My motivation for this post came out of a rare constructive discussion I was having with a core supporter on this forum. My desire is to better understand the facts that lead to the creation and split of BCH from BTC.
My understanding is that segwit activation did not have consensus with miners, but they did support a blocksize increase. As a result of the NY and Hong Kong meetings an agreement was reached that the miners would signal to activate segwit with the stipulation that there would be a future hardfork to raise the blocksize limit to 2MB. Of course that hard fork never happened. It seems to me that the miners were tricked into activating segwit because without those agreements it would not have happened, or at least not at that time.
BCH was created to preserve the original bitcoin without segwit.
No one from the Core side ever voiced support for the 2x deal. No small blocker did. It was a last ditch attempt to get a blocksize increase hardfork done.
Greg, Luke, myself, and plenty of others were perfectly fine with SegWit not getting implemented if it didn't have consensus. You can't make the argument that things shouldn't get implemented without overwhelming consensus and them argue for something being implemented that doesn't have overwhelming consensus.
If these statements are true, then I'm wondering who from the Core team was present at these meetings and agreed to the deal. Is there anyone who can be held accountable for breaking their end of the bargain? Can it really be considered consensus considering the manipulation and lies that occurred?
[link] [comments]
source https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/ase5bj/were_the_miners_tricked_into_activating_segwit/
No comments:
Post a Comment