Quote from: hv_ on August 14, 2017, 12:31:02 PM

Quote from: thejaytiesto on August 14, 2017, 12:18:39 PM

Quote from: hv_ on August 14, 2017, 09:51:36 AM

Quote from: thejaytiesto on August 13, 2017, 03:21:51 PM

Quote from: redhorse on August 12, 2017, 04:50:50 PM

Quote from: thejaytiesto on August 12, 2017, 04:30:44 PM

What I don't get is, if segwit is such a flaw, how come all these programmers are saying it's perfectly fine, risking their reputation for life? I mean everyone in Core is wrong? Andreas A is wrong?, why are they gambling with their reputation? because I don't believe no one of these guys has realized the supposed flaws that have been commented about segwit for a while.

I am asking myself exactly the same question. I'Ve googled for Segwit and stealing transaction and didn' find a lot of matches. Why is there not more discussion about it?

The idea is that the transactions made under the segwit format would become an eventual prize pot for hackers to steal (well, in this case it would be miners), so we would be under a DAO-type disaster but instead of ETH stuck in some exploitable smart contract, it would be the BTC in all the segwit addresses (that is what I understand as a non-coder)

My question is: If Peter Wuille, Gmaxwell, Luke Dash Jr, Adam Back, Eric Lombrozo, TheBlueMatt, and the list goes on and on, of people that have either contributed or publicly supported segwit, either don't know that this can happen or know that it will happen and ignore it, it seems like they are all a bunch of kamikazes ready to ruin their reputation pretty much for life. The question is obviously: Why?

And I don't believe for a second none of them are aware of the potential disaster described by anonymint, so why are they ignoring it? Maybe they consider it only a theoretical risk that can never happen in practice? It just seems strange to me, that all of them are willing to gamble with their reputation, hoping that nothing goes wrong.

Quite interesting logic here, but I wonder about 2 points as well

1. Same question hold why most of the hashpower do (did) not support what these big and influencing core list strongly support and offer ? Reputation is much more risky to hashpower (hardware, bitcoin, long-term) investment than to coding business.

2. What chances have core to stay in power for as long as possible and do side chain coding business on 2nd layers, where a stupid block size increase solves a lot and makes this business redundant? - They just try to win where there is nothing really, but they have the historic track record allowing this to some degree.

So I conclude the SW will still be delayed (attacked), no matter with or w/o the 2x by most hashpower - to get core to the final thing: Change PoW. This will be the ultimate alt CoreCoin to get rid of them.

Miners reputation is way less relevant for their financial future than coders.

A miner can fuck around with their signaling intention to manipulate the price and make some money. At the end of the day, people are still going to accept their hashrate on their coins because hashrate is hashrate. As far as their mining-gear sales, it's not clear to me it would have an impact. Bitmain has fucked around to the max and they still are the monopoly in sales.
I want to see what happens once intel, nvidia and AMD join the mining game along other bigger actors.

But what I mean is, Bitmain seems to be still doing ok ASIC sales wise.

Now if a coder fucks up at the scale of the theoretical segwit disaster... his career is over. Who is going to hire you if you will be remembered for such a fail?

Well you may still get some jobs, but as far as street creed as a coder goes, that would be a fatal mistake, specially in bitcoin. Any big mistake in bitcoin will cost a lot to the coder involved in the fuckup.

This is why I don't understand why all these people are willing to gamble with their hard earned reputation across years, taking the risk to become a DAO-developer tier joke. I mean who is going to buy a project made by the DAO guys now? lol

So that's what I don't get at all. And these people are all rich as fuck already, so im ruling out money. Therefore, why are they doing it?

OK - I hear you.

I've been working with many devs in industry for several years and I know devs are getting in love with pure code, functions and features - but just for sake of being code heroes. They lose contact to the earth and to economics totally and do lot of code work overtime just for own nerdy pleasure - I did escape.

I know it is really needed to split tasks - things are getting way too complex and (protocol !!) code is only needed to ensure minimum requirements to enable easy client dev. All other stuff has to be done in the different clients and their very needs.

Scaling comes mostly for free, if you keep code clean and easy (put it concurrent!) and get other hardware tech for free on top (get Moore !!).

Economics is the chooser.

I do not see we are even close to..

But you are saying that EVERYONE involved in segwit, either coding it or promoting it, have lost their mind and are promoting it because they are nerds that value the code above everything else?

If you are implying that blocksize increases are the solution, according to data gathered on full nodes performance, it isnt:

I mean anything higher than 2MB is just nuts in practice. The exponential growth would be too much. And what does 2MB solve really? it's just nothing in the big picture. The cons outweighs the pros. Fee market will prevail unless you want only corporations and rich people to run nodes (and assuming these rich people care about staying on a decentralized network, they would need non-rich people to run nodes too because they are the bulk of the population that would allow a widespread network, otherwise it's not really decentralized).

The paradox is that, if there is no further scaling, there will be less and less incentive to run full nodes since less and less people will be able to to make transactions. But most non-rich people would understand by then that BTC is mostly to hold and not to constantly move it, and I think some scaling would eventually be allowed.

Anonymint often quotes the Trilema guy, and I was once reading his blog and I think even him considered an eventual blocksize increase if the hardfork meet certain requirements (I think this is what I understood unless he was trolling, but it seemed a serious blog entry, I dont have the time to find it now just look around).

But that is a very different thing from pretending to hardfork in 3 months for example. The fees are still low and the fees will need to go way higher for any of that to get a serious consideration.