5 ms·

I was under the impression, it was miners that by and large were in favour if segwit and everything that goes along with it. Part of point of Cash was to try to

I was under the impression, it was miners that by and large were in favour if segwit and everything that goes along with it. Part of point of Cash was to try to reduce the influence of miners on the currency. So my guess is it's just bet-hedging for now.

DennisP 9y ago
Miners are in favor of profit; the price of Cash went up 2.5X over the past three days, so until the mining effort does the same, mining Cash is especially lucrative.
exit 9y ago
that doesn't agree at all with what i've seen of this situation unfolding. i think: bch was created by people who want to use adjustable block size caps to scale transaction volume, and this favours established miners and consolidates their influence. segwit was created by people who want to try a second layer for transactions (specifically the lightning network), and some miners are opposed to this direction because they would not collect fees on layer-2 transactions.
- sbenitoj 9y ago
  Instead, the creators of the 2nd layer solutions will collect fees.
  - Snackchez 9y ago
    Is that the case? Is this what's happening with Litecoin?
  - tylersmith 9y ago
    Not strictly the creators, but the operators. Miners could operate Lightning Network nodes for example.
sbenitoj 9y ago
That's incorrect - in general the miners are opposed to SegWit, but they accepted a compromise of agreeing to SegWit if they could increase the block size to 2 MB (from 1 MB currently). SegWit will be activated within 24 hours, but Bitcoin Core (the main developers of current Bitcoin code) have already said they are not going to support an increase to 2 MB blocks. They also claim they never agreed to it in the first place. As a result, it's very likely to see another hard fork to 2 MB in November, so there will be 3 chains with a shared transaction history, and most like all will claim to be the real Bitcoin -- personally I don't think debating which one is the "real" one is worthwhile, just use the one you want, but eventually it's likely that one chain will get the majority of hashing power and have a much higher price per token than all the others.
- makomk 9y ago
  The Bitcoin Core developers were never part of the agreement to hard-fork and increase the block size - they've said it was a terrible idea all along at least on the time scale proposed. I don't think they even knew about it until it was publicly announced. Also, SegWit increases the block size to 2-ishMB by itself (it's complicated, because older nodes need to think blocks are still under 1MB, which is done by stripping out parts of SegWit transactions when sending to them). This means that in practice the hard fork gives a block size of 4-8MB. The "compromise" framing of "we gave you SegWit, now you have to give us a hard fork" is pretty terrible too, because the two aren't symmetrical - SegWit makes hard forking less urgent, but hard forking to increase the block size makes the SegWit improvements more important because they're designed to make larger blocks work better. Even Bitcoin Cash copied one of the key SegWit improvements, the transaction hashing change, in very slightly modified form for this reason.
  - guardiangod 9y ago
    I don't think 'symmetrical' means what you think it means. Just because A makes B 'less urgent' or 'more efficient' doesn't mean we have to choose between A or B. Why not both? Bitcoin Core's dev did not give a good technical reason for not adopting 2MB beyond crowding out smaller miners blah blah blah. I mean, come on. Have they seen the last 1000 blocks list these days?
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
I'll caveat my statements by acknowledging I'm an outsider to all of this. That said, it was my understanding that BTC's decisions regarding segwit were driven by the proprietary interests of Blockstream. Is this correct?
- kanzure 9y ago
  Blockstream employees are involved in bitcoin development but so are other employees of other companies. Just a bunch of FUD if you ask me. https://blockstream.com/2017/07/31/segwit-myths-debunked.html https://blockstream.com/2017/07/31/segwit-myths-debunked.htm... https://twitter.com/morcosa/status/831618208289398785 https://twitter.com/morcosa/status/831618208289398785 https://twitter.com/morcosa/status/875695603455586305 https://twitter.com/morcosa/status/875695603455586305
- sbenitoj 9y ago
  Not sure what you mean by "BTC's decisions" -- it's a decentralized network that has A LOT of different stakehodlers -- some more important than others, some louder than others. All humans are driven by self-interest, as far as I understand Blockstream employees are humans. Edit: After re-reading my response, I wasn't trying to be a jerk to you, poking fun at Blockstream.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    No offense taken! To clarify on what I mean by "BTC's decisions," the tale I've heard is that a small group of people control a lot of the messaging around Bitcoin, e.g. the sub-reddit and a site and a Twitter account. These people also had an economic interest in Blockstream. So they used the fork to promote a solution that benefits Blockstream.
    - sbenitoj 9y ago
      Yep, that's pretty much spot on. R/Bitcoin is extremely censored (and the mod logs are not public). R/BTC is another discussion forum that seems to be more open (people from R/Bitcoin will say otherwise). You'd think they'd spend more time talking about all the amazing things blockchain technologies are going to facilitate, but they mostly just spend their time hating on the other group. Sad, but what do you expect, both groups are comprised of "humans on the internet"!!

DennisP 9y ago

Miners are in favor of profit; the price of Cash went up 2.5X over the past three days, so until the mining effort does the same, mining Cash is especially lucrative.

exit 9y ago

that doesn't agree at all with what i've seen of this situation unfolding. i think: bch was created by people who want to use adjustable block size caps to scale transaction volume, and this favours established miners and consolidates their influence. segwit was created by people who want to try a second layer for transactions (specifically the lightning network), and some miners are opposed to this direction because they would not collect fees on layer-2 transactions.

sbenitoj 9y ago
Instead, the creators of the 2nd layer solutions will collect fees.
- Snackchez 9y ago
  Is that the case? Is this what's happening with Litecoin?
- tylersmith 9y ago
  Not strictly the creators, but the operators. Miners could operate Lightning Network nodes for example.

sbenitoj 9y ago

That's incorrect - in general the miners are opposed to SegWit, but they accepted a compromise of agreeing to SegWit if they could increase the block size to 2 MB (from 1 MB currently). SegWit will be activated within 24 hours, but Bitcoin Core (the main developers of current Bitcoin code) have already said they are not going to support an increase to 2 MB blocks. They also claim they never agreed to it in the first place. As a result, it's very likely to see another hard fork to 2 MB in November, so there will be 3 chains with a shared transaction history, and most like all will claim to be the real Bitcoin -- personally I don't think debating which one is the "real" one is worthwhile, just use the one you want, but eventually it's likely that one chain will get the majority of hashing power and have a much higher price per token than all the others.

makomk 9y ago
The Bitcoin Core developers were never part of the agreement to hard-fork and increase the block size - they've said it was a terrible idea all along at least on the time scale proposed. I don't think they even knew about it until it was publicly announced. Also, SegWit increases the block size to 2-ishMB by itself (it's complicated, because older nodes need to think blocks are still under 1MB, which is done by stripping out parts of SegWit transactions when sending to them). This means that in practice the hard fork gives a block size of 4-8MB. The "compromise" framing of "we gave you SegWit, now you have to give us a hard fork" is pretty terrible too, because the two aren't symmetrical - SegWit makes hard forking less urgent, but hard forking to increase the block size makes the SegWit improvements more important because they're designed to make larger blocks work better. Even Bitcoin Cash copied one of the key SegWit improvements, the transaction hashing change, in very slightly modified form for this reason.
- guardiangod 9y ago
  I don't think 'symmetrical' means what you think it means. Just because A makes B 'less urgent' or 'more efficient' doesn't mean we have to choose between A or B. Why not both? Bitcoin Core's dev did not give a good technical reason for not adopting 2MB beyond crowding out smaller miners blah blah blah. I mean, come on. Have they seen the last 1000 blocks list these days?

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

I'll caveat my statements by acknowledging I'm an outsider to all of this. That said, it was my understanding that BTC's decisions regarding segwit were driven by the proprietary interests of Blockstream. Is this correct?

kanzure 9y ago
Blockstream employees are involved in bitcoin development but so are other employees of other companies. Just a bunch of FUD if you ask me. https://blockstream.com/2017/07/31/segwit-myths-debunked.html https://blockstream.com/2017/07/31/segwit-myths-debunked.htm... https://twitter.com/morcosa/status/831618208289398785 https://twitter.com/morcosa/status/831618208289398785 https://twitter.com/morcosa/status/875695603455586305 https://twitter.com/morcosa/status/875695603455586305
sbenitoj 9y ago
Not sure what you mean by "BTC's decisions" -- it's a decentralized network that has A LOT of different stakehodlers -- some more important than others, some louder than others. All humans are driven by self-interest, as far as I understand Blockstream employees are humans. Edit: After re-reading my response, I wasn't trying to be a jerk to you, poking fun at Blockstream.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  No offense taken! To clarify on what I mean by "BTC's decisions," the tale I've heard is that a small group of people control a lot of the messaging around Bitcoin, e.g. the sub-reddit and a site and a Twitter account. These people also had an economic interest in Blockstream. So they used the fork to promote a solution that benefits Blockstream.
  - sbenitoj 9y ago
    Yep, that's pretty much spot on. R/Bitcoin is extremely censored (and the mod logs are not public). R/BTC is another discussion forum that seems to be more open (people from R/Bitcoin will say otherwise). You'd think they'd spend more time talking about all the amazing things blockchain technologies are going to facilitate, but they mostly just spend their time hating on the other group. Sad, but what do you expect, both groups are comprised of "humans on the internet"!!