Post
Topic
Board Speculation
Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
by
Cconvert2G36
on 19/02/2016, 00:05:23 UTC
This is why they are pushing SegWit first. They know that if 2MB blocks happen, once everyone sees how easy it was it will become more difficult push SegWit onto the ecosystem. SegWit is a major overhaul and I could see many more miners and nodes dragging their feet on SegWit once they know the next 4MB change is easy too.


Nailed it.

They are not afraid of 2MB max blocks at all. They are afraid that when the sky doesn't fall... miners won't accept hot wiring Bitcoin into a settlement layer. They also fear the precedent that miners are in charge (a correct and good thing), not them.

 


Wall Street doesn't give a toss about decentralization. If it turns out the market doesn't either, eventually a competing hard fork will take Core's place.
Smallblockers want to maintain node decentralization by centralizing code development.
I don't see any way to decentralize code development. Competing protocols doesn't seem to be the answer.

everyone codes whatever feather they want

miners vote on the feathers they are ready and willing to accept

once >90% of miners are all accepting a specific feather it is turned on.

core is going to start using this method soon.

But even if 90% of the miners are mining something, it's the nodes that determine the longest valid chain. That's why they can't just fork off at will. Isn't it?

When you want to use Bitcoin but your non mining wallet node doesn't work anymore... are you going to start mining your own blocks? Or are you going to simply upgrade your client?

Similar with segwit. Even if I hate it (as a SF that changes fee economics), I am required to upgrade if I want to keep validating all transactions on the network. Unlike a HF, someone not paying attention won't even be aware that such a dramatic change has been pushed through.