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

Matthew Clancy matthewpclancy at gmail.com
Thu Nov 2 23:20:28 UTC 2017


> The cost increase is not negligible. You're talking about the blockchain
increasing at a rate of ~263 GB per year.

​Speaking of bogus claims, that first assumes each ​
​
​and every block is full, which, even in the hyper-congested world you and
your ivory-tower braintrust have created, is not realistic, and secondly it
pretends ​that pruning isn't an option. After a certain number of years,
there is no reason for full nodes to fully sync back to 2009. The UTXO is
the important thing.


>
which already cuts out far too many users from running their
own node
​​
​This is hilarious coming from someone who has intentionally excluded ​half
the world from the bitcoin ecosystem by refusing to follow Satoshi's vision
and discard the *temporary* anti-spam measure that was put in place long
after the first block was mined.

Here's a protip: if the cost of making a transaction is more than you earn
in a day, you're not going to use bitcoin at all. Let alone run a full
node. on your raspberry pi or whatever (I know you like to ignore the fact
that bitcoin was designed by someone who believed non-mining nodes are not
important, but it's right there in the whitepaper).

​Also Luke, while I appreciate the fact that you have engaged in dialogue,
you do realize that pretty much everyone else on your team refuses to
discuss things with anyone who disagrees with them? You sir are an outlier.

And no, a certain CTO trolling and sockpuppeting on social media doesn't
count.


On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/attachments/20171102/b433d9e5/attachment.html>


More information about the Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list