3 ms·

launching a competing altcoin while pumping a solution to the very same disruption a bitcoin fork would cause

• rothbardrand 9y ago
  disruption that is unnecessary and only going to happen because this "fork" is literally malware. Look at BCH for an example of a responsible fork. They did the right things and still people lost money, but they did at least do their best. BCH is an ideological fork for bigger blocks and no segwit. I think they are wrong, but they did it in a relatively responsible manner. 2X is straight up malware.
  • kobeya 9y ago
    Well to be fair if bitcoin ever hard forked it would not have two-way replay protection in the way BCH has because replay protection would break all pre-signed transactions. The problem with B2X is the purposeful takeover of a decentralized protocol by an industry cabal, not any specific technical aspect of it (although it does have flaws).
    • rothbardrand 9y ago
      By "pre-signed" transactions you mean ones still in the mempool? Actually not a problem, with the change to the ten opcode those would succeed on the correct chain. Bitcoin has forked, by the way, August was a soft fork, and it has had a couple hard forks in the past. What's new is that 2X is an attack fork. (Maybe "assault fork"?) Sorry if my response seems pedantic, I am agreeing with you.
      • kobeya 9y ago
        No, I mean locktimed transactions, or chains of transactions as you see in payment channels. Doing a mandatory change to how signatures are calculated invalidates all of these constructs, potentially burning coins (if people lock-timed them to the future) and certainly breaking the security of all existing payment channels.