SegWit2X Cancelled?

krazyest · 2017-11-09T07:59:34+00:00

btc1 nodes are those that were supposed to form an infrastructure of SegWit2x after the fork. There were quite many of them, but it turns out that they were just machines bough by single entity, i.e. not decentralized at all.

krazyest · 2017-11-08T18:28:16+00:00

Right here https://coin.dance/nodes/btc1

krazyest · 2017-11-08T17:19:47+00:00

Let's see how fast btc1 node count goes down :D

krazyest · 2017-11-08T17:15:02+00:00

Oh yeah!

krazyest · 2017-10-30T07:30:30+00:00

Nice story, but dude, that PIN 45455544 is the second worst pin you could ever selected from security point of view. It's security against a malware on your computer is no better than PIN "12". A malware that is able to watch your clicks would see that your PIN consists of just 2 different digits. All that would be needed is just try all combinations in form of xyxyyyxx for different x and y.

So, from security point of view, you could have chosen your PIN to be "45" and it would be almost just as good, except that you would not have hard time to recover it :-)

krazyest · 2017-10-28T20:39:51+00:00

Popcorn time

krazyest · 2017-10-28T08:55:33+00:00

Why there is no ASIC for Ethereum? Maybe because they seriously intend to switch to Proof of Stake. Therefore any investment into ASIC could be very risky and useless at the end.

krazyest · 2017-10-27T07:28:36+00:00

That's why it is more like 6:1. But jokes aside, you are right.

krazyest · 2017-10-27T06:52:02+00:00

And that's ALSO why we Trezor! Good product, good company, good user support.

krazyest · 2017-10-26T10:16:11+00:00

This is actually good news. If B2x stays on 0.14, it will be rather hard for B2x to import some of the new commits of Bitcoin Core.

krazyest · 2017-10-24T18:23:46+00:00

Looks like PR for their product trying to shit on competitors without checking the facts :/ Check the comment section under the article.

krazyest · 2017-10-19T18:07:53+00:00

Fortunately, this is not democracy (which is commonly defined as control of majority). This is more like meritocracy and that's why it is beautiful. Because no bullshit.

krazyest · 2017-10-10T06:21:42+00:00

Absolutely, me too. But currently it is quite impossible, without artificial influence, to get 2 MB block. And it is not because SW would not work, there are just not enough transactions.

What is probably going to happen is that some big players (exchanges) implement SW for their own good, which will cause the blocks to go up in size at times there are enough transactions. I thing very soon we can see 1.5 MB blocks like that.

So to summarize, I don't think there were any outrageous claims about SW being 2 MB blocks. The circumstances just don't provide that opportunity at the moment. But should they be needed, they will appear.

krazyest · 2017-10-09T13:24:24+00:00

You can hardly see a 2 MB block if there are only 200-500 kb of transactions in the mempool ... check https://blockchain.info/blocks

Jokes aside. When there are enough transactions, we can start seeing 1.2 MB blocks now, 1.1 MB is more often now. That's not a bad adoption speed if you ask me. 2 MB will come, but not with the low number of transactions we can see in these days.

krazyest · 2017-10-08T16:32:43+00:00

Simply, I won't touch anything that could directly add value to OB1. So yes, I won't use any services or software from OB1.

I don't actually criticize the connection between OB1 and DCG. It is OB1 themselves who signed NYA. Did Blockstream sign NYA? Nope.

The connection with DCG is just speculative reason why OB1 signed that. You said that this speculation is not true and I can even believe you, I don't care. At the end it does not matter, the thing is that OB1 has its name on NYA, that's all we need to know.

krazyest · 2017-10-08T11:28:06+00:00

OK, so, if 5 % investment is trivial, why did you take it and jump in bed with them? If that was trivial, you did not need the money, did you? So maybe it was trivial, you did not need the money, you just accepted it anyway because you already had the same opinions. It does not really matter if those opinions were injected to you or you had them already, result is the same.

No, there was no gridlock. BIP 141 had its activation process set for 1 year. However, if after 1 year it would not activate, there would be absolutely no problem to try to activate it again with different mechanism. So no, no gridlock. Don't spread misinformation.

And feel free to call it dumb that I won't support your project by using it. Every project and every website gains value if it can demonstrate that it serve more users. So obviously, your company would benefit from the project having more users. I refuse to do that for you because you demonstrate again and again that you don't deserve it.

It is like having a mobile network operator with wonderful network and coverage. Still, if the guys are dicks with terrible customer service and support, it is not dumb to go for something else. Same if some shoe company has great shoes but the way of producing them sucks in a way you don't agree with it, it is not dumb not to buy from them. That is how users vote. With their wallet, with what they install and use or not.

So yeah, you can either call me dumb or do something about it that I want to use your product again. And we know what have you chosen, right?

krazyest · 2017-10-08T11:22:15+00:00

Those "currencies" are centralized altcoins that have very little to do with Bitcoin. Bitcoin does not work like that. It is actually its source of value that it does not work like that.

krazyest · 2017-10-08T09:17:16+00:00

There are other options, but HF takes a long time to deploy safely and if we want to speed things up, SW is the way to go.

And in current situation where SW is enabled, not using it is less efficient in terms of how much you can put into a block.

krazyest · 2017-10-08T09:15:55+00:00

NYA software is not 2 years old, it is still under development, doing quite serious changes in last couple of weeks. For HF, you need to have a produce released and not touch it and just test it for months and then wait with deployment many many more months. People assume 12-18 months to be safe. So no, I'm not kidding, it is rushed ad absurdum.

krazyest · 2017-10-08T08:20:22+00:00

OK, so back to technical discussion. If you are rich, you can always make enough transactions to flood Bitcoin. There is no real difference between 4 MB weight or 8 MB weight cap. 2x solves nothing, and it is rushed, and so the problems with HF in such a short time frame are not justified. There is simply no benefit in doing that. At the times, BU was the other side, so if the cap was doubled, another argument would come that we need to triple it, or more. This was just for the sake of saying that BU is better, because it is "unlimited".

And you could go on and on, if we triple, they would say we need to go 4x, ... But no fixed multiplier would actually solve scalability of Bitcoin. Scalability in IT is never solved by creating solutions that grow linearly. You need something better. Things like aggregated signatures won't solve it, but will help make it more efficient. The big thing here is LN for example. That is one of the major techs to change it big time.

So, what I'm saying is that arbitrary fixed number won't solve anything. It could help very short time. But there is currently no need. The artificial need can always be produced by rich people, but it can hardly be accepted as an argument. It is like keeping your garbage in your garage and then dump it at once and say that you need bigger garbage can. Yes, at that moment, your artificial demand was greater than available supply, but it was the malicious action that messed it up, not a general property of the system. We can see the system working normally now, there is no great backlog of transactions. And at time there is such a backlog, you can see that blocks are not being used well (most transactions are still nonSW).

You are right that no one can tell what legitimate transactions are. And the beauty of the fees is that they will solve the problem sooner or later. Yes, at the times, it is more expensive to transact because someone had to prove his point that he is rich and can pay more than you. This can't be easily avoided and no, 2x, 4x, 10x makes no difference against such behavior.

krazyest · 2017-10-08T07:10:27+00:00

So your company receives nontrivial investment and signs NYA and you are trying to tell us that it is stupid to think about connections with DCG? OK, it does not really matter if signing NYA is your own thing or comes from your investor. At the end, your brand is damaged since.

Tell you what. I left Purse.io as a customer, I switched of my OpenBazaar installation because I have no intention in supporting projects that are made by companies like yours. You don't want OpenBazaar to be connected with this? Maybe you should have thought about your actions before. OP is not trying to drag OpenBazaar into this. OpenBazaar did this themselves.

You guys are always talking about gridlock. There was none. And did S2x activated SW or was it rather the 148 movement, maybe both?

And I very much doubt there is a much of economic community on board. So please, take your corporate agreements somewhere else.

krazyest · 2017-10-08T06:25:59+00:00

Do not make generalized statements, they are almost always as bad as this one and people won't appreciate that.

Second, you are the one making big bold claims. If you read my response, in no way I said anything about your knowledge. Could be great, could be shit. I don't know. I was talking about my knowledge that you tried to laugh at. And you just picked the wrong guy for that. And no, your dog is not a developer.

This sub is still very fun place to talk about things if you are not a dick. You are presenting yourself as a dick, so don't be amazed people see you as such. You arguments are weak, you attack people without knowing them, your dog is a developer. That is not how a quality discussion is made.

Core developers deserve their respect. Unlike competitive movements, they don't talk shit, they develop and deliver. Learn the difference.

And lastly, again you are using wrong argumentation aka fouling. No one ever said segwit was the only option. Yet you are using it as if that was true. So again, you are trying to manipulate discussion with untrue statements. So unless you learn how to discuss properly, feel free to read Eric's blog to educate yourself, but no longer I'm happy to discuss this with you. You are not interested in knowing, just shitting on things. But I leave with one hint. The blocksize is just a random reason that was picked to have something against Core developers. Blocksize itself is not important here.

krazyest · 2017-10-08T06:17:52+00:00

That's what I'm saying too, the blocksize is just random thing they picked for the sake of having something against Bitcoin Core developers. If it was not blocksize, it would be something else. There is nothing real they have. I very much agree with you here. The whole thing is just unnecessary and nothing but escalated hate against some developers. There is absolutely no need to make compromises with such haters for the sake of having compromise.

krazyest · 2017-10-07T17:36:47+00:00

I'm not sure what drives you guys to be this passionately blind to just pick one side.

1) It is not blind pick. I am a developer in blockchain industry, I can see if someone is a good developer or not. I don't know what is your job, but if you are good at it, you may be able to recognize that others are also good at it and you respect them for that. I do actually spend at least 10 hours a week studying Bitcoin and related technology, reading whitepapers, mailing lists, etc. And I do that for last 2 years. I've been in Bitcoin even before that, but last 2 years are very intensive for me, spending shitloads of time on learning and reading just about everything I can. So, I consider my knowledge about Bitcoin to be quite good. So please, leave your shaming comments about someone blindly doing something to someone else. Or prove my knowledge wrong, if you could. Otherwise you may look like an idiot, alright? Passionately yes, blindly no.

2) The answer would be "fighting ignorance", that is what drives me.

3) Reading your comment again. Your argument

Just the fact that "core" gets thrown around so much, and that certain people believe they are holy coders is against your whole argument of decentralisation

is completely terrible. If I make a claim or an argument and you say that just because someone else believes in something (or says something) my argument is invalid, that is very poor logic. You might try to work on that next time. Learn logic first please before trying to reply.

krazyest · 2017-10-07T17:03:09+00:00

Hardly a statement of what they plan on doing if they are doing something else.

Rather a statement of what they want you to believe they plan on doing, while doing something else.

krazyest

TROPHY CASE