Bitcoin Forum

SegWit2x is a hard fork of the Bitcoin protocol happening on September 30th as a result of the New York Agreement. The fork changes the max block size from 1MB to 2MB. Unlike Bitcoin Cash, SegWit2x has no replay protection, meaning that transactions on one network can be broadcast on the other, sending both your Bitcoin coins and your SegWit2x coins to the same address. This makes it very hard/impossible to only send one or the other coin.

These are the facts, what follows are the opinions of me and some other members of the community.

• SegWit2x is an attack on Bitcoin, designed to move control of the software design from the developers into the hands of the miners.
• The blocksize should not be increased until all other measures to make the network more efficient have been exhausted (Lightning Network, Schnorr Signatures, MAST,
  etc.)

Here's what you can do to oppose this:

• Run a full node (At least v0.15.0) to support standard network rules.
• Contact companies that support SegWit2x still and request they change their stance.

This is just what I think. I would like to know what the rest of the community's position on this is, as a lot of my opinion is admittedly from /r/Bitcoin, which can be an echo chamber at times. I encourage everyone to have a discussion on this so that everyone can make fully informed decisions.

Edit: It appears I was grossly mistaken in how many days are remaining. I have edited the title to reflect that.

My stance is a fairly liberal one.  I'm always inclined to take the position that everyone having complete and total freedom to run whatever code they choose is infinitely preferable to a scenario where one group dictates to all the other groups what they can or can't do.  I don't subscribe to the notion some people around here seem to endorse, that one single development team should make all the decisions for the rest of forever and everyone else should obey.  I'm happy to endure a little turbulence and open rebellion if it keeps the would-be authoritarians in this community in check.

The miners are perfectly entitled to secure a 2mb base and 6mb witness chain if that's what they want to do with their hashpower.  I don't know where anyone gets off thinking they can dictate to other people what chain they have to secure.  Similarly, the Core devs are perfectly entitled to change the mining algorithm on the 1mb base and 3mb witness chain making the miner's hardware all but useless on it.  In the end, everyone gets what they think they want.  At least until they change their mind when it doesn't work out as well as they thought it would.  Which could still happen after the fork.  The split might be permanent, but it might not.  We'll have to see how it plays out.

As for the poll, I support the right for SegWit2x to exist if people want it to.  I'm not sure if that's what you had in mind for an answer,  though.

seggy2x is pointless because of BCH.

However the market will decide.

All this could have been a avoided long time ago.

No, there's ~40 days left. You've got your numbers mixed up. Anyhow, SegWit2x has almost zero community support and is nothing other than an attack from Jihan, i.e. takeover attempt. Run Core and avoid those baboons.

---

N. Szabo on Jihan and Ver:
https://i.imgur.com/lZIiX3x.png
https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/909916674970738688

It wont be in 10 days. November 18  is around the date we can expect block 494784, which is when Segwit2x should hard fork to 2MB blocks.

I also heard that this will happen in November. And in the same month bitcoin will again become cheaper. I hope that due to the increase in the block, the Chinese major miners will not get a monopoly on this field

Well, although I think they are wrong, and there is not need for the increase of the block size, because everyone already has an option for bigger blocks, since they can just choose BCH if they want that, and second, there are may options on the table that will address the problems with high fees and slow transactions (like the lightning network). Of course that only means that I will stick to Bitcoin, and since there is no replay protection, I wont even touch that other coin.

Anyway I also think that we will have Bgold on October, which is a friendly fork, and that hard fork, if it ever takes place, will only happen on November.

I see your point that people treat SegWit2x very strangely and that claiming that SegWit2x somehow shifts power from developers to miners, when in fact that doesn't happen at all, is a strange echo chamber which some people now find themselves in.

However, the poll is about your personal support for SegWit2x, not about its right to exist.
It's not.  SegWit2x is making a clear effort to work with the same merchants and payment processors that the current main chain already has, and in doing so is not like Bitcoin Cash, which is working similarly to a new altcoin.
If the SegWit2x chain has a significant value, you'd be better off not touching Bitcoin during that period either.

i think after segwit2 the bitcoin will be rise.if it s faster,it s more valuable.Also BCH affect to.i think bitcoin will survive unscathed.i dont even worry as soft fork which happens on august

I think we will see a similar thing happen after Segwit2x as the previous fork. The price is crashing/unstable now as there is uncertainty. However, after the fork (or no fork) at least there will not be any more drama involved in that respect and we will be able to see the price rise. I for one am in favor of Segwit2x as it makes the implementation of LN easier, which we desperately need.

I really hope this doesn't cause any major problems in the near future and neither do we want anymore splits happening with the bitcoin network, We haven't fully recovered from the Chinese threatening to ban bitcoin mess yet so, I am bit skeptical about any further changes to bitcoin in any way.

Well it is good to know that it will at least needs longer days than what OP had stated.  I always support anything that will push Bitcoin to another level even if it needs to leave all the obsolete codes behinds as long as it holds the fundamentals of why Bitcoin is created.    This is technology and it needs improvement and need to evolve, if it failed to evolve, it will be left out and eventually die due to some new competitor with advance technology and scalability out there.

Oops, you're right. I'm not sure where I got the September 30th date from.

I do agree with the other voices in this thread that SegWit2x has a right to exist, but as those people have already pointed out, this thread is about personal support.

I actually disagree with you here, because I would support SegWit2x before I supported BCH, simply because of the existence of SegWit and relatively smaller block sizes in 2x.


I agree with all of your points, even though I may prefer the one chain over the other, what you said is true in my mind.

I initially thought of SegWit2x as a good approach to bring the community back together, but the more time I spent looking into the matter, the less convinced I was. The final nail in the coffin being the deliberate lack of replay protection.

I'm all for hardforks to let the market decide which currency prevails, but the lack of replay protection is just reckless. Say what you will about BCH, but at least they got that part right, albeit barely.

I agree with everything OP said.

One question though, can they call it a fork if the network forces everyone to use bitcoin and its alt?

Also if it becomes impossible to move your bitcoin without also moving the bitcoin alt, could that be an additional layer of surveillance/monitoring/regulation via the altcoin network software?

PS - does anyone notice how the only ones who support forks are from china or brand new accounts with less than 100 activity?

We shouldn't hold an idea that someone is out to get us. Forks happen, their intent is impossible to know. Increasing the block size gives an obvious benefit, so we can't just claim that it is an attack. People can run whatever they want and no one should be attacked for it. No one can hurt you on the blockchain. It is a consensus. If people want a different consensus, then let them have it, it is their right.

That being said I think Bitcoin should avoid any hard forks unless it is necessary. I believe that stability of the technology is very important for it's success.
This is up to the users what they want to use, but I am just making points on why I believe people shouldn't support Segwit2x even tho there is nothing wrong with supporting it if you believe it is a right choice.

I believe that Segwit2x came too early and is putting way to much at stake and therefor puts the users on more pressure to make a choice on something that might not be necessary at all. We haven't seen if Lightning network and Segwit is enough for scaling the Bitcoin network and no replay protection means that you have to make a choice.

It just seems to rushed and to forced for no good reason. If people believe in Segwit2x then that is completely reasonable, but if they believe that they have to activate it in a month, I would say that that is unreasonable. Not wrong or evil, just unreasonable.

I don't understand that is wrong with both of these ? I mean it's okay for me that miners are the ones deciding how it should be since they are the one confirming transactions. About that second point, yeah Lightning network would be great byt blockchain size increase is the easiest fix  right now.

It got us Segwit which is a wonderful thing, though we'll never know how big a factor UASF was in that. The hard fork bit is reckless, rushed, put together by nobodies and the companies shouting loudest for it like Bitpay are starting to look like real penises.

I can't see how it's going to succeed in its present form. At the same time its failure would strengthen Core even more and perhaps it's time there was a reminder that it can't always be their way or the highway.

A lot could change between now and then. There might not be any of the Chinese miners or pools around by then to signal it.

If this  another coming event is true and i have had some experiences already went though still i always keep the faith that bitcoin will survived this because lot of investors especially in popular names will help to protect the investment. I just thinking other people may panic again i hope they already learned from tha past.

The BCH developers waited until the last few days before the fork (i.e. the 11th hour) to add replay protection. Just like the Segwit2x guys, they didn't want to add replay protection because 1) it would make BCH not Bitcoin and 2) there wouldn't be working HD wallets out the box. Those two aspects make a hard fork much less attractive, so naturally, the forkers want to maintain the position that "consensus has been reached, so replay protection is not necessary."

Of course, hard forks basically guarantee network splits, so replay protection should always be necessary. I hope that this becomes the normal etiquette. Everyone should be free to fork, but lack of replay protection means many people will lose money -- guaranteed.

I agree we dont need another bitcoin coming out of this since a bunch of bitcoin forks will be bad for the real bitcoin in the long run.

Stop this stupid Segwit thing, everything is okay now. This would lead to another crazy coin popping out to wallets like BCC.

Dont ruin the entire crypto currency.

That's what I meant by BCH getting that part barely right :)

If I recall correctly they had their wonky first 2-way replay protection already earlier in place (wonky in that it was opt-in for BTC transactions). It's just that the final 2-way protection got implemented about 2-3 days before the fork.

I wonder what will happen to BCash... They will have to choose one of the chains to mine.

Not a supporter of any of those, but it will be interesting to see.

I support the segwit2x fork because i think it will be a huge step up for bitcoin and it will improve its current abilities  and i think it will be a great fork for bitcoin and it will attract more people because they will see that bitcoin is getting more improvements and in the next year, we can see a 10,000 USD price of bitcoin which is my target price.

It all depends on whether SegWit2x coin will get listed on major exchanges, because without it miners wont be able to sell their rewards, and so far no exchange has announced that they would list it. If the fork will be at least slightly successful and new coin will be created, than the result might be similar to what happened with BCH diffuculty adjustments, but now it will be more complicated because miners will be switching between 3 coins with the same algo. But if you'll check the graph, this lasted only a few days, so it can be only a short-lived disruption for the main network.

its another drama that we will going to expect who's going to sell their bitcoin holding and who will hold to get free just like what happen to bitcoin cash
I think it will just ruin the value for ones and another downfall to expect good time to wait for this and see what this coin will bring to the community of
crypto after SegWit2x got release from btc chain.

any thoughts on why the byzantium fork was delayed?

Bitcoin Cash has lost nearly all of it's hashrate now, being nearly completely abandoned because of it's terrible "emergency difficulty adjustment". I find it very hard to say how people will sell SegWit2x because I believe it's impossible to send either fork and not have someone replay the transaction on the other one. I want to say it's impossible but I don't have the technical knowledge to say for sure. So they really are just trying to take over the network and become the default implementation.

coin.dance is showing that 85.7 of the miners are signaling for segwit2x, if this figure stays in favor of segwit2x does it means that the fork will succeed and segwit2x will be implemented?

The miners do not control Bitcoin. The control is mostly in the hands of the users. The day that this proves otherwise is the day that Bitcoin dies along with pretty much any other cryptocurrency using similar models.

All that shows is that they have adequate hashpower to secure a chain.  But ordinary people would still have to use that chain and also maintain a decent amount of economic activity for the fork to be considered a success.  The problem seems to be that no one can agree on how much activity is actually needed to justify calling it a success.  Many argue BCH wasn't a success because it's transaction volumes are miniscule compared to the BTC chain, but fans argue the fact that it's still chugging along means it's successful enough.  I still don't take BCH all that seriously, personally.

I think the jury is out on that. Developers like Luke Dash Jr seem to think that changing the POW algorithm to "fire" the miners will deter future takeover attempts like we are seeing now. I'm skeptical of those claims, because they don't address the underlying reason why we are at these crossroads: capital concentration in mining chip fabrication and the entrenchment of major stakeholders (like Bitmain). Litecoin was supposed to be ASIC resistant, but Bitmain now produces SCRYPT miners. For GPU-oriented economies, companies like NVDA have disproportionate influence on the mining industry and can have quite a centralizing effect. There are no easy answers here.

Having said all that, the majority of miners moving to the Segwit2x network (and even a majority of users) would not mean that Bitcoin dies. It will take years and it will be a long and painful market process, but I firmly believe that the corporate/bizcoin chain would lose in the end.

Luke Dash Jr tends to have some extreme 'black-and-white' views on certain subjects. Changing the algorithm is the nuclear option but it is not completely off of the table. That would likely happen as a last resort effort, which would destroy the ASIC centralization.

They do address the problem. Mining works primarily under two assumptions: a) Mining will act in the best interest of the users. b) Attacking the network would not make sense economically, thus playing honest is expected behavior. The former we have seen to not be true with some malicious miners such as Bitmain/Antpool & co.

Segwit2x will always be an altcoin, regardless of what happens to Bitcoin.

---

Trading ShitCoin2x: https://blog.bitmex.com/trading-shitcoin2x/. :D

One note on this. Mining ostensibly works in the best interest of the users, but since mining functions purely by profit incentive, it will never be true. This is why we have seen double spend attacks by mining pools before. If they can't be held accountable, miners will steal from users. So it should come as no surprise that really entrenched miners like Bitmain tried to paint the narrative such that they were saving users from high fees, when they were really trying to establish AsicBoost and maintain control over the block size limit themselves.

The other problem that has been hinted at here is that attacking the network might make sense economically from a long term perspective. That notion more so applies to short term attacks that work within the consensus rules (like block withholding or 51% attacks). If Bitmain thinks that they can secure AsicBoost through popularization of BCH (while exploiting the EDA no less), that's a high risk but high reward play.

I recently read about the infamous antbleed and some other Bitmain related stuff.

Sure these guys are great at making hardware but they suffer greed to the point of stupidity.  Their stance seems to be: if I can't have it my way, then f*** it, cut the damn baby in half.  They seem ready to destroy the network rather than imagine a way to increase revenue that isn't Asicboost.  I suspect that some of the things I read about them can't be true, because no one would be that stupid right?  Competing and arguably better technology is available in alts.  I was looking at some crap coins on coinmarketcap, and was surprised to find that coins well above 200 and beyond have caps above a million usd.  Remember when that used to be pennies up there?  Coin #301 has a 24h volume of ~40k!  This is peanuts I know, but its #301!

Do these clowns really think that they can do whatever they want and Bitcoin will remain the invincible king?  Cryptos are here to stay.  But whenever a coin gets wrecked it is quickly forgotten.  Nothing is too big to fail!  IMO Bitmain has permanently destroyed their own reputation through stupid greed.  And guess what, there are lots of competitors chomping at the bit to replace them.

Disclaimer: I am generally a noob so it is possible that I have completely misread the situation.

Awfully interesting project. Obviously not a scam.  I will keep an eye on this.

I disagree, especially as 'never' is very strong wording.

Legal action? PoW change? Of course they can be held accountable.

Bitmain, aka Jihan is a PBOC agent thus you shouldn't expect him to act reasonably.

Bitmain is just corrupt evil.

Bitcoin will not fall from this, thus using 'nothing is too big to fall' and similar in this context is wrong. If it were to fall, all other PoW coins would be worthless.

Classic shitpost.