@Excellion How much do you think the makebitcoingreatagain.com domain is worth? Asking for a friend…
@FollowTheChain Yep, already have it listed 😊
@giaglis @MScDigital Thanks for the reminder - I’ll add it!
@flyosity I tried to tell people…
@drwasho Right, if you don’t need TM fixed then you don’t have to use SegWit. A hard fork would be cleaner but won’t happen any time soon.
@Steven_McKie New me for a new year! #MBGA
Want to understand Bitcoin better? My epic list of educational resources: https://t.co/V34A6R170f
(Suggestions for other links are welcome!)
@SooMartindale @p4miller @jgarzik @BitfuryGeorge Impossible to predict the future, though. We shall see.
@SooMartindale @p4miller @jgarzik @BitfuryGeorge The @lightning network could easily cause a surge in on-chain fees. https://t.co/3JfGR2Qjrm
@kristovatlas @NickSzabo4 Hm… @lightning network first mover advantage? 😬
@ssoeborg Right, very few people are against both hard and soft forks. Main argument is /how/ to scale, not /if/ to scale.
@ssoeborg There are soft forks & hard forks; you can scale via either. It turns into a philosophical debate about the merits of each.
@jgarzik @el33th4xor @BitfuryGeorge Completely agree - seems to me that 1 step forward is better than 0 steps.
@jgarzik @el33th4xor @BitfuryGeorge A general engineering problem across the board - devs need to shove complexity under the hood.
@jgarzik @el33th4xor @BitfuryGeorge I felt the same way, then wallet & library devs wrote support for it… might as well use it.
@el33th4xor @jgarzik @BitfuryGeorge I’ve lost count at how many people have laughed at Bitcoin’s exceptionalism over the years…
@el33th4xor @jgarzik @BitfuryGeorge If it’s ready, yes. Seems to me that practicality in Bitcoin is far different from traditional software.
@el33th4xor @jgarzik @BitfuryGeorge I just don’t want to be having this same discussion on Jan 1, 2018.
@el33th4xor @jgarzik @BitfuryGeorge I’m sure there are innumerable theoretical ways to approach scaling. I’m focusing on practicality now.
@ssoeborg I wrote this nearly 2 years ago https://t.co/rwRVBWf7y2
@ssoeborg There are multiple possible approaches to scaling. One is allowing more data in blocks. Another is decreasing data required.
@BronxR @el33th4xor @jgarzik @BitfuryGeorge Technically true. I was in favor of a hard fork, but it’s clearly not happening any time soon.
@el33th4xor @jgarzik @BitfuryGeorge The ability for Bitcoin to onboard more users without compromising its strengths.
@SooMartindale @jgarzik @BitfuryGeorge Not the point. Fixing TM enables a platform for building better scaling solutions on top of BTC.
@ssoeborg @KyleBenzle Problem is there is no expectation set for node operators to have to upgrade lest they be forked off the network.
@el33th4xor @jgarzik @BitfuryGeorge I’m in favor of every solution that propels us forward. Thing is, SegWit could be available in 2 weeksâ„¢
@ssoeborg @KyleBenzle It’s more complex code, it changes some economics of UTXO spending, it’s a soft fork that “blinds” nodes to new rules.
@jgarzik @BitfuryGeorge For me, I’d say it’s mostly UTXO and fee related problems. 2nd layer networks may be less susceptible.
@KyleBenzle You’re reading too much /r/btc propaganda.
@deadalnix @ErolKazan I see. Well, I can only fit so much into 140 chars. I’d urge you not to assume that other people have bad intentions.
@deadalnix @ErolKazan Sounds like a straw man argument to me. I don’t see anyone claiming SegWit solves malleability for non-SegWit txns.
@ErolKazan It’s not so much a statistical issue as it is a binary issue of solving problems. https://t.co/Soyc9UUf8S https://t.co/m2PaHBVH2B
@deadalnix @ErolKazan Are you just arguing that it doesn’t solve malleability because non-segwit txns are still malleable?
@JihanWu @www_bw_com @btccom_official @f2pool @haobtc @viabtc @GBMinersPool @slush_pool @BitcoinCom https://t.co/ip4eGDzG7k
Miners: it’s up to you to make Bitcoin great again by fixing transaction malleability. Fastest path forward: activate Segregated Witness.
First bug of 2017: a leap second bug! https://t.co/v5tsMydpHL