4 ms·

Something I haven't seen in the comments yet: it's a realistic possibility that the Core team will make a change to Bitcon's proof-of-work, with the explicit go

by apeace 9y ago

Something I haven't seen in the comments yet: it's a realistic possibility that the Core team will make a change to Bitcon's proof-of-work, with the explicit goal of shutting down miners' efforts to implement the "2X" part of Segwit2X (a block size increase). So while disaster has been avoided for now, and Bitcoin Cash is unlikely to garner much support, they could become the longest chain within a year or two if they keep at it. As the Bitcoin Cash developer said in the article: > If the Segwit2x agreement fails to implement the 2x part, which is not entirely unreasonable, and only ends up being being basically SegWit without the 2x, many miners will likely defect to Bitcoin Cash. He's right. The Core-versus-the-world battle is far from over.

flashdance 9y ago
> He's right. The Core-versus-the-world battle is far from over. Proposals from the core development team have widespread support from businesses and exchanges [1]. Saying it's bitcoin core versus the world is a tad bit hyperbolic. [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support
- apeace 9y ago
  Yes, SegWit has always had widespread support. But what I would call "most of the industry" supports a block size increase, in addition to SegWit[0]. As I said in the parent comment, rather than making a compromise with this huge portion of the community, Core has discussed changing the proof of work algorithm in order to shut them out. I don't think "Core versus the world" is hyperbolic at all. EDIT: To add to that, remember that Core had to propose a soft-fork which risked a chain split in order to force SegWit into activation. Many were holding back support for the promise of a block size increase. That is why SegWit is now going to lock in: because the New York Agreement folks rallied together, compromised like adults, and agreed to implement both SegWit and a block size increase. [0] https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77 https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-conse...

by apeace 9y ago

flashdance 9y ago

> He's right. The Core-versus-the-world battle is far from over. Proposals from the core development team have widespread support from businesses and exchanges [1]. Saying it's bitcoin core versus the world is a tad bit hyperbolic. [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support

apeace 9y ago
Yes, SegWit has always had widespread support. But what I would call "most of the industry" supports a block size increase, in addition to SegWit[0]. As I said in the parent comment, rather than making a compromise with this huge portion of the community, Core has discussed changing the proof of work algorithm in order to shut them out. I don't think "Core versus the world" is hyperbolic at all. EDIT: To add to that, remember that Core had to propose a soft-fork which risked a chain split in order to force SegWit into activation. Many were holding back support for the promise of a block size increase. That is why SegWit is now going to lock in: because the New York Agreement folks rallied together, compromised like adults, and agreed to implement both SegWit and a block size increase. [0] https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77 https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-conse...