4 ms·

It's impossible to explain the Segwit2x bugs ignoring the social aspect. The planned fork was supported by only part of the community, which would not have bee

by danra 9y ago

It's impossible to explain the Segwit2x bugs ignoring the social aspect. The planned fork was supported by only part of the community, which would not have been a problem if it weren't for the lack of replay protection, which would have lost many people money had the fork been activated. The rationale for not having replay protection was to take over the Bitcoin network as a whole, with the lack of differentiation from the 'legacy' Bitcoin network being seen as a feature. In other words, rich people with a lot of mining power were planning on forcing the network into accepting their own rules (with most people in the network, running SPV wallets, doing so unknowingly), and if people lose money in the process, well, that's just too bad. And that's just what touched me the most personally. There were a lot of other things in the Segwit2x process to be appalled with, such as the anti-developer culture, the infamous NYA closed meeting and general lack of transparency, and more. Because I was disgusted with that bully approach, I did not invest any serious time reviewing the Segwit2x code changes, but instead did spend time studying, reviewing and contributing (my very small bit) to the Bitcoin Core code. I guess that other developers similarly had no drive to contribute to the Segwit2x codebase. I also think it's probable some people have found the bug/s and did not report them so as not to help bullies get their way. In conclusion, the lack of review and testing, leading to the bugs, is not just a technical issue. Doing serious review and testing of open source code relies on support from the community, which was minimal, because very few competent developers in the space who understood what was going on wanted to help.

ploxiln 9y ago
Segwit2x was only "anti-developer" if you only consider the "bitcoin core" developers. There were many developers quite interested in larger block size for many years, since before the February 2016 "Bitcoin Roundtable" in Hong Kong. Segwit2x had over 90% of the hashpower of the bitcoin world voting for it, at one point a couple months before it was to activate. Hashpower is heavily tilted towards large mining pools, many of them in China, but it is still the best measure of consensus and support the network has. That's a major tenet of Bitcoin in the first place. (Though I wouldn't say "only miners matter" nor "only users matter", the network really needs both to work.) I think that the survival and modest success of Bitcoin Cash eroded the initial overwhelming support for Segwit2X. Though if you mostly read /r/bitcoin I'd say you have a very warped view of what happened ;)
- exit 9y ago
  > but it is still the best measure of consensus and support the network has is it? another measure is futures trading. 2x futures traded at ~%15 the value of btc immediately before the cancelation.
  - firethief 9y ago
    That's a measure of what people expect, which is a very different kind of "consensus" from what people want.
- rlpb 9y ago
  > Hashpower is heavily tilted towards large mining pools, many of them in China, but it is still the best measure of consensus and support the network has. I'm not convinced by this argument at all. Consensus in the network is derived by the traders who give Bitcoin its value, not the miners. If anything, the miners are on the opposite end of the equation as they have to sell their mined coin to pay for their mining expenses (since silicon and electricity are typically purchased in fiat currency). Look at the exchanges for consensus, not the miners. The miners are effectively slaves to the system. I don't understand why it's so common to give them so much weight.
  - ploxiln 9y ago
    First, miners also invest in the future of the coin when they invest in building up a mining operation for it. Second, if most miners stop mining a coin, it can kill it. At least the next few blocks will take a very long time to be confirmed. Just as importantly, the security of the system is reduced because a large miner could theoretically overwhelm the remaining hashpower and execute a "51% attack" for some short-term profit. It's unlikely, but the confidence in the coin is partly based on it being impossible.
    - CydeWeys 9y ago
      > Second, if most miners stop mining a coin, it can kill it. This won't happen though. Miners are out to make a profit, full stop. They mine whatever currency is most profitable, so hash power follows price. Bitcoin has over half of the total cryptocurrency market cap. So long as Bitcoin itself is highly valuable, the miners will naturally follow along as well. And as some miners temporarily defect (thus incurring massive hourly losses in opportunity costs from mining less valuable currencies), transaction fees on Bitcoin simply go up higher, making each block worth significantly more reward, thus tempting the defectors with ever-increasing profits to defect back to mining Bitcoin. There is no mining cartel.

by danra 9y ago

ploxiln 9y ago

Segwit2x was only "anti-developer" if you only consider the "bitcoin core" developers. There were many developers quite interested in larger block size for many years, since before the February 2016 "Bitcoin Roundtable" in Hong Kong. Segwit2x had over 90% of the hashpower of the bitcoin world voting for it, at one point a couple months before it was to activate. Hashpower is heavily tilted towards large mining pools, many of them in China, but it is still the best measure of consensus and support the network has. That's a major tenet of Bitcoin in the first place. (Though I wouldn't say "only miners matter" nor "only users matter", the network really needs both to work.) I think that the survival and modest success of Bitcoin Cash eroded the initial overwhelming support for Segwit2X. Though if you mostly read /r/bitcoin I'd say you have a very warped view of what happened ;)

exit 9y ago
> but it is still the best measure of consensus and support the network has is it? another measure is futures trading. 2x futures traded at ~%15 the value of btc immediately before the cancelation.
- firethief 9y ago
  That's a measure of what people expect, which is a very different kind of "consensus" from what people want.
rlpb 9y ago
> Hashpower is heavily tilted towards large mining pools, many of them in China, but it is still the best measure of consensus and support the network has. I'm not convinced by this argument at all. Consensus in the network is derived by the traders who give Bitcoin its value, not the miners. If anything, the miners are on the opposite end of the equation as they have to sell their mined coin to pay for their mining expenses (since silicon and electricity are typically purchased in fiat currency). Look at the exchanges for consensus, not the miners. The miners are effectively slaves to the system. I don't understand why it's so common to give them so much weight.
- ploxiln 9y ago
  First, miners also invest in the future of the coin when they invest in building up a mining operation for it. Second, if most miners stop mining a coin, it can kill it. At least the next few blocks will take a very long time to be confirmed. Just as importantly, the security of the system is reduced because a large miner could theoretically overwhelm the remaining hashpower and execute a "51% attack" for some short-term profit. It's unlikely, but the confidence in the coin is partly based on it being impossible.
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    > Second, if most miners stop mining a coin, it can kill it. This won't happen though. Miners are out to make a profit, full stop. They mine whatever currency is most profitable, so hash power follows price. Bitcoin has over half of the total cryptocurrency market cap. So long as Bitcoin itself is highly valuable, the miners will naturally follow along as well. And as some miners temporarily defect (thus incurring massive hourly losses in opportunity costs from mining less valuable currencies), transaction fees on Bitcoin simply go up higher, making each block worth significantly more reward, thus tempting the defectors with ever-increasing profits to defect back to mining Bitcoin. There is no mining cartel.