5 ms·
Segwit activation in August was a blocksize increase, and a much more elegant solution than just doubling the blocks. An agreement was made by a few corporate e
by wol_ 9y ago
Segwit activation in August was a blocksize increase, and a much more elegant solution than just doubling the blocks. An agreement was made by a few corporate entities to allow for segwit after a long standoff. They also decided on doubling the blocksize later in the year to appease the miners. Miners reneged on the agreement when Bitcoin Cash or BCH was forked when a small minority thought a better solution was to allow miners to control blocksize with a consensus mechanism. In the end it was clear the agreement and the hard forks never had community support.
Segwit2X was never about a blocksize increase, it was meant to seize control from the Bitcoin Core developers and switch development from the original Bitcoin repo to the newly created Bitcoin1 repo controlled by Jeff Garzik. It was not open to the Core developers and incompetently run, it was built on an old version of the software and resulting bugs were disingenuously blamed on Core developers.
Had this been a success it would have signaled the transfer of control of Bitcoin from the many developers and contributors to corporate banking and wall street interests. it would have been the end of decentralized crypto network open to many and the start of a corporate controlled network open to only a few.
- lawn 9y ago> Segwit activation in August was a blocksize increase, and a much more elegant solution than just doubling the blocks Segwit is a technical failure as it was implemented in a soft fork as a hack. It's scaling is inefficient. Did you see the capacity increase when it got activated? It was abysmal. https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-fork-too-far-87d6e57a4179 https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-... It also decreases the security of the network: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoFb3mcxluY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoFb3mcxluY > Had this been a success it would have signaled the transfer of control of Bitcoin from the many developers and contributors to corporate banking and wall street interests. it would have been the end of decentralized crypto network open to many and the start of a corporate controlled network open to only a few. Now who's pushing conspiracy theories?
- wol_ 9y agoso countless bitcoin developers acting in their own self interest is somehow a sign of a Blockstream takeover, but handful of people that got together to decide on the fate of a fork with idiot one developer is business as usual. you'd have to be a moron to believe that. an article from Dec 2016 in no way disproves the reality of today. a huge amount of value has entered the network, fees are low and the number of transaction per block have increased, segwit adoption is increasing and the community is strongly in favor. I don't know this jaqen dufus, and and Rizun is an incompetent fool. The 'chief scientist' has no clout and his BU software was complete failure and joke in a long line of takeover attempts and subversions including classic and others. segwit is the most thoroughly reviewed code that's ever been written, a vulnerability in SSL was revealed and patched as a result of this work but if you don't like segwit please use BCH instead, lol.
- makomk 9y agoThe reason the capacity benefits from Segwit haven't fully appeared yet is because people haven't switched to using it yet. The 2X fork required everyone to switch to it at once via software that wasn't exactly well tested or thoroughly reviewed. That's why it failed.
- ojr 9y agoSegwit is a horrible blocksize increase strategy, the mempool is filled with unconfirmed transactions that 1mb believers call spam
- wol_ 9y agosegwit is the most thoroughly reviewed code that's ever been written, a vulnerability in SSL was revealed and patched as a result of this work. you're free to use BCH if segwit is a problem for you. and the mempool is fine.