Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
51

Mike Hearn: "On Consensus and Forks". Its a great explanation on why soft forks are very dangerous and should be avoided when at all possible.

18 comments
84% Upvoted
This thread is archived
New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast
level 1
16 points · 10 months ago

It's so frustrating that we had amazing developers like Gavin and Mike that understood exactly what the situation was and what needed to be done two years ago. And they were driven away by toxicity.

level 2

Can you believe someone pulled mental gymnastics with me the other day and blamed CSW for them leaving?

level 3

"I came for the invention but I stayed for the drama" was what I used to say about the bitcoin phenomenon. That seems totally inadequate now.

I feel so privileged that I can witness all these machinations firsthand in such a safe way - these are great life lessons that will be of value to me for many years to come...

level 4

you and me will be commiserating in an old-folks home, as the entire world uses some state-controlled derivative of Blockstreamcoin, and read in their history books how Bitcoin was originally created by terrorists for terrorists, but cryptography's heroes took control of Bitcoin from its terrorist roots and made it a technology that everyone uses every day when they transact with their bank. We'll be the last two guys who remember the truth and it'll drive us mad.

They're probably already writing the screenplay.

level 2

You realize that Gavin was the author of the P2SH BIP (soft fork) that Mike was saying was a bad idea?

level 3

Not all Gavin's ideas are good but that aside the post you replied to made the following claim he was "driven away by toxicity".

You'll inappropriate response dose little to address that fact.

level 4

the post you replied to made the following claim he was "driven away by toxicity".

It also made the following claim:

[they] understood exactly what the situation was

Which is what my (not inappropriate) response addressed.

level 5

understood exactly what the situation was and what needed to be done two years ago. And they were driven away by toxicity.

you blow my mind. but anyway yes they knew upgrading to larger block limit is necessary.

btw I also though P2SH was a good idea at the time, but it turners out it's not. and without any evidence I'd say segwit is bad for many more reasons and some similar to P2SH.

There is no negative reason yet presented that justifies limiting on-chain transaction growth after 6 years of debate. it's very well understood unlike segwit and P2SH.

level 6

they knew upgrading to larger block limit is necessary.

Why does literally everything have to be about block size? The title of the post and the article both talked about soft forks, so I assumed that’s what OP was referring to.

level 7

It's not about block size the article just outlined the upgrade process I want very small blocks, and no soft forks. Bitcoin is about economics, most investors what a return on investment.

I realize my technical desire to have very small blocks is overridden my my want to maximize bitcoin success.

to do that we need to take heed and understand soft forks are insidious.

as an investor in sound money having a fixed quantity becomes more valuable with a higher velocity. the segwit soft fork is reducing velocity, and the transaction limit is also reducing velocity.

so its about bitcoin governance and rule changes and the consequences to investors is a result of how people repack to soft and hard forks.

level 8

to do that we need to take heed and understand soft forks are insidious.

And I was pointing out that one of the devs OP mentioned does not seem to agree with this. That's all.

level 9

I see, as i said I tend to disagree, P2SH was a mistake. It validates the problem with soft forks.

level 10

That's fine. I'm not here to argue about soft forks or block size. I'm here to clarify facts.

level 3
Bitcoin Cash Developer1 point · 10 months ago

People being smart doesn't imply they can't disagree.

level 4

I agree, but OP seems to be implying that not supporting soft forks was 'understanding what the situation was', and I wanted them to be aware that, by that logic, Gavin is not in that category.

level 1

/u/tippr $1

It was one a combination of Mike's blog posts, Gavin's and some debates that made me realise that there was something up..

It'll be compulsory reading for my children one day. :D

level 2
2 points · 10 months ago

u/cryptorebel, you've received 0.00219606 BCC ($1 USD)!


^^How to use | ^^What is Bitcoin Cash? | ^^Who accepts it? | Powered by Rocketr | r/tippr
Bitcoin Cash is what Bitcoin should be. Ask about it on r/btc

level 1

Fucking exactly, man. It’s nice he understands soft and hard too. I’m glad he points out many people say it and don’t know what they are talking about even when they think they know.

The dude abides.

Community Details

213k

Subscribers

7.9k

Online

Welcome to /r/btc! Home of: Up to date Bitcoin discussions, News and Exclusive AMA (Ask Me Anything) interviews from top Bitcoin industry leaders, and more! Bitcoin is the *currency of the Internet*. A distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Unlike traditional currencies such as dollars, bitcoins are issued and managed without the need for any central authority whatsoever.

Create Post
r/btc Rules
1.
Asking for votes
2.
No begging for bitcoin
3.
No Referral links or URL shortening services
4.
Scam/Malware
5.
Duplicate
6.
Abusive
Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.