I don't think I have been misinformed. I have been reading the same Jimmy Song's articles as you and listening him talk on podcasts. It's just that 2 weeks in Bitcoin is like a year in normal market. Things evolved so much in two weeks. I feel like I'm up to date with SegWit2x and 2MB hard-fork possibilities. But anyway thanks for bringing more people to the understanding.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
This is an example of being misinformed. Do you know how many non-ASICBOOST patents are in a Bitcoin ASIC? Do you know how much ASICBOOST has been used to advantage certain Chinese miners? The answer is tons and not at all respectively. The way you positioned your comment suggested that you belief the FUD that Greg Maxwell started on ASICBOOST for political reasons. That's an example of being misinformed. Miners will never be on the same technological capabilities, somoene will always have an edge, that is how tech and markets work together. Sigh. And segwit doesn't solve scaling. If lightning works, and if lightning is used, which will take years to happen, at that point, it will be a financial derivatives network on top of Bitcoin. Not trustless, not Bitcoin, but a financial derivatives network, debt. Which is fine, but doesn't solve scaling and isn't Bitcoin, but a derivative. The nuances are important, but certain people don't want you to understand those nuances because they want to win a political battle that's complicated and involved.
It's rough out there, and a lot of people use their positions to manipulate people who are less sophisticated while claiming to be objective.
I positioned my comment the same as Jimmy Song, who actually did some research on Bitmain's ASIC. He said that rough estimation of technology's value could be around $2 million (which seemed very little).
How much ASICBOOST has been used to advantage Chinese miners? Only they know, and if you claim to know, I don't believe you.
They have been stalling SegWit for long enough and getting more and more advantage while they are doing that.
Right the potential value was $2mm. Next to nothing. Not even worth bringing up unless someone is playing politics.
There are telltale signs when it is used. Evidence suggests it has never been used at all.
They have not been stalling SegWit. They have been looking for an actual on-chain scaling solution and SegWit doesn't do that. SegWit is also flawed in many ways (changes the economics of certain txes in favor of other txes, adds tons of tech debt, many more negatives), so it's not a binary issue --> Segwit = good, Segwit = bad, someone against SegWit = bad/has an agenda.
SegWit has a potential for scaling the network. It supports option of Lighting network which in theory could speed up transaction time and lower the fees. Sure you can't predict everything and something might come out bad. But how is this not scaling?
And what is making you so sure that Chinese miners are looking for an actual on-chain scaling solution that isn't SegWit? What is that they are looking at? And why they are going trough with SegWit now and admitting that it is the best way forward if it isn't a solution?
A block size increase is what they are looking at. And the roadmap provided by Bitmain included EVERY single scaling option. They aren't putting their eggs in any one scaling basket -- they are (appropriately) willing to explore them all.
Lightning is NOT Bitcoin. It's a financial derivative that is NOT P2P. It has points of centralization. It's cool but it is NOT Bitcoin.
Block size increase also is not the answer. At least not right now. Maybe next year or year after it will be a necessity.