3 ms·

> people who are pro big blocks [...] > people who are against big blocks Please don't play up this narrative unnecessarily. It's an easy narrative, but it's a

> people who are pro big blocks [...] > people who are against big blocks Please don't play up this narrative unnecessarily. It's an easy narrative, but it's also wrong and misses important things about governance and identity. It makes it sound like the Segregated Witness proposal, which won supermajority support on the development list, does not increase block size (which it does, just in a backwards compatible way). It has been known for quite some time that apart from a bug in the software, that could destroy value in an instant, the biggest challenge will be managing an open source project in the face of competing interests. It's the first time the IETF governance model meets fintech, and if Bitcoin continues to grow it will make the patent drama round rtcweb look like child's play. > pro-Blockstream people This is also simplifying beyond what's reasonable. Bitcoin is an open source project. There is a mailing list. You can join it. It's not always roses and civilized technical discussion, but every argument can be heard out and there are enough people lurking the sidelines to act as a guard against abuses of power. The Blockstream narrative plays down the contributions of Lau, Lopp, Lombrozo and dozens of others which do a lot of the development and release management of the software.

makomk 9y ago
Using the Blockstream narrative to dismiss contradictory ideas is basically how r/btc maintains their belief it's a success. It's been very entertaining watching them seize on every big block as proof the "small-blockers" are wrong that nodes couldn't keep up even though the overall transaction rate is actually a small fraction of Bitcoin's right now and arguing that the price going up was a sign that everyone claiming they'd dump their BCH was lying back when no exchanges were accepting deposits. Also, as you point out big block isn't really the defining characteristic of the Bitcoin Cash fork since in principle Bitcoin is having a block size increase in the near future too. The bigger difference is ripping out the SegWit fix for transaction malleability, with the stated intention of making Lightning Network off-chain payments which require malleability to be fixed not work. In an interesting attack of irony, the ViaBTC exchange (one of its main proponents) just has to stop withdrawals because transaction malleability was breaking them: https://twitter.com/ViaBTC/status/893744282087047168 https://twitter.com/ViaBTC/status/893744282087047168
- xorcist 9y ago
  > The bigger difference is ripping out the SegWit fix for transaction malleability, Sure, and as ironic as it may be that BCH deposits was malleability attacked earlier today, I still don't think it is a good idea to focus on the technical features of these forks. Who is behind the fork is more interesting than what is in the fork. This is not a conflict among developers, with a few notable exceptions. This is a governance conflict. That is why the conflict is not very visible in the developer community, but rather outside in social media. The open source project is a multi stakeholder model which can be very foreign to people who consider themselves influential. In many ways it looks more like academia than a corporation. Everyone would like the developers on their payroll, but no one wants to pay for it. Pretty much like academia, I suppose.
- DennisP 9y ago
  SegWit is not just a malleability fix. Bitcoin Cash removed SegWit but they do plan to fix malleability and enable second-layer scaling solutions; they just don't like arbitrarily limiting on-chain scaling to force second-layer adoption, or using complicated solutions when simpler ones will do. One source: this interview with a dev of the main Bitcoin Cash client: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/future-bitcoin-cash-interview-bitcoin-abc-lead-developer-amaury-s%C3%A9chet/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/future-bitcoin-cash-int...
ilaksh 9y ago
It's not just a narrative. There are multiple sub-communities and they have radically different worldviews. The fact that BCH exists is one proof of that. This quite real and significant divergence of worldviews is one of the biggest challenges that civilization faces, and, I believe, is also the primary thing holding back wider deployment of innovative technologies, rather than technical or financial limitations. This is not to say that people shouldn't have different views. But identities are tied up together with communities and the general belief system that goes with them. It's just human nature and no technology is immune to it.

makomk 9y ago

Using the Blockstream narrative to dismiss contradictory ideas is basically how r/btc maintains their belief it's a success. It's been very entertaining watching them seize on every big block as proof the "small-blockers" are wrong that nodes couldn't keep up even though the overall transaction rate is actually a small fraction of Bitcoin's right now and arguing that the price going up was a sign that everyone claiming they'd dump their BCH was lying back when no exchanges were accepting deposits. Also, as you point out big block isn't really the defining characteristic of the Bitcoin Cash fork since in principle Bitcoin is having a block size increase in the near future too. The bigger difference is ripping out the SegWit fix for transaction malleability, with the stated intention of making Lightning Network off-chain payments which require malleability to be fixed not work. In an interesting attack of irony, the ViaBTC exchange (one of its main proponents) just has to stop withdrawals because transaction malleability was breaking them: https://twitter.com/ViaBTC/status/893744282087047168 https://twitter.com/ViaBTC/status/893744282087047168

xorcist 9y ago
> The bigger difference is ripping out the SegWit fix for transaction malleability, Sure, and as ironic as it may be that BCH deposits was malleability attacked earlier today, I still don't think it is a good idea to focus on the technical features of these forks. Who is behind the fork is more interesting than what is in the fork. This is not a conflict among developers, with a few notable exceptions. This is a governance conflict. That is why the conflict is not very visible in the developer community, but rather outside in social media. The open source project is a multi stakeholder model which can be very foreign to people who consider themselves influential. In many ways it looks more like academia than a corporation. Everyone would like the developers on their payroll, but no one wants to pay for it. Pretty much like academia, I suppose.
DennisP 9y ago
SegWit is not just a malleability fix. Bitcoin Cash removed SegWit but they do plan to fix malleability and enable second-layer scaling solutions; they just don't like arbitrarily limiting on-chain scaling to force second-layer adoption, or using complicated solutions when simpler ones will do. One source: this interview with a dev of the main Bitcoin Cash client: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/future-bitcoin-cash-interview-bitcoin-abc-lead-developer-amaury-s%C3%A9chet/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/future-bitcoin-cash-int...

ilaksh 9y ago

It's not just a narrative. There are multiple sub-communities and they have radically different worldviews. The fact that BCH exists is one proof of that. This quite real and significant divergence of worldviews is one of the biggest challenges that civilization faces, and, I believe, is also the primary thing holding back wider deployment of innovative technologies, rather than technical or financial limitations. This is not to say that people shouldn't have different views. But identities are tied up together with communities and the general belief system that goes with them. It's just human nature and no technology is immune to it.