3 ms·
> any changes require consensus from the miners who create Bitcoins and process transactions, and because it's not in their best incentive to do anything to red
by beaner 9y ago
> any changes require consensus from the miners who create Bitcoins and process transactions, and because it's not in their best incentive to do anything to reduce those transaction fees
Can you explain how this jives with miners supporting Segwit2X, which brings both segwit and bigger blocks?
- jpatokal 9y agoThe opposing and (IMHO) ultimately greater pressure is that it's also in miners' best interest to keep Bitcoin alive and successful. It took a long time to hammer out SegWit2x and it's still not certain that it's going to work.
- rothbardrand 9y agoYou would think so, but I think that they think they have enough hash power to take over the whole thing. They may be right. They are clearly making a power grab and opposing Segwit2X: https://blog.bitmain.com/en/uahf-contingency-plan-uasf-bip148/ https://blog.bitmain.com/en/uahf-contingency-plan-uasf-bip14... Segwit2X would activate effectively Bip148, though it was originally a proposal to use a different mechanism it is acceptable enough that Core is happy to have segwit activated that way.