their (now not so secret) advantage. In any case, I just wanted to add that I'm more confused than ever and things are very unclear.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- AgentME 9y ago
  >because they stand to make $100,000,000/yearly from their (now not so secret) advantage. If anyone is confused how the 30% advantage that ASICBOOST gives translates into this huge number, remember that the 30% boost applies to revenue, not profit. The revenue of mining in the long run approaches the costs to mine (basically the cost of electricity), leaving extremely slim profit margins. Let's say the usual revenue from mining over some period of time is $1.02, and the cost is $1.00, giving a profit of 2 cents every time unit. A miner using ASICBOOST could have a revenue of $1.32 every time unit, giving a profit of 32 cents every time unit, which is at least an order of magnitude more profit than anyone else. This miner then has more resources to spend on buying hardware and scaling up. (The above paragraph goes for any type of optimization and isn't necessarily nefarious. It can be a problem if one miner effectively keeps an optimization secret for too long, because they'll continue to grow in size and could get more than 50% of mining power, which is a specific point that causes huge problems with Bitcoin. But the real unique issues about ASICBOOST are about how it encourages empty blocks, and how it has been secretly incentivizing some groups to argue against any incompatible protocol change.)
  - midmagico 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
inevitable2 9y ago
So much bullshit... Don't believe everything which socket puppets are posting here. Really sad that people get paid for posting such shit here :(
verroq 9y ago
>a growing majority of miners Just a single large Chinese miner trying to hold back progress, who likely has an economic incentive to do so due to his usage of ASICBOOST. You are severely overestimating the amount of support BU has, and downplaying the support of segwit, which the majority of nodes and Bitcoin companies are supporting. See here, almost nobody supports BU. https://coin.dance/poli https://coin.dance/poli
- needs 9y ago
  I hope people on Hacker news doesn't get duped by all the toxic people dismissing BU and promoting Core. The facts are that r/Bitcoin and bitcointalk.org, both owned by theymos and a handful of other people, are paid by Blockstream to censor any dissident opinions. About the ongoing censorship, have a look to this article [1], which is a compilation of facts, it's very depressing. Up to a point where a second subreddit /r/btc full of banned people have almost half of the active user of /r/bitcoin, despite its relative young age. Bitcoin core also organize troll campaigns [2], push for a radical, unwanted change of Bitcoin with SegWit, coordinate attack on nodes when a vulnerability is discovered [3], and spread FUD everyday, sometimes technical nonsens like this very non-issue that is ASICBOOST. Those people work fulltime to stole bitcoin from the community, thanks to the huge bank account of Blockstream, the company behind all this shit show. At least this proove that Bitcoin rely on a very solid basis, because despite having 75 million in bank, blockstream opted to corrupt core developpers and community managers instead of competing for hashrate. But still, the situation is pretty bad right now. [1]: https://news.bitcoin.com/brief-history-censorship-bitcoin/ https://news.bitcoin.com/brief-history-censorship-bitcoin/ [2]: http://telegra.ph/Inside-the-Dragons-Den-Bitcoin-Cores-Troll-Army-04-07 http://telegra.ph/Inside-the-Dragons-Den-Bitcoin-Cores-Troll... [3]: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5zgefe/this_was_an_orchestrated_attack/ https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5zgefe/this_was_an_orc...
shea256 9y ago
A few red flags came up for me with this post. I feel I have an obligation to post a response to this to clarify some things, lest people less involved in the community come away with a misinformed view. A few facts on the core developers: -- There are hundreds of developers who contribute to Bitcoin Core. Over 50 of them have 10+ commits to Bitcoin Core. -- Blockstream employs 7 of these developers, including Pieter Wuille, Luke Dashjr, Greg Maxwell, Jorge Timon, Patrick Strateman, Warren Togami and Mark Friedenbach. -- By number of commits, the developers Blockstream employs are ranked #2, #8, #13, #14, #19, #35, and #50, respectively. -- Another company called ChainCode Labs employs 3 of the top 50 developers, including Alex Morcos, Suhas Daftuar, and Matt Corallo (formerly employed by Blockstream). -- By number of commits, the developers ChainCode employs are ranked #5, #11 and #12, respectively. As for SegWit, it is a multi-faceted gold-mine of an update with many, many benefits to scaling, security and efficiency: 1. It fixes the substantial transaction malleability problem once and for all. 2. It improves the efficiency of signature-hashing so it scales linearly rather than quadratically. 3. It 1.7x's the # of single-signature transactions per block and 4x's the # of multi-signature transactions per block. 4. It enables second-layer scaling solutions like Lightning. 5. It upgrades pay-to-script-hash transactions from 160-bit hashes to 256-bit hashes. 6. It makes it safer for hardware wallets to sign transactions by explicitly hashing input values. 7. It reduces the growth of the system's most burdensome resource: unspent transaction outputs, which are ideally kept in memory. 8. It introduces versioning for the scripting language to allow for more easy upgradeability. Here are some facts on the developer consensus: -- Out of the top 100 committers to Bitcoin Core, almost all of them believe that SegWit is the best way forward. There is near unanimous consensus on that front. Former project lead Gavin Andresen (no longer associated with the project) is perhaps the most notable opponent. -- Out of all of the wallet providers, almost all of them are supportive of or at least OK with modest block increases. Almost all of the major wallet providers have prepared themselves to be ready for SegWit.
- jlrubin 9y ago
  Thanks Ryan, these are good clarifications to the parent's post. For full transparency, I [OP, author of the PDF] am currently contracting with (but am not employed by) Chaincode and am currently #39 by commits (#26 by additions though! ;)). I also think that SegWit is the best way forward; no one pays me to say that. If Blockstream sent money to developers to endorse SegWit, they must have skipped me!
wyldfire 9y ago
> The community and a growing majority of miners is actually switching to bitcoin unlimited I love bitcoin too. I might be underinformed but everything I've learned so far is that larger blocks and segwit aren't a dichotomy at all. I think segwit sounds good. And I think larger blocks sound good too (but I realize that they do come at a cost). If the overall transaction throughput increases but the fee income goes down for miners, I will be understanding but not too overly concerned with the miners welfare. IMO the folks opposing segwit are not acting in bitcoin's best interest. The folks opposing big blocks are heavily optimizing against centralization. I think the latter are genuinely interested in doing the right thing but I wonder if they aren't being a little to zealous.
- midmagico 9y ago
  > I might be underinformed but everything I've learned so far is that larger blocks and segwit aren't a dichotomy at all. You aren't underinformed. You are completely correct with this comment. SegWit isn't incompatible with a blocksize increase, because it is a blocksize increase. :-)

by needs 9y ago

efesak 9y ago

- there are ~5000 LOC of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7910/files https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7910/files and almost 3/4 of these lines are tests. - Segwit actualy block harmful form of ASICBOOST - by "growing majority" you mean handful of chinese miners and 2% of nodes (http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.html http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/softwar...)

needs 9y ago
> - Segwit actualy block harmful form of ASICBOOST It's - of course - not the only solution to this "problem", but somehow this paper doesn't propose anything else other than segwit, and his conclusion is a typical Bitcoin Core propaganda. > by "growing majority" you mean handful of chinese miners and 2% of nodes (http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/softwar... http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/softwar...) You aren't without knowing that in Bitcoin, miners establish consensus by voting with their hashrate. Nodes count doesn't prove anything because its really easy to host a node. The point is: there is more miners supporting BU than Segwit [1]. [1]: http://xtnodes.com/#bitcoin_classic_blocks http://xtnodes.com/#bitcoin_classic_blocks
- midmagico 9y ago
  > but somehow this paper doesn't propose anything else other than segwit Literally there's another solution that has nothing to do with Segwit. gmax himself proposed it to block off covert ASICBoost. Here's a link: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017... Also, miners do not establish consensus. That is why if a miner mines an invalid block, even if other miners extend it, no nodes will accept it.

clarkmoody 9y ago

^^^ Summary of /r/btc, for those wondering Sigh > 10 000 lines of code highly controversial because they require... A soft fork, and will change bitcoin in a fundamental ways Most of those lines of code are tests. It would be nice for you to say why SegWit is controversial, beyond being proposed around the same time that fees got high. Bitcoin has had soft forks before. This one will do great many great things for transaction throughput and privacy. > "Blockstream" have paid almost every developers of bitcoin core to push Segwit without a clear consensus from the community Blockstream employed 5(?) Core devs, some of them part-time. > Worse, this company actually support the huge censorship happening in bitcointalk and r/bitcoin Censorship is horrible, but do you have proof that Blockstream supports it? > 75 millions from AXA Yes, they received funds from a bank. But what matters about code is what the code does, not who paid for it. Bitcoin is open source, so you can inspect what's going on. If you have legitimate economic or technical objections to SegWit, I'd love to hear them. If you're spouting FUD, then go back to /r/btc.

lawn 9y ago
^^^ Summary of /r/bitcoin, for those wondering. Sigh > Bitcoin has had soft forks before. This one will do great many great things for transaction throughput and privacy. It's an inefficient hack. For example: https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-fork-too-far-87d6e57a4179 https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-... > Censorship is horrible, but do you have proof that Blockstream supports it? All signs points towards it. Do the Blockstream people even speak out against the censorship on /r/bitcoin? No. Do they prefer to use channels censoring opposing opinions? Yes. > If you're spouting FUD, then go back to /r/btc. Exactly the narrative Core supporters push.
- clarkmoody 9y ago
  > It's an inefficient hack Sure. The creator of SegWit (Sipa) said in one of his first talks on the subject that if you could re-architect Bitcoin from scratch, then you would segregate the witness data. Nodes could potentially throw it away after witnesses were verified, to save disk space. The problem is that it would require a hard fork, which Core wants to avoid if at all possible. SegWit hacks the coinbase and transaction structure in order to be implemented as a soft fork. I'm not sure if it's inefficient or not, but it is a hack. Does the fact that it's a hack mean that it's bad for Bitcoin? That article talks about all sorts of developer troubles and losing coins without ever mentioning the testnet, which exists to allow you to lose worthless coins. If a company is pushing major updates to wallet software without conducting proper testing, then bad on them. Plenty of bitcoin has been lost to the current complexities of the transaction format. Remember those 100 BTC fee transactions? The article's conclusion bemoans the plight of the miners without mentioning the actual users of Bitcoin, other than a hand-wave at "community consensus." I'm not convinced. > Do the Blockstream people even speak out against the censorship on /r/bitcoin? No. Do they prefer to use channels censoring opposing opinions? Yes. Ok, so let's assume the whole lot is rotten and loves censorship. Does that change the nature of the code that exists in the Bitcoin codebase? Censorship sucks, but Bitcoin is what really matters. >> If you're spouting FUD, then go back to /r/btc. >Exactly the narrative Core supporters push. Anyone who tries the path of moderation and reason within /r/btc is downvoted into oblivion, resulting in de facto censorship of that sub. Edit: > Summary of /r/bitcoin, for those wondering. You forgot the roller coaster price gifs :-)

futuravenir 9y ago

I want to say that I've been on the anti-censorship boat and the 'AXA money is sketchy' and the unlimited train for as long as I've heard of it. Just recently, someone in the ecosystem that I've known since the beginning of my time with Bitcoin came out in support of Blockstream and Segwit with a backing of other Canadian support. https://medium.com/@francispouliot/canadian-bitcoin-economic-nodes-unite-against-bitcoin-unlimited-412786fb4bb6 https://medium.com/@francispouliot/canadian-bitcoin-economic... I don't know what to make of it all. I spoke with him a bit and he seems to believe that those pushing against segwit are paid by ASICboosters in China because they stand to make $100,000,000/yearly from their (now not so secret) advantage. In any case, I just wanted to add that I'm more confused than ever and things are very unclear.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
AgentME 9y ago
>because they stand to make $100,000,000/yearly from their (now not so secret) advantage. If anyone is confused how the 30% advantage that ASICBOOST gives translates into this huge number, remember that the 30% boost applies to revenue, not profit. The revenue of mining in the long run approaches the costs to mine (basically the cost of electricity), leaving extremely slim profit margins. Let's say the usual revenue from mining over some period of time is $1.02, and the cost is $1.00, giving a profit of 2 cents every time unit. A miner using ASICBOOST could have a revenue of $1.32 every time unit, giving a profit of 32 cents every time unit, which is at least an order of magnitude more profit than anyone else. This miner then has more resources to spend on buying hardware and scaling up. (The above paragraph goes for any type of optimization and isn't necessarily nefarious. It can be a problem if one miner effectively keeps an optimization secret for too long, because they'll continue to grow in size and could get more than 50% of mining power, which is a specific point that causes huge problems with Bitcoin. But the real unique issues about ASICBOOST are about how it encourages empty blocks, and how it has been secretly incentivizing some groups to argue against any incompatible protocol change.)
- midmagico 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

inevitable2 9y ago

So much bullshit... Don't believe everything which socket puppets are posting here. Really sad that people get paid for posting such shit here :(

verroq 9y ago

>a growing majority of miners Just a single large Chinese miner trying to hold back progress, who likely has an economic incentive to do so due to his usage of ASICBOOST. You are severely overestimating the amount of support BU has, and downplaying the support of segwit, which the majority of nodes and Bitcoin companies are supporting. See here, almost nobody supports BU. https://coin.dance/poli https://coin.dance/poli

needs 9y ago
I hope people on Hacker news doesn't get duped by all the toxic people dismissing BU and promoting Core. The facts are that r/Bitcoin and bitcointalk.org, both owned by theymos and a handful of other people, are paid by Blockstream to censor any dissident opinions. About the ongoing censorship, have a look to this article [1], which is a compilation of facts, it's very depressing. Up to a point where a second subreddit /r/btc full of banned people have almost half of the active user of /r/bitcoin, despite its relative young age. Bitcoin core also organize troll campaigns [2], push for a radical, unwanted change of Bitcoin with SegWit, coordinate attack on nodes when a vulnerability is discovered [3], and spread FUD everyday, sometimes technical nonsens like this very non-issue that is ASICBOOST. Those people work fulltime to stole bitcoin from the community, thanks to the huge bank account of Blockstream, the company behind all this shit show. At least this proove that Bitcoin rely on a very solid basis, because despite having 75 million in bank, blockstream opted to corrupt core developpers and community managers instead of competing for hashrate. But still, the situation is pretty bad right now. [1]: https://news.bitcoin.com/brief-history-censorship-bitcoin/ https://news.bitcoin.com/brief-history-censorship-bitcoin/ [2]: http://telegra.ph/Inside-the-Dragons-Den-Bitcoin-Cores-Troll-Army-04-07 http://telegra.ph/Inside-the-Dragons-Den-Bitcoin-Cores-Troll... [3]: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5zgefe/this_was_an_orchestrated_attack/ https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5zgefe/this_was_an_orc...

shea256 9y ago

A few red flags came up for me with this post. I feel I have an obligation to post a response to this to clarify some things, lest people less involved in the community come away with a misinformed view. A few facts on the core developers: -- There are hundreds of developers who contribute to Bitcoin Core. Over 50 of them have 10+ commits to Bitcoin Core. -- Blockstream employs 7 of these developers, including Pieter Wuille, Luke Dashjr, Greg Maxwell, Jorge Timon, Patrick Strateman, Warren Togami and Mark Friedenbach. -- By number of commits, the developers Blockstream employs are ranked #2, #8, #13, #14, #19, #35, and #50, respectively. -- Another company called ChainCode Labs employs 3 of the top 50 developers, including Alex Morcos, Suhas Daftuar, and Matt Corallo (formerly employed by Blockstream). -- By number of commits, the developers ChainCode employs are ranked #5, #11 and #12, respectively. As for SegWit, it is a multi-faceted gold-mine of an update with many, many benefits to scaling, security and efficiency: 1. It fixes the substantial transaction malleability problem once and for all. 2. It improves the efficiency of signature-hashing so it scales linearly rather than quadratically. 3. It 1.7x's the # of single-signature transactions per block and 4x's the # of multi-signature transactions per block. 4. It enables second-layer scaling solutions like Lightning. 5. It upgrades pay-to-script-hash transactions from 160-bit hashes to 256-bit hashes. 6. It makes it safer for hardware wallets to sign transactions by explicitly hashing input values. 7. It reduces the growth of the system's most burdensome resource: unspent transaction outputs, which are ideally kept in memory. 8. It introduces versioning for the scripting language to allow for more easy upgradeability. Here are some facts on the developer consensus: -- Out of the top 100 committers to Bitcoin Core, almost all of them believe that SegWit is the best way forward. There is near unanimous consensus on that front. Former project lead Gavin Andresen (no longer associated with the project) is perhaps the most notable opponent. -- Out of all of the wallet providers, almost all of them are supportive of or at least OK with modest block increases. Almost all of the major wallet providers have prepared themselves to be ready for SegWit.

jlrubin 9y ago
Thanks Ryan, these are good clarifications to the parent's post. For full transparency, I [OP, author of the PDF] am currently contracting with (but am not employed by) Chaincode and am currently #39 by commits (#26 by additions though! ;)). I also think that SegWit is the best way forward; no one pays me to say that. If Blockstream sent money to developers to endorse SegWit, they must have skipped me!

wyldfire 9y ago

> The community and a growing majority of miners is actually switching to bitcoin unlimited I love bitcoin too. I might be underinformed but everything I've learned so far is that larger blocks and segwit aren't a dichotomy at all. I think segwit sounds good. And I think larger blocks sound good too (but I realize that they do come at a cost). If the overall transaction throughput increases but the fee income goes down for miners, I will be understanding but not too overly concerned with the miners welfare. IMO the folks opposing segwit are not acting in bitcoin's best interest. The folks opposing big blocks are heavily optimizing against centralization. I think the latter are genuinely interested in doing the right thing but I wonder if they aren't being a little to zealous.

midmagico 9y ago
> I might be underinformed but everything I've learned so far is that larger blocks and segwit aren't a dichotomy at all. You aren't underinformed. You are completely correct with this comment. SegWit isn't incompatible with a blocksize increase, because it is a blocksize increase. :-)