Hacker News Reader

Comment by warboat | Hacker News Reader

Yes, they all failed due to lack of miner support in the form of hashing power. Are you eluding to them failing because non-mining nodes were guarding the entry and exit gates of bitcoin? If that was so, it would be quick, cheap and easy to spin up millions of VM nodes on worldwide servers by bankers and government agencies and just outvote with non-mining nodes. The reality is that bitcoin protocol only recognises mining nodes thru proof-of-work. You are delusional in your understanding of bitcoin networking.

View on HN

but but but I thought you said nodes didn't matter? I thought you said miners make all of the decisions, which 97% were signalling 2x at one point, so couldn't they just adopt whatever consensus rules they want?

Or, perhaps, you don't actually know how bitcoin works, and therefore you can't explain how miner 'support' disappeared, as soon as it came time to decide whether they wanted to be bitcoin miners, or become alt-coin miners? You know, given that the nodes police and enforce consensus in bitcoin 'n all. Miners had a choice. Do what you're told, and mine according to node consensus rules, or don't get paid in bitcoin. So they did what they were told.

And here you are, with you still trying to fight a battle you've already lost. Four times. Losing exactly the same way every time. Because even after all of those losses, you still can't figure out why you always lose. Because even after all of those failures, you still don't understand why you lost, because you still don't understand how bitcoin works.

the segwit2x contentious fork failed due to an "off-by-one" block height issue in the codebase for miners. Even if all the miners were running it, it would never have activated. Did you even know that? Also, most of the segwit2x node signalling were indeed done by Amazon AWS instances of non-mining nodes. It was not miner nodes. Did you even know that?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com