Jorge Timón [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2017-07-10 📝 Original message:On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2017-07-10
📝 Original message:On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Regarding the timeline, its certainly rather short, but also is the UASF BIP
> 148 ultimatum.
This is correct. If you are trying to imply that makes the short
timeline here right, you are falling for a "tu quoque" fallacy.
> More than 80% of the miners and many users are willing to go in the Segwit2x
> direction.
There's no logical reason I can think of (and I've heard many attempts
at explaining it) for miners to consider segwit bad for Bitcoin but
segwitx2 harmless. But I don't see 80% hashrate support for bip141, so
your claim doesn't seem accurate for the segwit part, let alone the
more controversial hardfork part.
I read some people controlling mining pools that control 80% of the
hashrate signed a paper saying they would "support segwit
immediately". Either what I read wasn't true, or the signed paper is
just a proof of the signing pool operators word being something we
cannot trust.
So where does this 80% figure come from? How can we trust the source?
> I want a Bitcoin united. But maybe a split of Bitcoin, each side with its
> own vision, is not so bad.
It would be unfortunate to split the network into 2 coins only because
of lack of patience for deploying non-urgent consensus changes like a
size increase or disagreements about the right time schedule.
I think anything less than 1 year after release of tested code by some
implementation would be irresponsible for any hardfork, even a very
simple one.
📝 Original message:On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Regarding the timeline, its certainly rather short, but also is the UASF BIP
> 148 ultimatum.
This is correct. If you are trying to imply that makes the short
timeline here right, you are falling for a "tu quoque" fallacy.
> More than 80% of the miners and many users are willing to go in the Segwit2x
> direction.
There's no logical reason I can think of (and I've heard many attempts
at explaining it) for miners to consider segwit bad for Bitcoin but
segwitx2 harmless. But I don't see 80% hashrate support for bip141, so
your claim doesn't seem accurate for the segwit part, let alone the
more controversial hardfork part.
I read some people controlling mining pools that control 80% of the
hashrate signed a paper saying they would "support segwit
immediately". Either what I read wasn't true, or the signed paper is
just a proof of the signing pool operators word being something we
cannot trust.
So where does this 80% figure come from? How can we trust the source?
> I want a Bitcoin united. But maybe a split of Bitcoin, each side with its
> own vision, is not so bad.
It would be unfortunate to split the network into 2 coins only because
of lack of patience for deploying non-urgent consensus changes like a
size increase or disagreements about the right time schedule.
I think anything less than 1 year after release of tested code by some
implementation would be irresponsible for any hardfork, even a very
simple one.