5 ms·

I don’t get why this is downvoted. It is technically true and raises an interesting legal issue. Edit: Isn’t this also what happened on some exchanges with the

I don’t get why this is downvoted. It is technically true and raises an interesting legal issue. Edit: Isn’t this also what happened on some exchanges with the previous big forks?

TekMol 5y ago
I think this is a systematic issue with Hacker News, Reddit etc. While low quality comments are easy to spot, low quality votes are not. I often think HN should have the requirement to explain a downvote. I would think that downvotes like these have low quality explanations like "Shut up, idiot!". So these low quality votes could be dealt with and the voters future votes could be discounted.
- nullc 5y ago
  You're being downvoted here because this isn't a compatibility breaking change. No hardfork. So the questions you raise aren't likely to be implicated here.
  - TekMol 5y ago
    I don't think that is true. I don't think miners and nodes can keep running the old software and not run into problems. Look through this thread to see my reasoning: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27021878 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27021878
    - nullc 5y ago
      Did you find my reply there and here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27022013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27022013 informative?
    - martinko 5y ago
      Not sure you realize who you're debating regarding the mechanics of Bitcoin forks...
      - ur-whale 5y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
        ric2b 5y ago
        Doesn't apply, nullc is backing up their arguments with actual technical explanations, not just saying "Just trust me, don't you know who I am?"
        ur-whale 5y ago
        Not criticizing nullc's arguments (which I agree with), but rather the acolyte trying to tell the disagreeing party off thereby actually ruining it for everyone.
      - BelenusMordred 5y ago
        One of the problems of online communications. Everyone has an equal voice, but certainly not all voices are equal. Hopefully the GP comment spends 10 seconds trying to work out if you are correct.
      - nullc 5y ago
        It's all cool. It only turns silly when instead of discussing they flip to "you don't understand how Bitcoin works". :) For every person that won't take my word for it there are probably 100 people here reading and learning something they didn't know.
        ric2b 5y ago
        I have seen you doing this for years (here and on reddit) and I have to say it's amazing and thank you. You're always very calm and communicate quite clearly even with aggressive people suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect that probably don't deserve it. But like you say, there are a lot more people reading the interactions so your efforts aren't wasted.
ComputerGuru 5y ago
I didn’t downvote, but I think the comment has a factually inaccurate premise: this isn’t a hard fork.
- TekMol 5y ago
  After activation of Taproot, coins can be spend in ways they could not before. How is that not a hard fork?
  - ComputerGuru 5y ago
    Because this release is a soft fork basically to vote on whether or not to upgrade “the” BTC network. If 90% agree, I think it’s disingenuous to call it a fork rather than an upgrade.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - wcoenen 5y ago
    For Segwit (a soft fork in the past), it was done by making the new transactions look like they have unsecured "pay to anybody" outputs, as far as the not-upgraded bitcoin clients are concerned. The new bitcoin clients would however be aware of extra data (the "segregated witness") and use that for additional validation. This way all of the new stuff would still be valid for the not-upgraded clients. To make future soft forks easier, the Segwit data has a version byte, and unknown future versions are also considered as "anyone can spend". So taproot only had to increment the version from 0 to 1 to work as a soft fork.
    - TekMol 5y ago
      That might make a Segwit transaction in a block look legit to a node. But what happens if a miner interprets a Segwit transaction as "pay to anybody" and creates a block that violates the "additional validation" performed by newer miner/node software?
nullc 5y ago
It's being downvoted because it's inapplicable to this situation... there isn't any hardfork here. The change is fully compatible. The question he's trying to bring up is an interesting one, but this is the wrong thread to bring it up on. On this subject-- Checkout Archer v. Coinbase, where coinbase kept a large amount of a users forked coins and prevailed in court.

I don’t get why this is downvoted. It is technically true and raises an interesting legal issue. Edit: Isn’t this also what happened on some exchanges with the previous big forks?

TekMol 5y ago

I think this is a systematic issue with Hacker News, Reddit etc. While low quality comments are easy to spot, low quality votes are not. I often think HN should have the requirement to explain a downvote. I would think that downvotes like these have low quality explanations like "Shut up, idiot!". So these low quality votes could be dealt with and the voters future votes could be discounted.

nullc 5y ago
You're being downvoted here because this isn't a compatibility breaking change. No hardfork. So the questions you raise aren't likely to be implicated here.
- TekMol 5y ago
  I don't think that is true. I don't think miners and nodes can keep running the old software and not run into problems. Look through this thread to see my reasoning: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27021878 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27021878
  - nullc 5y ago
    Did you find my reply there and here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27022013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27022013 informative?
  - martinko 5y ago
    Not sure you realize who you're debating regarding the mechanics of Bitcoin forks...
    - ur-whale 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
      - ric2b 5y ago
        Doesn't apply, nullc is backing up their arguments with actual technical explanations, not just saying "Just trust me, don't you know who I am?"
        ur-whale 5y ago
        Not criticizing nullc's arguments (which I agree with), but rather the acolyte trying to tell the disagreeing party off thereby actually ruining it for everyone.
    - BelenusMordred 5y ago
      One of the problems of online communications. Everyone has an equal voice, but certainly not all voices are equal. Hopefully the GP comment spends 10 seconds trying to work out if you are correct.
    - nullc 5y ago
      It's all cool. It only turns silly when instead of discussing they flip to "you don't understand how Bitcoin works". :) For every person that won't take my word for it there are probably 100 people here reading and learning something they didn't know.
      - ric2b 5y ago
        I have seen you doing this for years (here and on reddit) and I have to say it's amazing and thank you. You're always very calm and communicate quite clearly even with aggressive people suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect that probably don't deserve it. But like you say, there are a lot more people reading the interactions so your efforts aren't wasted.

ComputerGuru 5y ago

I didn’t downvote, but I think the comment has a factually inaccurate premise: this isn’t a hard fork.

TekMol 5y ago
After activation of Taproot, coins can be spend in ways they could not before. How is that not a hard fork?
- ComputerGuru 5y ago
  Because this release is a soft fork basically to vote on whether or not to upgrade “the” BTC network. If 90% agree, I think it’s disingenuous to call it a fork rather than an upgrade.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- wcoenen 5y ago
  For Segwit (a soft fork in the past), it was done by making the new transactions look like they have unsecured "pay to anybody" outputs, as far as the not-upgraded bitcoin clients are concerned. The new bitcoin clients would however be aware of extra data (the "segregated witness") and use that for additional validation. This way all of the new stuff would still be valid for the not-upgraded clients. To make future soft forks easier, the Segwit data has a version byte, and unknown future versions are also considered as "anyone can spend". So taproot only had to increment the version from 0 to 1 to work as a soft fork.
  - TekMol 5y ago
    That might make a Segwit transaction in a block look legit to a node. But what happens if a miner interprets a Segwit transaction as "pay to anybody" and creates a block that violates the "additional validation" performed by newer miner/node software?

nullc 5y ago

It's being downvoted because it's inapplicable to this situation... there isn't any hardfork here. The change is fully compatible. The question he's trying to bring up is an interesting one, but this is the wrong thread to bring it up on. On this subject-- Checkout Archer v. Coinbase, where coinbase kept a large amount of a users forked coins and prevailed in court.