rothbardrand

30 ms·

301.
by rothbardrand 9y ago
The consensus is behind Segwit2X which IS a UASF. The original UASF proposal is BIP-148 and Segwit2X uses a different mechanism (BIP-9 and 91? I think) but those differences are implementation details that Bitcoin.org doesn't the a pr
302.
by rothbardrand 9y ago
Naw, this isn't about Segwit2x, it's about the hard fork bitmain wants to do: https://blog.bitmain.com/en/uahf-contingency-plan-uasf-bip14...
303.
by rothbardrand 9y ago
You're misunderstanding the issue. Core / Bitcoin.org don't have a problem with Segwit2X which is a UASF like Bip-148 which core supports. (It uses a different BIP and is slightly different but it's perfectly find with
304.
by rothbardrand 9y ago
You would think so, but I think that they think they have enough hash power to take over the whole thing. They may be right. They are clearly making a power grab and opposing Segwit2X: https://blog.bitmain.com/en/uahf-
305.
by rothbardrand 9y ago
That's a not very informed view. Segwit involves segwit, but a very large number of previously pending enhancements that needed a soft fork to activate (core is conservative about any kind of fork) It has dramatic scaling capability
306.
by rothbardrand 9y ago
Not at all. Segwit2x is a compromise that's fine by me. Activate segwit then increase block size. It will result in some increase of miner centralization, but not to the extent that 32MB blocks like Bitmain wants would. Answer me thi
307.
by rothbardrand 9y ago
This is not a narrative, this is the technical facts. You're pushing a narrative. Bitcoin mining has never been as centralized as it is right now with one man controlling over %70 of the hash rate via multiple pools. Many of those poo
308.
by rothbardrand 9y ago
The cost is that larger blocks have difficulty crossing the great firewall of china and mining is already centralized there. I have seen this myself with a production blockchain and blocks that were less than 1mb. Increasing the size incre
309.
by rothbardrand 9y ago
There's nothing proprietary about Lightening Network. Lightning network was started by a startup, who published the paper, there are several open source implementations of it, and to my knowledge there's no actual involvement of
310.
by rothbardrand 9y ago
I think you missed the key issue. Mining is largely centralized under the control of Bitmain, both via pools and indirectly via miners they have sold (which in the past have had backdoors). They profit from using an exploit called ASICBOO
311.
by rothbardrand 9y ago
How would you compare these to the Audio-Technica M50x, a popular headphone, that for me, after years of cheap devices was quite a revelation-- hugely better audio quality. Without going thru a lot of setup to shape the audio response, I&#x
312.
by rothbardrand 9y ago
One difference with security implications is that Apple makes both the hardware and the software. So the hardware is controlled by Apple and can authenticate the software, across the full stack, including the fingerprint sensor (this is wh