Re:Bitcoin Upgrade in November 2017 at Block 494,784
by RustyRussell on Thursday August 17, 2017 @01:16AM
(#15033982)
> My mistake, I was under the impression Segwit2x was approved by Core.
Crap, I just found out about the fake "bcoreproject" twitter account, which of course, claims this as a pinned post. And then the fake "nullc_" twitter account (nullc is the common nick of Greg Maxwell, blockstream CTO and core supporter).
I feel saddened and a little dirty that this is A Thing :(
Re:Bitcoin Upgrade in November 2017 at Block 494,784
by RustyRussell on Wednesday August 16, 2017 @09:12PM
(#15032855)
> My mistake, I was under the impression Segwit2x was approved by Core.
:(
Re:Bitcoin Upgrade in November 2017 at Block 494,784
by nadaviv on Wednesday August 16, 2017 @11:10PM
(#15033515)
> I still think this is a good thing. The Bitcoin Core developers have restricted the Bitcoin network for too long.
Restricted it how?
Re:Bitcoin Upgrade in November 2017 at Block 494,784
by r1ch on Thursday August 17, 2017 @11:01AM
(#15037369)
By not doing enough to increase network throughput. We could have had a 2-8MB fork years ago and not had to worry with the transaction backlogs caused by the 1MB block limit we're now stuck with.
I still think this is a good thing. The Bitcoin Core developers have restricted the Bitcoin network for too long. Perhaps this will serve as a wake up call.
Personally I still think Bitcoin Cash was the right move. Segwit adds a lot of complexity and technical debt, bigger blocks were really all that's needed as evidenced by how quickly BCC dealt with the transaction backlogs. Unfortunately the market didn't agree.