News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Bitcoin – Potential Network Disruption on July 31st. Parent comment

Re:Bitcoin – Potential Network Disruption on July 31st by shp0ngle on Thursday July 13, 2017 @04:48AM (#14759744)
FlexTrans are far more crappy and far far less tested than segwit. It introduces its own weird format that nobody uses, that's sort-of-XML-but-binary (I mean, the authors said to themselves "I like XML so much I want it in a binary protocol") - and problems with types of formats is exactly where the various maleability problems come from! Which was reason for the segwit in the first place!

I am not for UASF and I think it's moronic (since it will lead to chainsplit and user confusion); segwit is fine though and FlexTrans are not a serious contender

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Bitcoin – Potential Network Disruption on July 31st by lawn on Thursday July 13, 2017 @04:54AM (#14759764)
> and problems with types of formats is exactly where the various maleability problems come from! Which was reason for the segwit in the first place!

You obviously have no idea what the maleability problem is and you didn't read and understand the linked articles.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Bitcoin – Potential Network Disruption on July 31st by rothbardrand on Thursday July 13, 2017 @05:09AM (#14759822)
Do enlighten us. Please be very detailed. Don't just link to some random article from a non-technical propagandist like you have been. Explain it.

Segwit does fix malleability, and this is critical for bitcoins future, for many reasons.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Bitcoin – Potential Network Disruption on July 31st by lawn on Thursday July 13, 2017 @05:21AM (#14759873)
The article contains a technical explanation... Don't be lazy and dismissive. It also explains that Segwit fixes the malleability and that Flexible Transactions also does (but in a non hacky way), so what is your point?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Bitcoin – Potential Network Disruption on July 31st by rothbardrand on Monday July 17, 2017 @12:35PM (#14790082)
My point is that you don't understand what you are talking about and are feeding us FUD based bullshit. And you have failed to give an explanation when called on it, just linking to someone else (also ignorant) as "proof".
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Bitcoin – Potential Network Disruption on July 31st by rothbardrand on Thursday July 13, 2017 @05:08AM (#14759818)
You oppose Segwit2x AND BIP-148, but you like Segwit?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Bitcoin – Potential Network Disruption on July 31st by shp0ngle on Thursday July 13, 2017 @06:43AM (#14760182)
Segwit2x is sort-of-OK for me frankly.

I don't like the part where they rush to implement everything as fast as possible. And from apart (and I don't follow Segwit2x that much), the changeset seems too big from bitcoind.

And they say openly they plan hard-fork, not this UASF where the S is not really that S and is almost guaranteed to result in a split and confusion.

They signal Segwit in a compatible way, so it's OK. Just the timeline is crazy.

[ Parent | on HN ]