Bitcoin Forum

Personally, I don't want bitcoin to split. It is a confusing process and it will affect the businesses and merchants who allow Bitcoin as payment. It will basically stuff up the entire Bitcoin landscape. However, I still think we need to implement SegWit. Block size is a big issue and if we can actually reduce the space that a transaction takes up by 60%, then it will sole many problems, for now. But in the future we would probably need to use another method when more people become involved into Bitcoin.

What do you think?

EDIT: Sorry about the title. I meant to write August 1. Is there anyway I can edit that?

Best that Bitcoin doesn't split but a centralized Bitcoin is a dead Bitcoin.

Yes you can ironically EDIT that mate, though that's a good title as every one only talks about the day 1 but nothing about the day after that.

The day after August the first I could imagine Wu jumping up and down in a 6 stars hotel on a honeymoon king size bed shouting how he just managed

To earn hundreds of millions by causing a chaotic environment around the Bitcoin community and then he just bought all the dumped coins.

what happened for Bitcoin Unlimited? Once ever, I buy BTU on bitfinex, but bitfinex seems like an unethical businessman, merciful, and shortly after, BTU is gone away

BTU is Jihan premined scamcoin

You're missing an option in your poll which should be, "no, but we need to scale up transaction throughput!"

The only reason there will be a fork is if people refuse to let Bitcoin evolve to meet its adoption.

And Segwit makes no sense to me. If the witness is separated (segregated) from the transaction details, can it ever be linked back up or are they separate forever. I don't know about you but I want a witness validating my transaction...I want it to be public that money sent to my BTC address is meant for my BTC address and no one elses.

The only reason a fork will occur is those that refuse to evolve. Technically there was a fork in transportation when the automobile was invented...some people refused to use it and continued to use horse drawn buggy. That didn't turn out so well for the horse and buggy traditionalists.

P.S. the Segwit date is set for August 1st, no?

Stupid poll. Where's the option for "Fuck segwit, it's poision. We need a big block for to 8mb asap!"?

I want a real chance for users to vote.

This means a chain split and we will vote with our money. The Full Node propaganda is crap and even if it had any technical support, any sane user, and by user I mean Exchanges who control the money flow, will just run 2 nodes. The only way for ALL users to have a say, is for both Chains to be listed and let users dump whichever they don't like. 

So yes. I want a chain split so I can have a say in this.

You have that chance, you need to download bitcoin core softward and launch a node. No need to commit to mining, just  having a node gives you the opportunity to vote on the type of transactions you're accepting.

You can find the download link to the software at the top of every page on this forum at: News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core...

I realize you think it's crap but it's literally how you activate your vote. The money comes second. You don't get a choice to to decide the favored chain if you're not running a node. You just get to decide to go with the flow or go with the "no". It's like the feeling people have voting in a two party system...they feel compelled to vote for one of the two major parties and voting a third party would be like voting for the dying coin version.

---

I couldn't agree more, hahaha. Well said!

so bitfinex is also a scamexchange.

I find it a misconception. If there is no Hashrate in the UASF chain, there isn't even a vote to be had. So whichever node you run has little meaning. This is all between the Miners and Exchanges. Miners will propose solutions, Exchanges will delegate the vote to the crowd by listing them.

UASF would be just the same without the 1 person 1 node propaganda. You might argue it has social relevance. Like a sit in in front of the white house. Or a hunger strike. It's a legitimate way to show discontent. But in the end, it is not how you exercise your vote. By running a node, you are just signalling intention. To act upon it you have to put your money or it is meaningless.  

Your money is how you vote. Which is a perfect system for me, because it ensures you vote responsibly and look for information rather than being spoonfed by CNN.

Edit your first post, you will see title of the thread than just edit it.

Segwit2x is not a hard fork however there is some possibility of network split after activation of segwit on august.

Their activity is quite suspicious and they don't have enough security layers so they are vulnerable to hacks. Its better to not use them at any cost.

This!

The entire crypto community will get scammed by Chinese fuckers once more. After that, in a few weeks, months, everything will be back to normal and poor unsuspecting weak hands will be asking themselves where did their money go?

It really misleads people on reading it specially on newbies. Its not indeed a hardfork and talking about bitfinex exchange i have completely lost my trust to them since on what happened to them back in the past. They do show off their flaw regarding security and as an exchange this is should be the primary concern.

I am not against bigger blocks, but not at the cost of bitcoin network being controlled by a single entity or a couple of individuals.

1. Manufacturer of mining equipments want to control the network. Can it be more centralized?

2. There was ghash pool that hit 51%, and there is Chinese mining cartel with more than 51% combined.

3. Chinese government isn't in favour of bitcoin, a centralized decision to ban bitcoin in China would end up in taking down half of the decentralized bitcoin network.

Spam attacks, threatening the community because you own half of the network, is this the way to find a scalable solution?

Increasing block size is just a temporary solution. LN, sidechain/drivechain, extension blocks is a necessity if bitcoin needs to be used as an appropriate medium of exchange.


Let the economic majority decide.

Come on, the consolidation of mining operations, and therefore a handful of "people" controlling the blockchain will happen regardless of transaction throughput size. It's an economies of scale fact. As it becomes harder to mine the independent miners will wash out leaving only the biggest of operations conducting the work at a profitable pace. The only thing slowing down this eventuality is the price appreciation of bitcoin.


Can you please explain to us why this is a temporary solution? If extension blocks are ultimately needed then we should just make the transfer to that end.

My answer is simply NO and I want Segwit to be activated the BIP 141 way. If it reaches the deadline and it is still not activated then we have to accept that. It is not the end of the world for Bitcoin.

Yeah, a major portion of bitcoin mining would get restricted to a particular country or an organization, as far as they are mining, no problem, but when they start using their mining majority to enforce their propaganda on the community, it is a problem.

LN would make transactions instant with the lowest fee. With bigger blocks, you order a coffee, drink, wait for the transaction to get confirmed, pay. With LN, you order a coffee, confirmed, pay, and drink. Just an example of not online, but how offline merchant payments would become a lot more feasible.

Which wallet do you use? Around 145 GB to synchronize blockchain. Obviously if bitcoin gets adopted on a large scale, the above figure wouldn't be limited to three digits. Increased block size, on chain transactions would get confirmed quickly with less congestion, but the network is always growing. The purpose of bitcoin is instant worldwide transaction with lowest fee, a side solution needs to be integrated into the network for this, that's what I meant by bigger block size isn't enough.

Segwit 2 MB, Segwit2x 4-8 MB. Right now remove spam dust transactions and 2 MB is more than enough for transactions to get confirmed, implement side options, bitcoin users would have the freedom to choose what method of transaction they want to use. Fork the network, users don't have a choice. It's as simple as that.

Forgive me here, LN? What's LN? EDIT: Lightning Network, yea?

A well known online wallet, a lessor known online wallet, and a hardware wallet.

Are you also saying that the reason increased block sizes isn't enough is due to the growing size of blockchain history? Valid point, but then we should all agree that one doesn't need to have the entire blockchain downloaded, as long as it always can be downloaded from bitcoin.org.

When people say side options I always think of alt coins but I realize that's not it. You don't have any concerns about Segwit? What's the implication of removing the witness?

And yeah, fork it, give it a good rogering!

A Chain split is never a good thing, because it creates confusion and fear and that is never a good thing for investors. On the other hand, if we can get rid of the group of people who are sabotaging and slowing down Bitcoin, then we have to cut off the limb that is causing all this cancer in our community. I would rather go forward without a arm and/or a leg, than dragging a sick limb behind me that is causing discomfort. < The Jihan/Roger Ver group is the Cancer of this community >   ^grrrrrrrr^

Aren't Jihan/Roger Ver for the solution that speeds up the bitcoin network by allowing greater transaction sizes through?

The sabotagers, as you call them, would be the people that refuse to let Bitcoin grow with the increased demand and adoption we've all witnessed and want to continue. There are so many alternatives available. If bitcoin does not keep up with speed and cost it will be abandoned.

You forget about gory details and nasty repercussions

The most serious one which exchanges never fail to stress seems to be related to the so-called replay attack which is possible when a chain split happens (just like it happened with the Ethereum split). This attack comes down to spending coins on one chain, and the respective transaction inadvertently (or not so inadvertently) propagating to another chain, so coins end up having been spent on the two chains. I read that Coinbase lost some monies due to this kind of attack. It might well have been a deliberate attempt by someone rebroadcasting every transaction from one chain to the other. Without doubt, there should be a host of other issues too

This is why I have been abundantly clear everywhere that I perfectly support Hard Forks in these cases. I think this soft fork represents much more danger. Because until users get to vote safely (no replay, reorg), you are stuck in a limbo game of chicken while everyone else is watching from the sidelines wondering what will happen with our money.

If you made it a hard fork, this could be immediately be solved in the market.

In fact, the only way I understand the UASF adoption procedure as a soft fork, is that game theory wise, it diminishes the hashrate need for it to go through. Instead of 51%, you now only need 51% - x where X is the market share of the biggest mining pool. Also the fact that whoever splits the chain definetively, altcoins themselves. This is the game of chicken preparing for the game of blame that will come after and the rights to Bitcoin brandname.

It creates increasing and exponential pressure for miner adoption rather than a real vote. As a user, until there is a Hard Fork, you are just participating in a peaceful sit in. Or a vigil. Or a meetup. It has its merits, but no practical utility.

even if BTU were to become the future bitcoin and gain all the support you shouldn't have bought it! because it is not yet anything! you bought a virtual promise at best. and the only person making a profit is the exchange themselves who get the fees from you.

to OP, i disagree with saying there is an urgency for a scaling solution. the spam attack is the problem that is pretending there is an urgency.

worst idea, which is not helping bitcoin to solve the scaling problem anyway, so why bother with hard forking, which will split anyway the chain?

segwit without the hard fork is the way to go for now, until better solution come up, it's not about finding the best solution but just the best we have

I'm not sure whether blockchain will split or not but I think we're really need scaling solution to increase adopters and merchants to adopt and use bitcoin as an alternative currency which could be used all over the world (as long as there is internet connection) just like people use PayPal to purchase goods right now. The spam attack could be prevented by increase blocksize, so miners could process more transactions every 10 minutes.

Soft fork please  :D

I don't think bitcoin will actually split. It's just important for us to implement the segwit so we can go forward. Segwit can be a big step in preparing bitcoin to go mainstream.

And what does it change in the end?

Cloning an existing blockchain with all its transactions as well as balances and making this new blockchain somewhat incompatible with the original one is the way to go when some group doesn't agree to proposed changes. Would that count as a hard fork? And does soft fork pose these dangers if there is no second blockchain and thus no potential for such issues arising? That's the reason why major exchanges require any hard fork resulting in what is essentially an altcoin to implement means to avoid the replay attack before they are going to list this fork (altcoin)

I will also not vote for this blockchain splitting and not sure this is going to happen or not. One thing is sure that if it split, then people will get confused, and it takes some time to attract new people to use bitcoins in real life. This segwit intention is to attract more new users and Bitcoin will use by all over the world without any issues. I think after this August 1st many issues of bitcoin will be solved.

Obvious shill, why is it so obvious? because you have nothing to say other than cursing Core and their upgrade. I think Core should also change their name like BU did and now is EC.