[Bitcoin-segwit2x] Require a new Statement from NYA companies

Bitcoin Error Log bitcoinerrorlog at gmail.com
Thu Nov 2 23:10:53 UTC 2017


There's no such thing as consensus of what Bitcoin is, at least not in the
abstract sense you are all yammering on about.

Bitcoin is the first blockchain, it's protocol defines it and what you can
expect from it. You can only add rules, not change them.

A hard fork can NEVER be "Bitcoin" and Bitcoin can't even "die" (whether
miners mine it or not, it remains in hibernation and is secure). These are
absolute facts, not beliefs or theories. If you start from these
fundamentals, you can make better decisions about how to manage your forks,
soft or hard. You will understand you are competing with Bitcoin, not
upgrading it.

You are not reaching consensus, your are campaigning and competing. You are
not Bitcoin, you are using Bitcoin history as a proof of stake for a new
blockchain.



On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 12:30 AM Luke Dashjr via Bitcoin-segwit2x <
bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Thursday 02 November 2017 4:53:42 PM Alberto De Luigi via
> Bitcoin-segwit2x
> wrote:
> > Actually the bitcoin Core developers never clarified why they are against
> > segwit2x. There are no technical reasons.
>
> I don't normally post here, but since you're making bogus claims about me
> like
> this... I, at least, absolutely have clarified my stance on multiple
> occasions.
>
> Please read this reddit comment for a synopsis:
>
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/61yvvv/request_to_core_devs_please_explain_your_vision/dficjhj/
>
> >  2mb blocksize hf means very smooth change in 6 months, everybody knows
> it
> >  and can prepare, fullnodes do not costs more, or the cost increase is
> >  negligible.
>
> Hardforks are almost* NEVER smooth, due to the design that entails what a
> hardfork is.
>
> The cost increase is not negligible. You're talking about the blockchain
> increasing at a rate of ~263 GB per year. That's almost double the current
> blockchain size, which already cuts out far too many users from running
> their
> own node, to the point where Bitcoin today is not actually secure.
>
> Note that 2X is NOT a 2 MB block size. It is up to 8 MB blocks.
>
> Luke
>
> * The exception is when the network has ceased to be functioning prior to
> the
> change, which forces universal visibility into the matter. This is clearly
> NOT
> the case for November; Bitcoin has been working fine since 2013.
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
>
-- 

John C
Bitcoin Error Log
www.bitcoinerrorlog.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/attachments/20171102/6560ad8c/attachment.html>


More information about the Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list