5 ms·

Note: this is not supported by the current bitcoin developers. It is a fork promoted by Barry Silbert, supported by the large miners and the many bitcoin compa

Note: this is not supported by the current bitcoin developers. It is a fork promoted by Barry Silbert, supported by the large miners and the many bitcoin companies he has funded. (I have my opinions, but more important to warn people who may be mislead by the title)

modeless 9y ago
Note: Rusty Russell is an employee of Blockstream. Blockstream employees have for years been extremely vocal opponents of increasing Bitcoin's block size, and Blockstream employs many of the "current bitcoin developers" Rusty is referring to.
- jlrubin 9y ago
  It's generally unsurprising to me that people with similar perspectives on a technology end up working at the same startup. Knowing Rusty personally and given his long history as a FLOSS contributor, it is at least clear to me that he's speaking from his own perspective and not because Blockstream is paying him too.
- nadaviv 9y ago
  There's a common misconception that Blockstream showed up and started hiring bitcoin developers. That is not the case: Blockstream was founded by developers that contributed to bitcoin for many years before starting a company together. > Blockstream employees have for years been extremely vocal opponents of increasing Bitcoin's block size Yes, for many years, years before Blockstream even existed! Edit: note that these very same developers are also pushing for segwit, which doubles the block size and the on-chain transaction capacity of the bitcoin network. It's quite odd to say they're "opponents of increasing Bitcoin's block size" given that they want to double it. What they're really against is specific proposals for increasing the blocksize, proposals which break compatibility and introduce a chain-split risk for no good reason.
  - out_of_protocol 9y ago
    That was talked over like thousands times already. 1) segwit is not "doubles the block size", effective increase is ~1.7x _AFTER_ full adoption and switching everyone to the new tx format (which is impossible for next few years). Also, it's one-time bump, can not be repeated if necessary 2) they're "introduce a chain-split risk" precisely by going against community. Without this shitshow almost zero risk upgrade was expected
    - nadaviv 9y ago
      1) The 1.7 figure is outdated, the latest one from a research by BitFury in November 2016 is 2.1MB [0]. It's probably somewhat higher now. Yes, it does require wallets to upgrade - but most of them (and all of the major ones) already have segwit implemented [1]. In addition, once a few of the major players that produce lots and lots of transactions upgrade, the fee pressure will level down for everyone, even these who did not upgrade for SegWit. Yes, it is a one-time increase, but one that is sufficient for now. Let's start by doubling the block size first, collect more data, then decide how to further increase the blocksize as the need arises. 2) I'm not seeing that they're going against the community. The technical, business and wide bitcoin community are all looking forward eagerly for segwit's activation. Edit: also, in the case of a hard-fork, users who don't upgrade gets cut off the network entirely. is it not preferable to keep them a part of the network, with somewhat higher fees but a functional wallet otherwise? [0] https://www.weusecoins.com/eli-segwit/ https://www.weusecoins.com/eli-segwit/ [1] https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/
      - out_of_protocol 9y ago
        1) Still, a lot lower than required. Blocks became full like a year ago (see http://i.imgur.com/d7fwVnd.jpg http://i.imgur.com/d7fwVnd.jpg ) and after that moment fitting transactions within 1MB limit means someone's stopped using bitcoin (me included :( ). +500kB is not gonna change that anyhow ( +1.1MB x 50% adoption). even +1.1MB not nearly enough. > but one that is sufficient for now not really - see above. 2) > The technical, business and wide bitcoin community are all looking forward eagerly Do they understand segwit activation provides zero benefits at moment of said activation? 3) Overall, we're in the stage of planned bitcoin deconstruction. Gladly, there are no way to kill cryptocurrencies - even if bitcoin going to die, someone else will take it's place (related: see "bitcoin market share" chart) P.S. We're talking about wrong problem. "How exactly 2MB blocks should be implemented" is surely wrong direction of talks. Yet we're here for like two years and counting. Whole ecosystem could be progressed by a lot during this time
jlrubin 9y ago
> the current bitcoin developers Rusty, I'd suggest to replace that with "a significant number of current bitcoin developers". There are Bitcoin Developers who may support the 2MB fork. "The current bitcoin developers" don't really make any centralized decisions on what to support or not.
- nadaviv 9y ago
  The sentiment in the global technical bitcoin community is definitely against segwit2x, very strongly so. There may be some very few outliers, but the big picture is quite clear. See: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support#Developers https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support#Developers
  - wmf 9y ago
    Notably, that page doesn't list Jeff Garzik.
    - kobeya 9y ago
      Who hasn't been contributing to the bitcoin reference client in years.
      - toomim 9y ago
        He's the lead developer of the btc1 Bitcoin Reference client. Here are his recent commits: https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/tree/segwit2x https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/tree/segwit2x
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- nullc 9y ago
  https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support I'm also aware of no person with more than 5 years experience developing the Bitcoin protocol or it's implementations who have ever been in support of it. Lots of people are supportive of various capacity increase things without being supported by the reckless last minute backdoor dealing. More comments can be found here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6h612o/can_someone_explain_to_me_why_core_wont_endorse/divtc93/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6h612o/can_someone...
toomim 9y ago
> Note: this is not supported by the current bitcoin developers. That's misleading. The fork isn't supported by the developers of the Bitcoin Core wallet, but it is supported by the developers of the Bitcoin Classic, Unlimited, and BTC1 wallets.
- wnevets 9y ago
  The fact this is so confusing sure is reassuring!
- nadaviv 9y ago
  It isn't supported by any of the prominent developers that participate in Bitcoin's open, consensus-driven, transparent development process.
  - toomim 9y ago
    My, that's a lot of adjectives you're using there.
just_one_time_ 9y ago
Are you not an employee of Blockstream? The company who's business model necessitates the Bitcoin not be able to scale on its own? Rusty, you've been made. You are a 1 Meg forever shill and your propaganda would better be left to your CPO, Samson Mow.
pmorici 9y ago
It's comments like yours that give you and your company a bad name. As you well know btc1, a Bitcoin client that implements segwit2x is developed by Jeff Garzik who is in fact a Bitcoin developer and has been for a very long time. Your entire argument boils down to a no true Scotsman logical fallacy. ie: these people disagree with me therefore they are not Bitcoin developers.
- acidus 9y ago
  Why he is not in this list? https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support#Developers https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support#Developers
  - toomim 9y ago
    That's a censored list controlled by theymos.
  - pmorici 9y ago
    The only developers on that list are associated with Core or are on the record as strongly supporting Core. That website is also not a neutral party.
- nullc 9y ago
  > know btc1, a Bitcoin client A month old hastily made fork of Bitcoin Core which has not yet ever had a release (just lots of release candidates), unless I missed a recent announcement. > who is in fact a Bitcoin developer and has been for a very long time. Nonsense, Jeff hasn't been a Bitcoin developer for years. I believe he's mostly been involved with Ethereum for a long time. People aren't saying he isn't a developer because they disagree, but because showing up and making a toy software fork doesn't grant you credibility or experience. ... and, in fact, he's shown that he doesn't have it pretty thoroughly, for example his code only managed to actually increase the blocksize a couple hours before his first release candidate because he completely misunderstood how it worked.
  - pmorici 9y ago

modeless 9y ago

Note: Rusty Russell is an employee of Blockstream. Blockstream employees have for years been extremely vocal opponents of increasing Bitcoin's block size, and Blockstream employs many of the "current bitcoin developers" Rusty is referring to.

jlrubin 9y ago
It's generally unsurprising to me that people with similar perspectives on a technology end up working at the same startup. Knowing Rusty personally and given his long history as a FLOSS contributor, it is at least clear to me that he's speaking from his own perspective and not because Blockstream is paying him too.
nadaviv 9y ago
There's a common misconception that Blockstream showed up and started hiring bitcoin developers. That is not the case: Blockstream was founded by developers that contributed to bitcoin for many years before starting a company together. > Blockstream employees have for years been extremely vocal opponents of increasing Bitcoin's block size Yes, for many years, years before Blockstream even existed! Edit: note that these very same developers are also pushing for segwit, which doubles the block size and the on-chain transaction capacity of the bitcoin network. It's quite odd to say they're "opponents of increasing Bitcoin's block size" given that they want to double it. What they're really against is specific proposals for increasing the blocksize, proposals which break compatibility and introduce a chain-split risk for no good reason.
- out_of_protocol 9y ago
  That was talked over like thousands times already. 1) segwit is not "doubles the block size", effective increase is ~1.7x _AFTER_ full adoption and switching everyone to the new tx format (which is impossible for next few years). Also, it's one-time bump, can not be repeated if necessary 2) they're "introduce a chain-split risk" precisely by going against community. Without this shitshow almost zero risk upgrade was expected
  - nadaviv 9y ago
    1) The 1.7 figure is outdated, the latest one from a research by BitFury in November 2016 is 2.1MB [0]. It's probably somewhat higher now. Yes, it does require wallets to upgrade - but most of them (and all of the major ones) already have segwit implemented [1]. In addition, once a few of the major players that produce lots and lots of transactions upgrade, the fee pressure will level down for everyone, even these who did not upgrade for SegWit. Yes, it is a one-time increase, but one that is sufficient for now. Let's start by doubling the block size first, collect more data, then decide how to further increase the blocksize as the need arises. 2) I'm not seeing that they're going against the community. The technical, business and wide bitcoin community are all looking forward eagerly for segwit's activation. Edit: also, in the case of a hard-fork, users who don't upgrade gets cut off the network entirely. is it not preferable to keep them a part of the network, with somewhat higher fees but a functional wallet otherwise? [0] https://www.weusecoins.com/eli-segwit/ https://www.weusecoins.com/eli-segwit/ [1] https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/
    - out_of_protocol 9y ago
      1) Still, a lot lower than required. Blocks became full like a year ago (see http://i.imgur.com/d7fwVnd.jpg http://i.imgur.com/d7fwVnd.jpg ) and after that moment fitting transactions within 1MB limit means someone's stopped using bitcoin (me included :( ). +500kB is not gonna change that anyhow ( +1.1MB x 50% adoption). even +1.1MB not nearly enough. > but one that is sufficient for now not really - see above. 2) > The technical, business and wide bitcoin community are all looking forward eagerly Do they understand segwit activation provides zero benefits at moment of said activation? 3) Overall, we're in the stage of planned bitcoin deconstruction. Gladly, there are no way to kill cryptocurrencies - even if bitcoin going to die, someone else will take it's place (related: see "bitcoin market share" chart) P.S. We're talking about wrong problem. "How exactly 2MB blocks should be implemented" is surely wrong direction of talks. Yet we're here for like two years and counting. Whole ecosystem could be progressed by a lot during this time

jlrubin 9y ago

> the current bitcoin developers Rusty, I'd suggest to replace that with "a significant number of current bitcoin developers". There are Bitcoin Developers who may support the 2MB fork. "The current bitcoin developers" don't really make any centralized decisions on what to support or not.

nadaviv 9y ago
The sentiment in the global technical bitcoin community is definitely against segwit2x, very strongly so. There may be some very few outliers, but the big picture is quite clear. See: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support#Developers https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support#Developers
- wmf 9y ago
  Notably, that page doesn't list Jeff Garzik.
  - kobeya 9y ago
    Who hasn't been contributing to the bitcoin reference client in years.
    - toomim 9y ago
      He's the lead developer of the btc1 Bitcoin Reference client. Here are his recent commits: https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/tree/segwit2x https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/tree/segwit2x
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
nullc 9y ago
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support I'm also aware of no person with more than 5 years experience developing the Bitcoin protocol or it's implementations who have ever been in support of it. Lots of people are supportive of various capacity increase things without being supported by the reckless last minute backdoor dealing. More comments can be found here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6h612o/can_someone_explain_to_me_why_core_wont_endorse/divtc93/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6h612o/can_someone...

toomim 9y ago

> Note: this is not supported by the current bitcoin developers. That's misleading. The fork isn't supported by the developers of the Bitcoin Core wallet, but it is supported by the developers of the Bitcoin Classic, Unlimited, and BTC1 wallets.

wnevets 9y ago
The fact this is so confusing sure is reassuring!
nadaviv 9y ago
It isn't supported by any of the prominent developers that participate in Bitcoin's open, consensus-driven, transparent development process.
- toomim 9y ago
  My, that's a lot of adjectives you're using there.

just_one_time_ 9y ago

Are you not an employee of Blockstream? The company who's business model necessitates the Bitcoin not be able to scale on its own? Rusty, you've been made. You are a 1 Meg forever shill and your propaganda would better be left to your CPO, Samson Mow.

pmorici 9y ago

It's comments like yours that give you and your company a bad name. As you well know btc1, a Bitcoin client that implements segwit2x is developed by Jeff Garzik who is in fact a Bitcoin developer and has been for a very long time. Your entire argument boils down to a no true Scotsman logical fallacy. ie: these people disagree with me therefore they are not Bitcoin developers.

acidus 9y ago
Why he is not in this list? https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support#Developers https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support#Developers
- toomim 9y ago
  That's a censored list controlled by theymos.
- pmorici 9y ago
  The only developers on that list are associated with Core or are on the record as strongly supporting Core. That website is also not a neutral party.
nullc 9y ago
> know btc1, a Bitcoin client A month old hastily made fork of Bitcoin Core which has not yet ever had a release (just lots of release candidates), unless I missed a recent announcement. > who is in fact a Bitcoin developer and has been for a very long time. Nonsense, Jeff hasn't been a Bitcoin developer for years. I believe he's mostly been involved with Ethereum for a long time. People aren't saying he isn't a developer because they disagree, but because showing up and making a toy software fork doesn't grant you credibility or experience. ... and, in fact, he's shown that he doesn't have it pretty thoroughly, for example his code only managed to actually increase the blocksize a couple hours before his first release candidate because he completely misunderstood how it worked.
- pmorici 9y ago