Bitcoin Forum

https://i.imgur.com/vl6x92r.jpg

November is the date when Corporate people will try to takeover Bitcoin.

They tried to do the same thing in July, they couldn't do it. Now this time they will attack much more harder.

This time, it's not going to be as smooth as July. There will be no replay protection.

Some will support the original Bitcoin, some will support 2x. Community will be divided!

People who have no technical understanding will lose their Bitcoins!

Support the CORE! Support Decentralized Bitcoin!

No Bitcoin Developer supports the Segwit2x;

https://i.imgur.com/ttMI1V5.png

Here is the companies who said "YES" to 2x;

1Hash (China)
Abra (United States)
ANX (Hong Kong)
Bitangel.com /Chandler Guo (China)
BitClub Network (Hong Kong)
Bitcoin.com (St. Kitts & Nevis)
Bitex (Argentina)
bitFlyer (Japan)
Bitfury (United States)
Bitmain (China)
BitPay (United States)
BitPesa (Kenya)
BitOasis (United Arab Emirates)
Bitso (Mexico)
Bitwala (Germany)
Bixin.com (China)
Blockchain (UK)
Bloq (United States)
btc.com (China)
BTC.TOP (China)
BTER.com (China)
Circle (United States)
Civic (United States)
Coinbase (United States)
Coins.ph (Phillipines)
Decentral (Canada)
Digital Currency Group (United States)
Filament (United States)
Genesis Global Trading (United States)
Genesis Mining (Hong Kong)
GoCoin (Isle of Man)
Grayscale Investments (United States)
Jaxx (Canada)
Korbit (South Korea)
Luno (Singapore)
MONI (Finland)
Netki (United States)
OB1 (United States)
Purse (United States)
Ripio (Argentina)
Safello (Sweden)
SFOX (United States)
ShapeShift (Switzerland)
surBTC (Chile)
Unocoin (India)
Veem (United States)
Xapo (United States)
Yours (United States)

Here is what you need to do if you want to support decentralized Bitcoin;

1. The bold ones are = Wallets, Exchanges. Start with getting your bitcoins out of these sites and never use them again. Send them an email and tell them leave the Segwit2x agreement.

2. Download the Bitcoin Core Wallet and run a full node!


Get Educated About Segwit2x, READ MORE AND LEARN MORE!

“That’s not Bitcoin, this is Bitcoin.” > https://medium.com/@StopAndDecrypt/thats-not-bitcoin-this-is-bitcoin-95f05a6fd6c2

Don’t Be On The Wrong Side of Bitcoin History > https://medium.com/@Austerity_Sucks/open-letter-to-segwit2x-supporters-dont-be-on-the-wrong-side-of-bitcoin-history-acef69416422

Segwit2x the Broken Agreement > https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/segwit2x-the-broken-agreement-e9035a453c05

My Thoughts on Your Thoughts(Open Letter to Shapeshift's Founder) > https://medium.com/@thepiratewhocantbenamed/my-thoughts-on-your-thoughts-17474d800dda

Shillbert Lies > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-September/000304.html

Why should they leave the Segwit2x agreement when you guys wont be using them again anyway? Thats the problem with you guys, you dont follow even simple logic. You just prove one thing though: it is better to ignore the brigading and manipulation.

It's quite simple;

Overwhelming majority supports the decentralized Bitcoin. These business are nothing without their customers.

Then stop brigading and manipulation if your so sure overwhelming majority going to ignore the NYA services anyway ;)

if you guys have not woken up already.. its all a f**king bait and switch campaign..

the BSCartell (silbert AND blockstream) are in it together. WAKE UP

its the pretend 'choice' to make sheep think its freedom and decentralised but the whole thing is just pushing bitcoin away from satoshi's open vision and down segwit one way street of BSCartel control

either way it plays out BSCartel win and decentralisation is lost.

wake up.

BScartel are meandering dcentralisation.. into meaning purely centralised distribution. which is totally different ideals than what the ethos and reason bitcoin was invented for.

.. and yes i expect the usual propoganda crap from the bscartel shills protecting their friends

Should a bitcoin full node have a  [NO2X] tag added to the User agent string (via -uacomment parameter) ?

if you run "bitcoin core" client as your full node then you are automatically saying "no 2x", there is no point in adding something extra to repeat the obvious in my opinion.

in other words /Satoshi:0.xx.x.x/ is equal to /NO2x/

They are getting nasty and nasty everyday. Today 2x devs just merged the ability for segwit2x to disguise itself to not get banned by 0.15 nodes; https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/commit/28ebbdb1f4ab632a1500b2c412a157839608fed0

https://i.imgur.com/k6g5jQr.png

Bitcoin Cash not affected.

Bitcoin Cash = Bitcoin.

Segwit 1x or 2x =/= Bitcoin.

Act accordingly.

lol
might be worth you researching and realising the term consensus

btc1 wants to use consensus so that the community choose..

its core that want to prevent community choice by CORE.. yes CORE banning nodes and avoiding consensus forming a honest decision on what the community want.

again i state it a different way. CORE are the ones creating the altcoin by preventing consensus from finding a single route based on bitcoins built in decentralised decision making process known as consensus(orphaning mechanism)

please learn consensus and realise CORE are avoiding bitcoins built in mechanisms..
this means core are the nasty ones by becoming the centralised decision makers.

really people.. wake up

The lobbying from the No2X camp is hilarious. They got their Segwit now they don't want the hard blockers the 2X.  It is for that reason I will never support No2X and Core, they are a dishonest bunch with zero integrity. Now that November is here, they are all over Twitter and other platforms trying to lobby for support.

Jonald, fyooking great to hear you. I'm using your wallet for my BCH/real Bitcoin and watching the drama unfold. I don't even have a dog in the 2x fight, so I think I'll sip a margarita, and contemplate if I timed the BCH price dip correctly...

Franky1 still chugging along, eh? Seeing you here after all of the abuse you've taken gives me hope!

Bitcoin Cash = Bitcoin Cash(aka Altcoin aka Shitcoin)

Bitcoin = Bitcoin

Even if a large amount of noise is purely down to the usual suspects, the amount of people objecting to this can't be ignored. I don't see how they can carry on with this plan when there's so much screeching.

Their stated aim was to keep everyone happy, even though it was clear swathes of people weren't initially consulted, but that's now definitively in the crapper.

I am not in favor of centralizing bitcoin. The Aug 2017 fork is enough, why do we need to ruin the btc system thru hardfork which has no replay method?
Even the core developers are not in favor of this garbage.

All you are is propaganda. A few beta male insults. That's it.

I am not a technical boys but I see segwit2x come from the same parties as BCH hardfork like Xapo and friends, they fail in bch hardfork and try to attack the second chance, will bitcoin colapse? If not the bitcoin price will jump and there will be the third attack.

In a way, that's a good thing. It shows that how valuable the Bitcoin is. On the other hand this time attack is more sophisticated. It gets supports from the all major players. But here is the trick;

Miners play big role in this fork. Even though 2x side claim that big majority of the hashpower will shift to 2x, that is not likely to happen because miners can't risk losing millions everyday. Look how it went with Bitcoin Cash.

Bitmain is the biggest supporter of Bitcoin Cash and they hold about %40 of the current Bitcoin hashpower. Why they are still mining Bitcoin?

Bitmain's annual revenue would shrink from 9 figures to 7-8 figures if they would have pointed their machines to Bitcoin Cash.

Also, there other big players in this game who haven't said a word about 2x;

Bitmex, Bitfinex, Bittrex, HitBTC, Poloniex, Gdax, Bitstamp. > Their 24hr volume for today is 253.266 BTC(combined).

This exchanges will also play big part in November. They usually talk and decide together. So we'll see how thing will roll at November.

people and free market will decide, whether core or 2x who will have more supporter. just see and wait how all of this will become.
And when i say about supporter i mean individual bitcoin user, not monopolist corporates. people will choose.
Users here want 2x success not bcause they love it but because they want free money, just like previous fork, they dump free money for btc

2x update without a replay protection is no joke. Hope someone will balls with strong market influence standup? Somebody save bitcoin. Our dreams will be ruin by these selfish investors who wants to hardfork btc.

Yeah, I'm really tired of the BIP148/NO2X crowd and I sort of wish at this point that they forked off with Luke 2 months ago and left the rest of us alone. They act like they own Bitcoin because of a couple-thousand-strong Twitter bubble.

They said BIP148 "is Bitcoin" because "Twitter consensus." And they pushed us to the brink of a permanent split so they could force hasty consensus change. That was a straight-up attack on my interests as long term holder. They are dead to me. They are attackers in my eyes. Just like the Segwit2x guys.

Fuck 2X and fuck NO2X. Those who promoted BIP148 (i.e. basically everyone backing NO2X) are just forkers to me. Forkers can fuck off.

The bigger issue: the community is completely fractured and I feel that the threatened BIP148 split brought everything to a head. It opened Pandora's box. The extreme side of the small blocker camp forced the community to decide between seeing them permanently fork off, or going along with their changes to the consensus rules.

Miners/industry/some users are now doing the same exact thing with Segwit2x: "permanent split or implement our consensus changes." Is anyone really surprised by this after the August drama?

You can put me squarely in the "neutral/status quo" camp. The NO2X camp absolutely does not speak for me, and as someone pointed out, they actively attacked my interests with the fork drama a couple months back. (Do you have any idea how many top buyers they probably got to sell below $2000 based on their forking threats and the resulting uncertainty?)

The silent majority is silent. Stop trying to speak for us, NO2X. Your Twitter brigade doesn't represent millions of Bitcoin users.

There will at least be opt-in replay protection. Basically, for a transaction to be valid on the legacy chain but invalid on the Segwit2x chain, users need to include an output in their transaction to this address: 3Bit1xA4apyzgmFNT2k8Pvnd6zb6TnwcTi

Doing so will therefore split your legacy coins from your Segwit2x coins. Your legacy coins will be in the new address, your Segwit2x coins will remain in the old address (because the splitting transaction is invalid on Segwit2x chain).

https://bitcointechtalk.com/how-segwit2x-replay-protection-works-1a5e41767103

I may not be fully understand whats really happening inside the core. But as a Bitcoin holder, devs must have a strong guts and balls to fight what is right. Let the decision of the whole community prevails not the decision of few rich investors. As I can see this is to cast fear to have the btc price drop.

One clarification to be made here: GDAX and Bitflyer are part of the New York Agreement. If you weren't aware, GDAX = Coinbase (the former is their order book exchange interface, the latter is their simplified broker interface). GDAX is the largest US exchange on the market. Bitflyer is the largest Japanese exchange on the market, and fluctuates within the Top 3 exchanges in the world for volume.

That's not an endorsement of 2X by me. I'm just saying that we can't act like major exchanges "haven't said a word about 2X." Shapeshift and several major wallet services like Blockchain, Jaxx and Xapo are also signed onto the deal. That's nothing to sneeze at!

That's hypocritical, you also can't speak for the silent majority, and you're not silent. Not only that, casting the opinions of twitter users as 'brigading' is disingenuous, an outright lie unless you have any proof.

Miners and some services seem to be forgetting the golden rule of business that the customer is always right - they (NYA signatories) who are supposed to be following the demand instead of trying to dictate it. What they are trying to do (if they will have enough courage to actually do it - fully move to 2x chain) is extremely risky and stupid - if community won't follow them to 2x chain, they will suffer massive loses. But community doesn't risk much - sure such exodus would be disruptive, but eventually Bitcoin will go back to normal and new miners and services will fill up the vacuum - Bitcoin community will just have to wait.

I see franky and fookballz still shilling hard with their alt accounts.

2x will be a failure just like bcash.

The crypto-space is so full of shit. So many agendas, so little time.

Thank you for this info op, I have read responses from various people and asked a lot of my colleagues about this issue and I really think you state a valid point. This is really dangerous for us who love bitcoin as it is. We really have to take action now and stop these bastards in ruining sotoshi’s vision that has been passed along from people to people. Let us join forces to defend bitcoin. We have to.

Just wanted to add my voice since I don't really post here anymore after migrating to reddit.

The Segwit2x fork has been agreed with the miners and still has massive support with > 95% of all blocks tagged as Segwit2x.

Only a small number of companies have explicitly said they will not support Segwit2x and mostly these are Blockstream owned or have caved in to pressure from the Twitter fake account NO2X campaign.

There are some companies the NO2X crowd are claiming as on their side when all they have done is express reservations about the lack of replay protection. Which frankly I don't think should be added, this isn't a fork to create a new coin. This is a fork to enforce an agreed protocol change. A form of replay protection has just been merged so it will be interesting what these companies say now.
Example : https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/740son/nya_signer_uk_company_crypto_facilities_pulls/

The vast majority of all companies in the Bitcoin space have stayed silent and are sticking by long established statements that they will be following the "longest chain". That's the longest chain of whatever is agreed to be "Bitcoin" and in roughly 6 weeks time that may have 2Mb blocks.

Are all the core developers going to quit because of this ? No, they have jobs and careers established and most won't be going anywhere so they will just start working on an implementation which in compatible with Segwit2x and which also brings in the changes they want to see introduced. This could be the segwit2x code base or it could be a branch from the core code.

The minority of very very vocal developers who are against this may decide to leave the community but this may be because they have taken very strong stances which they don't feel they can back down from. If this is the case then I don't see this as a big loss. If you can't be pragmatic in a community project and accept "your" grand idea might not have made the final cut then the community is probably better off without you.

Certain people within the NO2X crowd (inc. developers) have talked about a change to the POW algo. or switching to Proof of Stake.  This is up to them but in my opinion this is an even bigger change than amending a blocksize cap and anything new implementation with those changes won't be Bitcoin.  With one or two exceptions I think this is a bluff anyway.

This is the first real test if the mining consensus designed into Bitcoin from the start will actually work and I can't help but think that Satoshi (whoever they are) are watching this on the edge of their seat with a big bucket of popcorn. That'd better be good popcorn because it's been really hard watching this drag on for so many years.

Patience though, not long now !

Shapeshift, Xapo, Jaxx, Blockchain, Bitflyer are on the list but GDAX is not there.

You may have a point but there is a few thing that I disagree;

1. %90 of the hashpower; Just like BCH, Similar scenario will happen in November. This is technically a hardfork. There will be legacy chain and 2x chain and companies who signed to agreement will switch to 2x. 2x nodes will be rejected by Core regardless what they try to do. Miners mine what is most profitable.

2. Political Games; Look, we all know that this agreement was never about blocksize. We all know that. You want big blocks? Go BCH you've got 8MB blocks there. You want Segwit? Here you got it. With latest upgrade blocksize is already big enough. They might tell you that this deal is about blocksize but actually it's all about firing the core devs and controlling trillions of money flow.

They said "The only way to get smarter is by playing a smarter opponent." If Core survives it will more hard to take down. If not, I will keep supporting the legacy chain.

Before it could make sense the NYA as they want bigger blocks. Since the for of BCH already have 2 options... So to continue with 2x without replay protection it's just an assault to BTC.

If most people don't use 2x miners they will switch to BTC. But even many sign for 2x I won't trust them until moment arrives as it's very possible that they change at the last minute

The Bitcoin Cash fork has the Emergency Difficulty Adjustment logic as they knew they were going to be a minority chain. This time neither the Segwit2x fork or the Core fork is going to have anything like this so I don't think there will be any comparison. This is a new experience.

I'm sure we can agree that the fork with the highest hash power will be paying rewards out more frequently. However the unknown quantity here is how much those rewards will be worth in Fiat (say $$) and this will remain unknown until probably right up to the closing days. None of the large exchanges have yet formally confirmed how they'll be handling this fork or if the minority chain (whichever it is) will be tradeable. We might not see this until the hours or the day after the event.

As a final note I know they have bills to pay but a Miner which prefers rewards in Bitcoin over Fiat is always going to command more respect because it shows they have faith in the network they are giving the hash power to.


Bitcoin is resistant to control and if it wasn't there wouldn't have been so many years of debate, round tables, publicity campaigns and general toxicity. Besides, I don't think "core" is all that centralised anyway and many developers outside of the vocal few don't ultimately care if the blocksize cap is 1Mb or 2Mb.
I don't disagree this is about control but I would suggest it's easier to control a restricted and congested network than it is one with capacity to expand.

You paint a black and white choice between 8Mb blocks and Segwit but this doesn't exist. Some people want to see Segwit implemented and would also like to see 2Mb blocks and that's what happening now.

Segwit was never a blocksize increase. It was a transaction malleability fix with a blocksize benefit and even now weeks after activating the "real" blocksize (inc. witness data) is very rarely making it over 1.1Mb  You might want to point out that's with low adoption and you'd be right as that seems to be holding around 7% at the moment but if segwit was the awesome solution "everyone" wanted then why isn't it 50% ? Maybe the rest of the community/network doesn't really care about segwit after all.

This NYA is just a smoke sreen to save face for the miners, 2x will flop. There is not enough support, the code is unworthy, no economic nodes and Jeff Garzik has commited computer fraud/abuse yesterday wich is a nail in 2x coffin.

Bcash will fail hard because of EDA.

Bgold is another free airdrop.

Classic, BU, 2x, Bcash, XT all have failed, Bitcoin will be just fine, this 2x shitshow is the last obstacle before moving on.

Bcash survives because of EDA

I am running a full node from core (0.15.0) and -that's important- i do have my bitcoins in my node wallet. I do send/receive my bitcoins from/to that wallet.

By running a full node and using the node wallet, you  verify the transactions your own without having to trust anybody/any other service.

I don't care how big a company is, they just can't make you accept their set of rules by force. We users made coinbase or the others corps great, it is not the otherway.

Run a full node, secure your coins your own. If you have a miner lying around, that's even better. Run it too as long as it is not too outdated.

Don't trust, verify. -Satoshi Nakamoto

I'm wondering whether or not you realize that Bitcoin per the core roadmap isn't even going to be peer to peer money any more , by design?

I'm also wondering whether you realize that the 'computer fraud' accusations are trolling/politiking?  No one has been defrauded. 

 

 

To save face?
UASF already showed the miners how limited their power is!Same will be shown now to the corporate dummies who signed that stupid backdoor agreement!
B2x will end the same way as Bcrash does!
At least we will get some free money as compensation for all the bs and nonsense the 2x side is producing.

On the data posted by OP, I see only one Japanese company that support segwit 2x this November, maybe the majority don't support. Japanese today are the largest bitcoin consumer in the world after the effect of April this year about the legal tender of bitcoin in Japan territory. I have a high hopes that bitcoin's value still stay strong as long as Japan and South Korea embraces bitcoin core. My action depends on Japan's move on which side they prefer, wherever they will go, i will follow. My bitcoin's future rely on Japanese demand.

The Japanese (among others) have consistently shown that they are firm supporters of Core. I was also wondering if those two giant mining companies would start in time to throw in their weight for this November SW2 timeline, as I'm almost certain they would change the dynamics, even if by a tiny bit. In fact, even if they don't make it in time, newcomers like them will shift the hashpower towards legacy Bitcoin even post Segwit2x fork.

As it is, even those who initially supported it only did so assuming that that was what Core would follow.

Some call it blind faith, I call it pragmatism.

Users power companies, not the other way around.

I'm holding my small amout of BTC, I'm not a coder nor very deep into IT world.

Only thing I would like to say is: please don't destroy bitcoin, as these businesses are still relying on it to earn money. don't kill the goose that laid golden eggs.

Firstly, I'm not speaking for them (though I'm allowed to have an opinion). I'm just saying that this Twitter effort can't speak for them, because that's exactly what it purports to do. And I have been silent. Even when Luke Dash Jr was telling everyone that his tiny Twitter polls were evidence of widespread support for UASF, I was silent. When he was spreading deceptions that miners who didn't change to his version's consensus rules were 51% attacking the network, I was silent. In several hundred posts on this forum, I've been silent (except for very occasionally expressing the opinion that splitting the network is bad).

Unfortunately, silence from people who understand consensus forks well enough to combat the propaganda comes at a cost. Now much of the community wrongly believes that 1) soft forks are always backward compatible and 2) UASF incompatibility means a 51% attack. Neither is true. The reality is that any soft fork requires majority hashpower to be backward compatible (technically UASFs are a priori incompatible, and if they are compatible it can never be known before the fact).

Secondly, I didn't accuse anyone of vote brigading. Re-read what I said. And thanks for deleting all the context while constructing strawman arguments. But interestingly enough, the OP is calling for people to "join the war" with "#NO2X" and telling people to mass email the NYA companies. Thoughts? That's why I broke my silence, as it were.

Thirdly, I wasn't even trying to express that I was part of the silent majority per se, more so that the NO2X crowd doesn't speak for the broader Bitcoin community (if such a thing even exists anymore). The fact that the silent majority is silent -- that was more of a self-evident statement. Why should hundreds, or at most, thousands of Twitter accounts matter when we're talking about millions of Bitcoin users? I tried to ask Luke legitimate questions on Twitter about the lack of clear consensus for a UASF and he instantly blocked me. Naturally, I don't vote in his polls. :P This is indicative of why acting like small Twitter bubbles are representative of the Bitcoin economy is a problem. It's pretty well known by now that social media users rarely travel outside of their limited filter bubbles.

I thought you moved on to the failed bcc shitcoin. Why are you still here? Just for tolling?

Bitcoin Cash is doing great.  I don't see any fail.

Also I still have some BTC. 

I think it is amusing to see the Core fan boys so upset over 2x.

NoX2 look at bcash usless token, don't let them create more usless tokens they just printing money

I think it is great you like both BCH and BTC.

But being upset about 2x it is not to be a Core fan.

When BCH fork, they add replay protection and did things correct, they have a different point of view so it is great they fork and they do their path, but how they are doing in 2x it is an attack to BTC so how can you expect people not get upset?

just to butt in
BCH was an intentional altcoin that was never suppose to be a bitcoin upgrade. it was not suppose to rely on consensus to form a decision on the route of bitcoins future

btc1 however 'was' under the pretense of the 2015 and 2017 agreements of a consensus utilising plan to hopefully upgrade bitcoins network. meaning it would not need replay protection because there would only be one network. which bitcoins consensus mechanism would take care of and leave a minority stuck unable to sync. thus would not matter. (yes core could then altcoin their minority but then core would themselves need to make their own replay protection)

but blockstream employes now want to backtrack their consensus promises and instead make core avoid consensus by core coding out any chance of using consensus for an upgrade... yes CORE ban/blacklist and avoid bitcoins consensus mechanism, thus its CORE creating the altcoin. and thus if core want the next 'fork' to be contentious enough to become a bilateral split then core should be the ones implementing the replay attack prevention on the core code. not the other way around

please do try researching the real details of whats actually happening.

P.S i did say 'hope' 'suppose' 'pretense' because its all just a ruse/bait and switch to get segwit in early, a few months ago and now the switch part of the bait and switch plan is happening. i only mention the paragraphs above in the context of if the agenda was actually to upgrade bitcoin to 2x.

but either way if core want to altcoin it. core should add some replay protection on their side. seeing as they are the instigators of making the altcoin

I was actually really surprised that Bitcoin Cash was able to properly add strong replay protection, because they waited until the eleventh hour to do it. Good on them, I agree.

Strong replay protection would be preferred here as well, but at least 2X has opt-in protection now. Maybe they can be convinced to improve on this; there's still ample time left.

It's interesting to note that the August 1 UASF did not have replay protection either (it technically couldn't), and it had a high risk of splitting the network and creating a separate altcoin. In fact, it could be seen as a worse attack than 2X because there was the additional risk that the legacy chain would suffer a massive wipeout/reorg attack, at which time the chains would re-align. All rewards mined and transactions that occurred between the fork and realignment blocks would be erased from the legacy chain.

There could have been massive, massive losses of a magnitude we've never seen before, and that's the leverage that UASF supporters used to push the network to change the consensus rules. I'm partial to the argument that both 2X and UASF were attacks. The latter was probably worse, though.

That's because GDAX is the same entity as Coinbase. Literally, GDAX is just the liquidity pool for Coinbase. On Coinbase's website, they refer to GDAX as their "product". And Coinbase does appear on the New York Agreement.


I agree, but when it comes to a hard fork, there is no way to predict future demand. It's completely impossible. There has certainly been a perception expressed by some that fees are too high and that block capacity is too low over the past few years. Nobody can gauge how representative that sentiment is of the Bitcoin network, though. And like I said, nobody can know what percentage of the network will switch to the forked network. That's true even if 100% of us were all lining up saying we supported Segwit2x.

This leads to all sorts of questions. Are hard forks ever ethical if they are coordinated with miners? Because miners switching networks deprives legacy network users of a vital resource -- transaction confirmations. That means that users will migrate out of economic coercion rather than free choice. Should this be considered an attack?

Several Core developers have expressed that they will not work on an implementation compatible with Segwit2x. I haven't seen one Core developer who has agreed to work on a post-fork Segwit2x-compatible client. And I believe that James Hilliard's BIP91 effort was entirely related to safely activating Segwit (instead of using BIP148), and not to do with the NYA/Segwit2x effort.


There's a couple very politically vocal developers (like Luke Jr. and Eric Lombrozo), but mostly the devs stick to the mailing lists and technical discussions. Luke has been trying to fork off for years. He's been talking about changing POW algo and difficulty algo for a long time. He's an exception to the rule and I think much of the community would be happy to see him move onto an altcoin and away from Bitcoin.

Regardless of the outcome, some devs said they will keep developing Bitcoin(not 2x).

Can someone simplify Segwit2x it's for us (newbies and noobs ofcourse) to definitely understand this and give the support what the community needed, can someone please post the simplified explanation for segwit2x?

Many people, myself including, view SegWit2x as an attack on Bitcoin, but any attack can also be viewed as a test. For example, the most recent Bcash was also a test - it has proven that Bitcoin can withstand hashrate swings and that miners can't dictate community what to do - users and services didn't start switching to Bcash even though it offers much cheaper fees. As the result, both Bitcoins value and the network were not affected by competing chain. So, SegWit2x would be a similar test - it will show whether corporations and mining cartels can influence the network and its user, or if it's the users who are deciding the future of Bitcoin.

I also think Segwit 2x is an act of terrorism.
There is only one Segwit 2X core developer, and I am trying to take over the bit coin core. It is dangerous and not usable.

There are some pretty critical differences between Bitcoin Cash and Segwit2x from an ethical standpoint. I view Segwit2x as much more of an attack. BCH integrated strong replay protection, made no attempt to coordinate a supermajority of Bitcoin's hashpower, and presented itself from the start essentially as an altcoin.

Segwit2x is being presented by Garzik and company as an "upgrade." There is only opt-in replay protection, which means many people will probably lose money. And they are trying to coordinate mining power to coerce users into migrating to the Segwit2x chain.

As much as I dislike Bitmain, there's really no comparing Bitcoin Cash and Segwit2x. One of them is just an altcoin; the other is an attack. I'd only consider BCH to be an attack if LTC and all other Bitcoin forks were considered attacks.

So what ? These businesses can chose whatever side they want whether if its in the new token or the original bitcoin itself. All the worked they put in to that coin wont matter if they dont have any customers. The hardfork is unstoppable at this point so let them, let them see how their coin pumps and dump in the end people wont waste free money. And traders are really looking forward to this and convert it to their bitcoins.

https://i.imgur.com/rV9UyKE.png

https://bitcoin.org/en/posts/denounce-segwit2x

Don't forget that BCH was very rushed, the decision to create this fork was made just days before SegWit signalling period, so they had no time and opportunity to consolidate miner and service support. But if you visit /r/BTC, a lot of people there believe that Bcash is the real Bitcoin because it's true to Satoshi's vision, and that SegWit was a corporate takeover by Blockstream. So, it actually is an attack on Bitcoin, it just didn't grew big because it was based on some insane conspiracy theories with no technical proofs. And at some point more than 35% of Bitcoin miners migrated to Bcash for a short period of time, which caused some disruptions in BTC network. In my mind, anything that for some reason has "Bitcoin" name in it can be viewed as malicious brand hijacking, no matter if it's an altcoin or contentious hard fork, because this just creates confusion for newbies, which is exactly the goal of forkers.

I don't really buy that argument. I'm against Segwit2x, but nobody has ownership of the name. I think attempts to own the name "Bitcoin" (in the sense of intellectual property) goes against what Bitcoin stands for, as the enforcement of IP requires centralized authority and state intervention. It creates confusion for newbies, true. But I don't think that qualifies as an attack. I'm okay with the idea of openly competing forks.

But I agree with those who think that miner coordination adds an element of coercion, since 1) users fear being on the weaker chain and 2) users need confirmations. Miners leveraging these fears and economic needs can be seen as an attack.

Well nobody has ownership in name of BTC, they do not have copyright ok but BTC belongs who develops it, so the actual BTC.

If you have enough power mining you can then take away the name of any altcoin for example and keep it for yourself?

I understand what do you mean but in somehow they "own it", the community own it. It is an open source project and anyone who want to contribute can do it, so just appropiate the name to someone else work does not makes sense. Well it makes sense for them as they "steal" something that already works.

I can give many examples but just got in mind even it is not the same topic but can be something similar when BCH forks and they copy Electrum wallet for BCH (finally they change the name to Electron). Electrum does not care they copy the code but to appropiate of their name it is not honest at all.

2x Countdown; http://bashco.github.io/2x_Countdown/

The announcement of bitcoin cash was really late,everyone who is against block stream believes that BCH is the real version of bitcoin ,the price does not necessarily denotes what is the best solution ,i am an advocate of better technology and which team produces the best solution for any given issue regarding bitcoin development must join together rather than fighting apart and forking a new coin when ever there is an upgrade.

The fact that BCH's "emergency difficulty adjustment" parameter led to periods of massive hyperinflation followed by periods where it takes hours to find blocks, I'd say they haven't stumbled onto "better technology." In fact, there is an open pull request in their Github to address their disastrous changes. The EDA was basically all they did besides increasing the block size limit.

And it turns out that increase was unnecessary since their average block size is like 50 kB. :D

Bitfinex has chosen today that if there's a hard fork, BTC will still be known an traded as BTC, while the Segwit2x fork will be known, and traded, as B2X.

https://www.bitfinex.com/posts/223

Somehow, this is scary. Hard forks should be exceptional. We should not see a hard fork every quarter. This is damaging for BTC.

I really don’t know that what is going to be happen and how to take the help from the given site but I think the price of the bitcoin is now very high and almost all the people can make money from the bitcoin and it is really hypocritical and they majority of the people are wandering for the perfect and  full answer so do I.

Here is the list of companies who said #NO2X > http://nob2x.org/

Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin.

Sure buddy. You keep praising to holy Andresen at your thread.

2x or NO2X: Why Some Want to Hard Fork Bitcoin — and Why Others Do Not: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/2x-or-no2x-why-some-want-hard-fork-bitcoin-november-and-why-others-dont/

I totally agree with that, but we know that in current days, exchanges aren't going to decline an opportunity to generate huge loads of volume, and thus will list it anyway. Another aspect is the pressure coming from people that are desperate to get it listed so they can cash their split coins out, trade them, shove them in their (you know what), or whatever. Same basically goes up for online wallet services - they need to go with it in order to not fall behind and potentially piss off their customers. It's sad that malicious entities are toying around with Bitcoin for their own financial gain, but that's the time we are living in - greed dictates the market, and there is literally nothing that can stop this.

It's not a very impressive list at all. I really can't tell if the NYA is going to come crashing down in flames, or if the companies will double down in support of the fork. My suspicion is that the Mike Belches and Brian Armstrongs in the discussion believe that the market will react very strongly to a supermajority of miners switching chains. They may not be wrong about that; we need to wait and see.

Personally, I'm pretty nervous. I'd love to see everyone back out and call the whole thing off. But I think Bitmain is interested in the Core chain appearing weaker POW-wise, so it could get messy.

I think this will just be one small battle in a war of many many forks. 

That's one of the annoying things. I feel that Poloniex adding Ethereum Classic last year spawned a whole new animal. Now Bitfinex adds altcoin after altcoin, token after token, no matter how scammy they are. And they have a clear interest in contentious forks -- they generate fees off the coin split contracts, the coins backing those contracts must remain locked on their exchange (they love that, especially if they are insolvent), and they stand to make considerable fees off coin split wars post-fork. They have a big incentive to see our community cannibalize itself, unfortunately.

What you remember saves you;

https://i.imgur.com/O2aMvmq.png

As I can understand without reply protection in S2X it will be impossible to spend coins on both chains.
Thats mean you will lose your coins once spended on S2X.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

There is a Opt-in Replay Protection but not Strong 2-way Replay Protection , Someone already posted it , But it is not an easy like it was with the strong protection , Even after I have read it I still have some doubts and will just wait for better explanation . Here is the post that talk about it https://bitcointechtalk.com/how-segwit2x-replay-protection-works-1a5e41767103 , I am not even sure if this is accurate or not . Just wait I am sure that there will be an announcement at the top of BCT like with what happen in august .

What shows this picture?

I don't get it.

Musicians connected together and can be derived to Music industry.

Anna Kurnikova,Ronaldo,Xavier Gonzales to sport industry.

It is obviously Roger Ver,Silbert,Maxwell,Dimon forming Fintech industry.

even with no replay protection it will NOT be impossible to spend coins safely on both chains. it will just be harder because you will have to take additional steps and most clients do not have easy, user-friendly options for most of the things you have to do (such as changing the locktime and using RBF,...).

Browsing through the thread, I am surprised that there are Bitcoin Cash supporters still wanting to argue about the affairs of Bitcoin. You people have your fork, be happy with it. I truly wish all the success for BCC and its community.

Japanese are the wise nations and this will make them stronger than before because they are adopting the new developments and bitcoin is also depending on japan now because as the user demand increases in japan process will go up and automatically give benefits to the user all over the world and Japanese will keep hold on bitcoin in future.

Good Read;

https://99bitcoins.com/who-supports-segwit2x-the-new-york-agreement-and-the-upcoming-bitcoin-fork-explained/

https://i.imgur.com/sFwAhJN.png

%74 of the nodes supporting the Core.

Jaxx (Decentral) from Canada said they may or may not implement S2X, but if they do it will be as an altcoin.

Source; https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/73f2eh/jaxx_did_not_decide_yet_to_implement_s2x_another/

Although I don't have two shit to give about their wallet because it's poorly written and others can easily steal your coins.

Interesting. I wasn't sure what to expect with them, since they were signed onto the New York Agreement. But I suppose in regards to economic nodes, we're more concerned about third party services (web wallets, exchanges, payment processors) than wallets.


What do you mean, exactly? Are you just talking about the lack of encrypted passphrase (which is insecure, I know), or something else? I like the idea of it, especially with the Shapeshift.io app built in, but it doesn't feel safe with just a 4-number pin.

Jonald how is your bcash goin on? Are you happy that you sold your Bitcoin for bcash?

Wow, that will be a great war. I think it will show who is stronger. Decentralized vs Centralized, Let's fight for intruders. I won't loose my full pie for a half or quarter? I want double pies.

Xapo on Segwit2x;

https://blog.xapo.com/about-the-bitcoin-segwit2x-update/

Opt-in replay protection removed from Segwit2x code but it will be probably replaced by something else that will secure both chains.

The reason for removing is; Peter Todd and David Harding found a security vulnerability that would allow LN users to steal funds from each other.

Source; https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/commit/98c0af58c29efbecba25818adb5531fa8c3d0506

Detailed Explanation; https://twitter.com/hrdng/status/915967021254414336

--

Well basically that means there will be a hard fork with a replay protection or something, for sure. Coinbase, Xapo and all the NYA signers not going to move S2X chain but wait and see if S2X going to survive or not.

If the majority hash power moves to S2X and Legacy Bitcoin blockchain gets weak due low hashrate, NYA companies will have a good reason to convince their users about why they will move to S2X "to protect users money".

That is the first option. Second option is, let's say %50 of the hashrate is moved to S2X. So, Original Bitcoin blocks will be created more slowly, UTXO will grow up and yes network congestion will happen but I think the gap will be replaced quickly.

Source; https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-October/000372.html

im still laughing at the segwit supporters.. yea the sheep are re-bleeting out the segwit propaganda.. but when it comes to the pools that pushed for it.. the pools themself are too afraid to even use segwit transactions themselves

check out BTCC
not using segwit address to receive the coinbase(block reward)
https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000000088f4c787292ba94088977df200bd36ff4c6789c377f460

then when they move funds from multiple block rewards into a more structured stash.. that address too is legacy not segwit
https://blockchain.info/tx/932082ade49edd35973e80fd88f4bf51abe1b69687643a9f887b88a09b5bca44

im laughing soo hard. BTCC was the biggest pool mouthpiece supporting segwit but cant even admit they fear using segwit transactions for their own stash.

people really need to stop reading the reddit promo propaganda and instead start thinking for real and asking the real questions

fear? not sure about that.

Segwit2x is a joke that has almost zero community support. Anyone who support this should be regarded mental or some corporation/institution shill/agent and thus should be discredited right away.

Franky1 is a lying, and hypocritical troll/shill. Don't believe a single word coming out of his mouth.

see what i mean about the sheep re-bleeting out the segwit propaganda.. to defend blockstream + their partners
they care more about protecting blockstream then they care about bitcoins utility


check the blockchain i even linked it!!! the evidence is in the blockchain and its immutable!

as for lauda's account of the 2x part.. either lauda is dumb or he is part of it..
2x was always a bait and switch.. bait the community with a chance of 2x by getting the community to naively accept segwit first using the bait of segwit2x.. then switch back to trying to get people to hate the 2x part.. even though the community only accepted segwit recently due to the agreement of the 2x being part of the deal

if the community was so strongly desiring just segwit it would have activated by christmas2016.. rather than lingering at 25-30%

if you dont believe me that segwit2x was just a bait and switch to give blockstream their segwit altcoin features into the bitcoin network.. just check out blockstream listed as part of silberts portfolio along with jgarzics bloq company
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b

but hey lets see lauda scream "liar" without linking anything to oppose this topic... its funny

This has literally nothing to do with Blockstream and you're calling the defenders of decentralization "sheep". Ironic, and hypocritical. I wonder which agency hired you. ::)

You're telling me that they've recorded "We don't do this because we are afraid"? If not, then you're lying as always.

What is this?

Segwit2x is going to happen. Why sit here and say it won't? It has so much support for miners and the companies. Making some post on a forum showing how Core doesn't want it is just making you look bad.

Everything is going to be ok.... Calm down lol. Everyone is always so on edge about hard forks, meanwhile bitcoin goes even higher each time...

Unfortunately, that gives Bitmain a lot of power here. People are under the impression that Bitmain doesn't care about Segwit2x because of Bitcoin Cash. I disagree. The BCH fork was largely about pushing the ecosystem away from Core. This represents another opportunity for Bitmain to do that, by making the legacy chain the weaker chain.

It's already widely believed that most of the Chinese pools (as well as BTC.com) are just Bitmain proxies. And in private, according to Greg Maxwell, Jihan Wu has bragged that Bitmain controls a majority of the hash rate outright.


This may happen but in the long term, it won't sustain. The market will eventually tip one direction or the other, and miners will follow. The question is: how much effect can miners have on the market? If most miners leave the network, that may have a big psychological effect on holders/traders.

You came here to write this non-sense comment to fill up your monthly post quota so you can get paid from sig campaign, huh?

Pity.

I can support the idea of other pools being Bitmain Proxies.

Antpool, btc.top, viabtc, btc.com, bixin, bitcoin.com > %60 of the hashrate.

He obviously did. Such a loser with shallow knowledge and understanding.

I am not so sure about Bixin and bitcoin.com, but the others are definitely Bitmain proxies and there was *evidence* of this in the past. BITMAIN is evil.

Indeed, they are. Well, Bitcoin.com belongs to Roger so Roger = Jihan = Bitmain.

Not just that. Bitcoin.com announced that they will use 2x chain as a main chain, they will literally ignore the legacy chain.

Bixin also supports Segwit2x from the beginning.

You shouldn't listen to nor take anything that Roger Ver says seriously. He's a spoiled manchild. He recently said that Bitcoin Cash is the true Bitcoin, then change his statement to 2x a few days after. His statements are worthless, nor is he or this band of suits able to define Bitcoin.

That does not necessarily have to imply that they are a Bitmain proxy (and I sure hope that they are not). There's still time for them to pull out of the agreement.

Doubt it.

https://i.imgur.com/E5BaERj.png

Very important post from core; https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2017-10-09-segwit2x-safety

But the Segwit2x agreement didn't involve users/the community. It just involved a bunch of VC-backed companies, many who have business models that are threatened by transaction fees replacing block subsidy. They'd prefer to increase the costs to run nodes and enter the mining sector -- due to propagation/bandwidth costs -- in order to reduce transactions costs. That way, transaction fees won't eat up all of their revenue.

Now, I'm sympathetic to that from their business perspective, but not to the point where it should affect my money. They should adapt to Bitcoin, not the other way around.


That wasn't up to the community. Only miners had any say at that point.

I also think that Roger's manchild nature is probably keeping him from listening to good legal counsel on this. If Bitcoin.com really ignores the legacy chain, changes the "BTC" ticker to an altcoin, and pawns these off on buyers / wallet users, Roger is in for a world of hurt when the lawsuits start rolling in. Bitcoin.com is brokering the exchange of goods and as a custodian, there are certain duties of care that must be taken from a legal perspective.


Bixin's policy towards Bitcoin Cash suggests that they are not a Bitmain proxy. But I suppose that could be a red herring.

There is nothing to doubt. There is time to pull out, and that's a fact.

His fall would be very beneficial to Bitcoin, just FYI. Without someone like him, we wouldn't even be here. He's stupid enough to realize that agencies such as NSA have infiltrated both sides (especially his) and are manipulating him, as his technical knowledge is very shallow.

It's hard to tell at this time, but I am slightly convinced that they are not.

When you go to logic, what does this tell you of your bitcoin than ?  You cannot trust any TX any more since it's done by 'the evil' all over ?

So pls stop supporting this yours evil bitcoin any more and give up.

"Your Bitcoin"? You're showing signs of shill delusion again.

Anyone knowledgeable enough would simply see the stupidity of that question. Then again, big blockists aren't famous for their intellect nor knowledge. ::)

No. I shall publicly scrutinize both Bitmain, Jihan, Ver & co. for the cartel like behavior. They are the true scum of Bitcoin.

What might help is if people stopped putting this bizarre invisible barrier between miners and "the community".  Why aren't miners part of the community?  Why are they always this separate entity who supposedly has to follow obediently and silently?  It's baffling that most of the people here simultaneously bitch about miners having too much power, whilst in the same breath trying to relegate them to slave status.  Everyone wants to rely on their hashpower, but no one wants them to have any freedom.  It's unrealistic.

I think, if we're genuinely going to be a community, we need to drop this ridiculous "us and them" mentality.  Whatever happens after the November fork, there has to be more cohesion and cooperation between the various network participants, because the silly games we're playing at the moment (where every single disagreement is automatically the fault of miners despite it taking two to sides to have a disagreement), clearly don't work.  If we don't find some sort of equilibrium, it's just going to be fork after fork for the foreseeable future.

If you don't want the miners to be your enemy, it might be an idea to stop treating them like one.

You just cannot admit that you've not the same strong position than others with more skin in the game than littly you. So it is very easy to rant against these but not very clever to do in public and let many show how rotten your charachter is deep inside. You do not provide / support any good solution for keeping the community together for many years now. Now we can all see what issues we got with that splitting.

There's nothing wrong with pointing on the current situation, which is that most miners don't represent the community. However, the problem is mainly due to most miners = Jihad Wu.

Because the most *power* in Bitcoin have the users, otherwise the system has failed.

Listening to the community and developers has nothing to do with being a slave.

Wrong. Quite a lot of people would be extremely satisfied if Jihan completely left.

You haven't been reading the other "side" lately, have you? Stop preaching bs.

How much "skin" someone has in the game has absolutely nothing to do with whether they're evil or not. With the case of Roger Ver and Jihan, both have become so malicious that is it ridiculous. Bitcoin does not need a rushed, let alone contentious, and dangerous hard fork, which is coded by an amateur such as Garzik, anytime soon. :)

This is exactly what happen when bitcoin was about to be fork. So many threatening information from people that claim to know about segwit with blockchain terminologies that got an ordinary person that do not have indept knowledge about blockchain confused. Those information causes panic but I think no matter what some people that sounds like expertise say the masses will not be afraid this time. I do not see any cause for war.

Classic signature spam with zero value. Go spam in some other place.

Why should this "power" include telling other people what software they can or can't run?  If users could do that (and I'm glad they can't) THEN the system has failed.  Users will always have the freedom to decide which chain they wish to transact on.  Why isn't that enough for you?  Why do you want to dictate terms to people who don't owe you a damn thing?



Your use of the word "listening" here distinctly implies not just "hearing" what the community and developers are saying, but also "obeying".  Hence slave.  They listened.  They just didn't agree.  That's allowed.  Deal with it.  Either the alignment of incentives will prove them wrong to disagree, or it won't.  Whichever it turns out to be, most of those miners you currently disagree with will, most likely, eventually be back on the same chain as the majority of users, because the most profitable chain to mine will be the one most people transact on.  And you'll still, most likely, be complaining about how terrible they all supposedly are, despite the fact there's nothing you can do to prevent their involvement.  And even if you could prevent their involvement, you'd have to sacrifice one of Bitcoin's primary tenets of permisionlessness in order to do so.  It's far simpler just to let them get on with whatever the hell they want to do.  You can still run whatever code you want.  Beyond that, you're as impotent as everyone else.



Until 5 minutes pass and they find another boogeyman to plead for someone in authority to "save" us from.  Quite a lot of people are morons in that regard.  It's all getting a bit too overprotective and interfering lately.  Like people who whine about forks having the name "Bitcoin" in them because it might confuse people, or those who would gladly prefer to restrict freedom in the name of supposed security.  Hardly the cypherpunk values Bitcoin was founded upon.

https://static.gamespot.com/uploads/scale_medium/986/9866256/2782075-5348157470-10996.jpg

This is most of the people in the thread.  You are all Helen Lovejoy.  Stop it.



I'm not here saying any "side" has any kind of moral high ground.  Both have done stupid, petty crap.  Neither comes out of this looking good.  Again, it takes two to tango, stop pretending any "side" is innocent here.  So going forward, we need to stop having "sides".  We need to stop the polarising fragmentation, the tribalism, the pointless bickering and the incessant baseless character assassinations.

I'm confident Bitcoin will emerge stronger after all this drama blows over and will set a precedent that all the cypherpussies on this board and elsewhere were utterly wasting their time and blood pressure fretting over issues of "control" and "power" in vain.  People will run the code they want to run and the network will move forward accordingly.

++  this

Freedom of choice

The same reason for which the corporate baboons, i.e. attackers attempt to hijack the name Bitcoin for their own terms. Users with actual knowledge about the system, should educate and spread the use of Bitcoin clients not "cancer altcoin disguised as Bitcoin" clients. :)

The latter is a lie and you are being fed kool-aid. Pretty much anyone who understands Segwit, which does not include Ver, Jihan, Wright, Oliver, Thomas, etc., embraces Segwit. Jihan has been paying for anti-Segwit propaganda in China a few months ago. Wake up.

"Supposedly" is the wrong wording unless you're delusional. Bonus: That's a false generalization fallacy right there.

False. You can fork away the current miners.

It was fine until we got Anderesen'd, Hearnia'd. Now only two people are left in the way of a peaceful Bitcoin.

Alright; you need to be an idiot to stand by (or even condone) while malicious actors deceive individuals, cause damage to said individuals, and then proceed label people who fights against such malevolent action non cypherpunk. Then again, Ver has an army of shills in his company. You never know who you're talking to. ::)

No. Bitcoin Core, as a group of independent individuals has done nothing wrong. Yet Garzik, Ver, Jihan keep attacking them and condoning attacks on them.

Wrong. We need the idiots out of the way. They can fork into an altcoin, without stealing the name Bitcoin and we'd be much better off.

Go away already.

Yawn - this I accept and seems all big ones and many others have followed this lonesome advice much earlier.

Nope, a very small minority that thought big blocks were important, yet were proven wrong by their failed shitcoin called Bcash, are rooting for Segwit2x. Anyone sensible, educated, and non-greedy && malicious is staying with the one, true, Bitcoin. Keep drinking your kool-aid, paid baboon. ::)

Here's what Bitcoin does not need (for the third time, no less, so I might try some extra emphasis).


You can have your plush toy badger with all the health and safety warnings and no sharp edges.  I'll have the rabid honey badger that rips your damn face off if the inclination strikes.  Cry harder about your boogeymen, Bitcoin doesn't care.  



Waaaagh!  Hijackers!  Waaaagh!  Hostile Takeovers!  Waaaagh!  Sacking Developers!

Could any of you protectionist fascists sound any more juvenile?  How many more times?  There can be no takeover unless you give these corporations your private keys or your preferred dev team give them control of the repo.  Assuming you and the devs aren't dumb enough to do that, you can't have any decisions made for you.  You are in total control of your respective funds and/or repositories.  But you don't have total control over what any of the other network participants do, so quit trying.



Yes, they didn't listen and they're just including SegWit for shits and giggles.  If they weren't listening, they wouldn't have included SegWit at all.  What are you even on about?



Again with the what?  The miners are forking away.  Doesn't mean they're gone for good.  The only way you're getting rid of them permanently is with the nuclear option of an algo change.  You're perfectly free to pursue that avenue if you want.



This forum isn't capable of a peaceful Bitcoin.   ::)

It's a 24/7/365 witch-hunt with the assclowns on this site.  They can't help themselves.



And I commend the devs on maintaining a mostly neutral stance despite the slanging match encompassing them.  This is purely about the 24/7/365 witch-hunt assclowns vs the so-called BigBlockers idiocy.  It's all just posturing at the end of the day.  Only the numbers matter.  And again, Bitcoin will be fine.

Alright, I used to give you the benefit of the doubt even though others were insisting that I do not in the past. I was mistaken about you. Please leave this thread in peace now, thanks. Even monkeys have managed to develop better methods and practices than libtards did. ::)

---

If you are from the UK, then I'm less surprised by your behavior though. Disclaimer: You've posted no arguments other than "you're wrong, and "we" i.e. I think I'm right". Unless you're also on a payroll, wake up already.

I'm partial to the idea that miners are part of the community, and I think that some of the major miners (like Bitfury, F2Pool) are fairly in touch with the userbase and are apparently concerned about what they want. I don't feel the same sense of community from miners like Bitmain. Jihan Wu spends his time/energy attacking Core and pumping Bitcoin Cash -- the next batch of miners is only payable in Bitcoin Cash. What's that about?

Buying mining equipment is supposed to be a way to invest in BTC while supporting the network; it shouldn't be an avenue to get people to prop up the BCH price for Bitmain.

DooMAD is acting like a individual of justice, but he's just being an idiot with his fallacies. He made a very bad generalization about the miners when responding to me. Bitfury, F2Pool and Slush are some of the nice ones that I could list now. The F2Pool owner tends to troll for comedy, and Slush has very nice voting implements and very healthy views about Bitcoin.

BTC.TOP, also known as Bitmain proxy, threatened to undercut the F2Pool owner unless he continues to support 2x. Then DooMAD comes in and claims they are "supposedly" evil, according to me. What a joke. Don't even get me started on the "Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin" propaganda from Roger and Jihan.

Mining centralization is extremely dangerous, and we've observed this in 2017. I can't wait for the day that Russia and that Japan GMO obliterates Jihan.

---

https://medium.com/@seoulbitcoin/statement-on-segwit2x-161db1ad1976

1.

"We want to bring Bitcoin to more users because it has unique features and qualities (namely permissionless-ness, resistance to tx censorship, resistance to inflation, pseudonymity) that the existing financial system doesn't offer. The presence of these features is contrary to the interests of many powerful entities (the legacy banking system, governments and their surveillance agencies) and only survive thanks to Bitcoin's decentralisation and absence of centralised points of failure. Being willing to sacrifice or endanger Bitcoin's decentralisation to achieve scaling isn't wise or forward thinking, and is completely self-defeating.

What's the point of on-boarding an ever greater number of users if you run the risk of weakening those features and give those users the same experience than current centralised paiement systems offer, e.g. tx censorship, vulnerability to inflation, and government surveillance? This would be a nonsensical and unproductive thing to do.

Doing this would be all the more absurd that we now know (as we have since 2015) that, before increasing base block size, we can greatly increase throughput through more efficient of block space (with Segwit and, in the near future, with MAST, Schnorr signatures and signatures aggregation) and more importantly, with second layer technologies such as the Lightning Network or sidechains. These technologies are under rapid development, and will soon alleviate scaling."

2.

Bitcoin is a formidable opportunity to bring greater monetary, economic and political freedom to all humans, and the single best hope of freedom-loving persons in this otherwise authoritarian and freedom-hating century. Regardless of whatever understanding or sympathy we may have for you and other NYA signatories, we who care about those things can not accept cooptation by companies who effectively are centralised points of failure at the mercy of governments.

If I could sum up my position (and the position of many users preoccupied with decentralisation), it would be: "let us scale wisely, without making short-term compromises that would weaken Bitcoin's unique features". Merely increasing base block size as soon as we lack space would be akin to kicking the can down the road to serfdom. And changing consensus rules at a whim - or worse, engaging in a 51% attack to coerce the community into following the new rules - would get us there in no time.

Source; https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-October/000372.html

Marked this one, franky1 was right.
I'm a core developers fan, like 1Mb blocksize and segwit implementation even though most platforms/wallets still not support it.
But, it's true about core developers were the one who push the limit by reject btc1 nodes, taken some precautions steps to ensure 2x become another altcoin, it's against the rule of consensus, right?

No, franky1 is wrong as usual.

The 1 MB block size limit was put in place, and is in place for a reason. SegWit is a much better way of doing transactions, and if you have complains about "congestion" or "fees" blame those advertising a block size increasing but lacking SW support on their platform.

Wrong. Contentious attempt to alter existing rules -> you're an altcoin by default. Core does not dictate what is or isn't Bitcoin, and their client banning or not banning some bits does not determine anything either. BTC1 nodes are parasites that will create a very disruptive and damaging network. I've banned all known IPs, but now they've started to cover up that they are actually btc1 nodes by appearing to be the reference client. Garzik is a corrupt and shady individual that can't be trusted anymore.

Thank you for answering, but
What kind of act to alter existing rules? Please be specific about they are breaking the rules. I would like to know more about that.
What kind of disruptive and damaging? As I know, btc1 nodes has been added to the main GitHub and everyone could test it.
Then, there will be testnet before it's launched. Look at their support: over 92% https://coin.dance/blocks
As long as core developers and 2x devs follow the consensus, it's fine I guess.

First of, why are you making assumptions and statements when you clearly are not informed/educated about most of these issues? Signature spam?

1 MB block size limit, or 4 MB maximum with Segwit is a existing consensus rule. Any hard fork = change to the existing rules.

1) No viable replay protection.
2) Falsely labeling itself as Bitcoin, when 2x is an altcoin.
3) Damage caused by a combination of 1 and 2.

"Main GitHub"? No.

Wrong. Those are miners signalling support in their Coinbase. If you look at miners as community members, they and all the other support that 2x might have doesn't even come down to 5%.

The Core developers absolutely, unanimously (unless I've missed someone's statement), reject the cancer that is 2x.

---

"Consensus and support of 2x":
https://twitter.com/BitcoinErrorLog/status/918676222200102913

I don't see the wallet Exodus on the list.... I wonder where their alignment lies -- segwit or 2x?

Only if you could read...

“That’s not Bitcoin, this is Bitcoin.” > https://medium.com/@StopAndDecrypt/thats-not-bitcoin-this-is-bitcoin-95f05a6fd6c2

Don’t Be On The Wrong Side of Bitcoin History > https://medium.com/@Austerity_Sucks/open-letter-to-segwit2x-supporters-dont-be-on-the-wrong-side-of-bitcoin-history-acef69416422

Segwit2x the Broken Agreement > https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/segwit2x-the-broken-agreement-e9035a453c05

My Thoughts on Your Thoughts(Open Letter to Shapeshift's Founder) > https://medium.com/@thepiratewhocantbenamed/my-thoughts-on-your-thoughts-17474d800dda

Bitmex:
https://blog.bitmex.com/policy-on-bitcoin-hard-forks-update/

---

:)

It's always the same with those rats..r/btc bigblockers are all rats. They jump from a sinking ship to another sinking ship.

They shit on Bitcoin while XT was the best thing ever..

They shit on Bitcoin while Classic was the best thing ever..

They shit on Bitcoin while BU was the best thing ever..

They shit on Bitcoin while NChain was the greatest thing ever..

Few months ago Bitcoin ABC was the greatest thing ever while shitting on Bitcoin..

Now those rats shitting on Bitcoin while Bcash is the greatest thing ever while it's bugged. Those noobs actually believes people will create financial assets on there bugged code.

And the mother of all rats is called Roger Ver, the biggest scumbag in the Bitcoin community.

Pathetic!

I find it both funny, and as you put it, pathetic when they mention something like a "dev team" (a person did this a few posts back). There is no development team for Bcash, and there is no development team for Bitcoin2x. They are just copy/pasting Core's work, sometimes even stealing it by removing copyright. Of course /r/btc condones the latter behavior.

With any section of your list core has lost more and more support - and pls add the NYA list. Could you see now where the issue might be?

I do not wonder that we see so much shouting of the self isolated here / twitter - but this is only a few .

Bitcointalk seems to be the last place to discuss this controversial but I guess we just better take our popcorn. 

The actual users, and with this I mean excluding shills hired by Ver, Jihan, NSA and similar, are in a supermajority support of Bitcoin Core and they are not going anywhere. The baboon-like educated suits can piss off.  ::)

Core didn't lost any support, if so the outcome would be much different as we see today. Youre pessimism is not a way to excuse youreself :-\

NYA is just a smokescreen to save face for future agreements.. you just trapped it by youre own ignorance. It's already  falling apart bit by bit incl. future's on Finex.

Go take youre popcorn to r/btc then  :-*

Seoul Bitcoin Meetup(1600 member) on Segwit2x;

https://medium.com/@seoulbitcoin/statement-on-segwit2x-161db1ad1976

Spoiler; #no2x

You mean Jeff garzik? That guy copy/pasted all core's work and give it a twist on it. B..but that 'twist' was kinda bugged and Jeff coudn't fix it on his own so 2 Core devs stepped in order to fix it.

Jeff tryed to hide his 2x nodes and later one of his buds claimed that nodes are an attack on the network. WTF :o

I see so many fails from Jeff... it's irresponsible to let him control a 90B cryptocurrency by his own. No wonder why this NYA is falling apart 2x will trigger massive centralisation.

And Bcash...well that is only a short-term profit mechanism for the chinese mining cartel ore better said there is only 1 miner. In order to fix EDA they need a hard fork that brings a lot of other problems with it.

Those poor souls buying Bcash dont even realize how screwed they are, they should start asking question to Roger why he lied to them.

Bitcoin will always be p2p. Strange, few months ago Roger Ver claimed that he wanted those 2 layers on his own Bcash chain.. So youre bugged and oh so 'precious' Bcash will also transform into a 'settlement' layer(s).

Jeff committed computer fraud because you cannot add stuff into an open-source project by youre own  :o

And you claimed to be a computer scientist...you dont even know how to make Bitcoin mainstream while keeping the Bitcoin chain decentralised and secure as possible :-\

Realy, do you even know what blockchain is and how much potential it got? You cannot and will not move all those financial traffic into 1 block..even Roger knows that.

You should support Core's roadmap if you want to see this fiat system getting disrupted by Bitcoin!

Jonald is literally a paid baboon, and you can verify this by his past timeline as well as fake medium posts and similar. His "opinions" can't be taken seriously. The statement that is quoted here is also fake, by design.

Coffee purchases on chain are a no brainer, they should not be there if we have to sacrifice intrinsic values for them to be there. Anyone claiming otherwise is a baboon or paid agent trying to disrupt Bitcoin (see NSA Operation Orchestra).

I like the enthusiasm for taking down the enemy but this makes people think NO2X is actually a threat to Bitcoin but in reality it's just a weak attack against the network and look how BTC is responding.

Another signature spammer. Seriously?

Coinbase: "Following the fork, Coinbase will continue referring to the current bitcoin blockchain as Bitcoin (BTC) and the forked blockchain as Bitcoin2x (B2X)."

Source: https://support.coinbase.com/customer/portal/articles/2892985-segwit-2x-faq

Funny how tables turned now. History is not going to forget this hijack attempt.

Don't forget this one: The only 2x developer Garzik launches his own premined shitcoin: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/78cw0a/2x_dev_jeff_garzik_launches_his_own_shitcoin/.

another trial hold on and support the btc winning again the strongest cryptocurrency as first decentralised currency i believe all of this the favor goes to bitcoin majority supporters, no one can control bitcoin as currency in the cryptoworld.

"If the #Segwit2x change is accepted by most users, we may choose to rename these blockchains at a later date."

Somewhere about 99% of the current user base is against this fork, I'd estimate. I have yet to meet a single, normal, Bitcoin user that told me something in the lines of "I understand Segwit et. al. and I support 2x". Don't get bamboozled by r/btc and their shills on Bitcointalk. ::)

*If* they don't trick the users, no one will use Garzik's buggy, shitty corporate 2X.

Which, most of the time core devs saved his ass, in fact helped him to improve to code.

Don't even trip Garzik. You forked core version. Lazy ass.

Kore Minions are in for a surprise:

http://www.trustnodes.com/2017/10/24/bitcoin-fork-may-go (http://www.trustnodes.com/2017/10/24/bitcoin-fork-may-go)


It is miners alone that create blocks and process transactions, with other nodes verifying the process. As such, with 15% of the hashrate, blocks on the minority chain will be very rare, averaging around 1 every two hours, but with variance it may be even a whole day without blocks.

It’s unclear how the market would react to that situation considering that at least for Coinbase this would be bitcoin itself so operating on very rare blocks.

It looks like the No2X celebrations from the Coinbase statement were short lived. They have just clarified their statement. The new statement reads," We are going to call the chain with the most accumulated difficulty Bitcoin". I guess they are going to start recieving hate mail because we all know what that means. Lol. I'm really enjoying this circus.

Unocoin will not support 2x trading and will continue to list the real Bitcoin as BTC: https://news.unocoin.com/?p=796.
Israeli Bitcoin Association: Segwit2x != Bitcoin: https://bitcoin.org.il/files/IBA_Statement_Segwit2x.pdf.

---

Where's that "majority support" that the corrupt mr. Garzik was talking about? ::)

Gemini also made the same statement earlier today. That's the two most reputable US exchanges, with Coinbase being the largest by volume. With Blockchain.info and Xapo following the same policy, I have to admit, I'm feeling a bit nervous about the fork.

And I think that the markets reflected that with the dump into the $5300s. With the double top structure we have, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the market dumps into the November fork, given all the fundamental uncertainty it brings. Meanwhile, 85% of hashpower is still signalling for 2x.

It's crazy how that goes. Yesterday, after Coinbase's blog, everyone said "that's the nail in the coffin for 2x." Today, it feels like we've gone 180 degrees. :-\

I actually dont know what is happening right now in bitcoin. I should search and study more about it. I have small amount of btc in polo, I heard coins.ph is supporting segwit2x. What will be the changes if it happened? Any advantages and disadvantages will happen after the fork? Im slightly nervous now and im just hoping that there will be no more big changes :(

https://blog.bitmex.com/trading-shitcoin2x/#at-fork-time

He who sells first, sells best.

2X price will be worse than Cash, no one even going to pick it up. Just because of BTC/BCH price, Bitmain still has to mine Bitcoin. If BCH > BTC, they would be mining BCH.

Same thing goes for this scenario. Miners is not going to mine at loss.

I am nervous myself about this upcoming fork. I was not aware about Gemini's announcement. This fork really has a potential to be one big hot mess. A drop in price to $5300 wouldn't be too bad, I think that's still a decent price. I would take even $4000. As long as there isn't too much disruption. If the 85% miners signalling 2x keep their word. Then Core would be in a lot of trouble. While word is that miners are only after money, do you think after the fork they would help mine the Core chain like they did with Bitcoin Cash? What do you think? Somehow I do have my doubt. Also about what you said as the long route you would go about to determine which chain is BTC. Don't you think that would disadvantage NO2X supporters. I'm just thinking that the most vocal ones admit to not using bitcoin much. Hence they don't see a problem with the high transaction fees?

Prediction of markets is most complex task - I'd say nobody can do this.

My analysis would be: Look where the buying power is after the fork and where the momentum + trend is negative / positive - measured from last local top / bottom.

You need to look at political trades (short term) and mass traders (long term).

If you look at the limited group still supporting SW1x (NO2x) - I'd say I cannot see much buy power LEFT - these are mostly all in per today.

How many (agnostic) millions will be 'directed' by NYA entities to flow in fresh capital ?

Looks like easy math and I'd bet that 1x coin will fall in txs/min  and price in a sudden .... but sure,  beware of any predictions!

after some shocking reading find that 2x is hijack attempt

No matter how you put it , this is just a battle for greed. It is just the start of the system coruption...everyone wants to benefit and to suck as much as they cand from the industry. Either way, both camps are manipulating the comunities and which one will win will also get a shit tone of money...while morons like us keep fighting on forums!

Good argument points although Bitmex, Bitfinex, Coincheck, Bithumb, Bittrex, Quoinexchange these are the biggest exchanges(volume-wise) and they are not the signees of the agreement.

From the exchange company point switching to S2X is just doesn't make sense(unless mining power shifts and legacy chain gets distrupted)

So, basically I would say the most important argument point here are the blocks.

If the %85 of the mining power shifts to S2X, even Bitcoin gets support from all users and exchanges, we all will have hard time. We are talking about finding one block a day kind of a problem. Where avg. daily tx number is 300.000.


Possible scenarios;

1. %85-%90 of the mining power will shift, legacy chain will get distruped, every exchange will be forced to use S2X.
2. %85-%90 of the mining power will shift to S2X but %90 of that portion will be replaced quickly.
3. Miners will mine at loss just to distrup the legacy chain, no matter the cost.
4. Miners will play let's-wait-and-see card. S2X will fail and mining power will stay at legacy chain.

Considering Garzik, he already moved on to another coin to create an ICO, I would say it's a failure already. I would put my money to fourth option.

I think people are reading way too much into Jeff Garzik's Metronome project. Jeff has been heading in this direction for a long time, and I also never thought for a moment that he was spending much time/effort on BTC1. That was one of the downfalls of the 2x approach. They simply don't appear competent or, frankly, concerned for user safety.

Jeff exhibits a nonchalance that suggests that he is perfectly fine with consensus-breaking bugs emerging on the Bitcoin network. The way he sees it: at best, they can turn Bitcoin's governance into something like what Ethereum has (proof-of-Vitalik) and at worst, he can just hop onto an altcoin train. In fact, that's Metronome's selling point.....

Given that Gemini and Coinbase just doubled down in support of the NYA, I wouldn't write it off just yet.

As a neutral, I just hate all these powergrabs, but it's understandable as so much are at stake. There will be for sure a brutal fight in November. The name fight might be over in a month but the damage to the crytomarket and trust will last for a long time.

At this point, I'm just having fun and enjoying the show. I've always been adamantly against contentious forks, but I have no fight left in me after the July drama. Whatever happens will happen. The November fork is definitely creating uncertainty and setting up a situation where the balance should tip in favor of the bears. I'm fortunate enough to have made a living trading BTC during the 2014 bear market, so I'll be alright no matter what happens. I'm confident that I can hedge my long term positions better than most.

As for #NO2X, I really think the 2X fork is in some way karmic retribution for the August 1st fork split threat. The BIP148/NO2X side implemented an incompatible fork (BIP148) on a 2-month timeline with no replay protection and no widespread agreement. Now, the 2X side is implementing an incompatible fork on a 3-month timeline with no replay protection and no widespread agreement.

Hearing complaints from the same people that backed BIP148 sure sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. Anyone who supported BIP148 despite its rushed timeline and lack of support from Core -- yet disparages 2X for the same reasons -- is a hypocrite. That's the plain truth. Did Segwit have widespread support -- much more than 2X? Yes! But that's 100% irrelevant here and completely ignores the risks of UASFs that lack user support. Given all the hypocrisy, I'm actually enjoying watching the #NO2X crowd bitch and moan. They been looking real salty lately. :D

People are getting confused about what will happen on exchanges. Exchanges don't settle onchain until customers withdraw their coin. So they can price 2x and 1x at whatever their stupid customers believe to be pricing reality over the SHORT TERM, but when people go to withdraw 1x coins and there is a 1 week delay due to the chain death spiral, what do you suppose will happen to the exchange price?

Any fool trading these BTC1x futures and "dumping BTC2x" will get what he deserves...

Bitcoin Cash unaffected.

I think you're right that Bitcoin Cash benefits from all this turmoil, and I'm guessing it'll see a bump in price as a result. But fundamentally, it's still a terrible cryptocurrency, especially considering the emergency difficulty algorithm basically bakes hyperinflation into the protocol -- until one day, the supply is mined out and fees are still low. What happens then?

As for 1x vs. 2x, I think the sensible thing for people to do is hold both. Selling either one for ideological reasons may end up hurting your portfolio a lot. Be careful regarding replay attacks and sell one or the other only when the market has made fairly clear what will happen in the mid to long term.

banks and corporate sector using bitcoin itself to there advantages!


rules are simple, if you can't beat it just clone it .



bitcoin core should not be allowed to fork, but everyone has free will, but its us community who should not fall for these forks.



most of the users who hold less then 1 BTC fall for these kinds of forks, thinking that they do not miss investing in bitcoin

No - bitcoin core just needs to listen more to the needs of ALL and there is no need to fork.

Thanks for the info!
Very interesting.

Louise

i can sympathize with that sentiment, but it's important to recognize that the bitcoin ecosystem is extremely diverse now. there is a massive global user base. people depend on bitcoin for their livelihoods, and businesses depend on bitcoin running reliably with 100% uptime. that's who core has to think about.

they are trying to minimize network disruptions and keep bitcoin scaling and functioning while continuing to see massive growth. that's no small task. they can't be expected to integrate changes to consensus rules (on short timelines, no less) when there is no widespread support from the community for any one proposal.

You nailed it - the task is too big for 'a core'.

For me it would be fine if we had a core for exclusively  'running reliably with 100% uptime.' I've thanked core for doin this at different places already. And I'm pretty sure that this is a full-time job for 10 FE - just doin this.

But for all other tasks like Requirement Engineering, Risk Management, Prototyping, Project Management, Testing - QA, Feedback Looping, Deployment, Change Management, .... you name it - This all gets too much - no wonder that we are already deeply split!

To get started all this important things needed for the size and importance of bitcoin -  even free discussion was not allowed, despite BCT is still best unifying form I know from. - Tell me how could all this constructively be done not with these resulting forks in competition?  It's seems that we can only watch the logical consequences now, but the 2X might be the last chance to try - otherwise try to think what the big economic companies (NYA is just a small part seen here) will choose to do next ?  


Our existing core team is just not industrial style, not experienced not skilled not diversified, not constructive and not prepared enough to get this high rate growing baby under their control they wished to have.

It's not their failure they cannot do but it's their failure to try it (despite they might see it's breaking up more and more).

I really wish people would stop painting this situation so black and white because that makes outsiders, that are potential new users, believe that there are only two sides that can influence the Bitcoin network, when really it's a massively coordinated effort.

I support Core ideologically, for the most part.
However the increase in block size does make sense to me.

I don't know if Bitcoin should only be used as a 'settlement' coin.
I'd like to see it used more for daily transactions for even a cup of coffee.
I am reading that fewer retail places are accepting Bitcoin, this is not good; so i'm willing to listen and support proposals that that aim to increase it's use.

The EDA is being removed on Nov 6 via hardfork. The rate of coin issuance caused 15k BCH coins to be mined more than BTC. Hardly a big problem. Hyperinflation is a massive exaggeration. The BCH price is nice and low now, which should drive in a ton of volume from people feeling the 1x chain death and 2x price drop. Personally I am long all major alts.

Interesting... thanks for the info. I figured that Bitmain quite liked the EDA, since they could paint it as "low fees guaranteed" when it effectively just decreased block time on average in favor of mining rewards. I agree that the hyperinflation angle is exaggerated, but you can't blame bitcoiners for taking that position, can you? If you asked BCH supporters before the fork, I'm sure all of them would reject the idea that BCH should be mined faster than Bitcoin.

So are they just removing the EDA entirely and returning to the old difficulty algorithm? Probably smart and good timing for the market as we head into the November uncertainty. If the 2x chain is the "corporate takeover" and the 1x chain is unusable due to low hash rate and high fees, Bitcoin Cash can step right in and profit from all the confusion and uncertainty.

https://i.imgur.com/BQB7KeC.png

This is coming from Bitfinex.

Bitmex is also #NO2X.

And we all know that these two exchanges holds big portion of daily trades;

https://i.imgur.com/IaImiFH.png


Considering my previous comment, miners might not play let's-wait-and-see card. After XT, Classic, Unlimited and Bcash failures, I think they might risk it all and halt the legacy network.

Nope, they have a new diff algo. The nitty gritty is here https://www.yours.org/content/deadalnix-s-difficulty-algorithm-explained-ac50eb2b1f16/ (https://www.yours.org/content/deadalnix-s-difficulty-algorithm-explained-ac50eb2b1f16/)

Many people don't realize that BTC difficulty calculation is only every 2016 blocks. That is a potentially fatal flaw in the coin that may very well cause the death of the Segwit1x chain, regardless of what Bitmex or any other exchange says "the real BTC" is. Basically the difficulty doesn't drop and the chain slows to a halt (AKA chain death spiral). If you look at the Segwit BTC chain right now, you'll see that exactly this starting to happen right now! Hashrate has dropped 6 exahash in the last 24 hours, while diff went up 21%, and the mempool is 30-50MB, That means that Segwit BTC blocks are only getting mined every 20 minutes on average, With full blocks, transactions get backed up quite quickly... this could even continue and get much worse in the next few weeks as Segwit BTC1x may never get to 2016 blocks for the diff adjustment!

Bitcoin Cash has the EDA precisely to avoid the death spiral phenomenon. Unfortunately, the EDA adjusts difficulty in an asymmetrical manner (down faster than up), causing the miners to game the algo a bit. As other have stated, this means a few extra coins are issued ahead of schedule, and block times are a bit sporadic. The fork will fix that. And then the 2x/1x war will be in full swing.

I'm long popcorn.

Interesting read on the subject,
https://blog.commerceblock.com/upcoming-fork-352cd9f9951a

Thanks for this....very helpfull

That doesn't make any sense. The paragraph below is the definition of what's required for 100% uptime and reliability.

So Core somehow guarantees 100% uptime and offloads the work that permits it to the cranks, deadbeats and failures who litter the scene? They are no doubt control freaks but for a good reason.

Every other iteration has completely pissed all over the important back room stuff which is usually uncovered within a few seconds by real people.

Not really useful, no.

Comparing Bitcoin Core code to Garzik code, or Bitcoin XT or BU or Classic or [insertRandomFailedTakeover] code is a joke. You can't even make a proper analogy that would both accurately describe the difference yet point out how absurd it is to even attempt to compare said differences. More Bitcoin companies and big players need to offer at least a single paid position for working on Bitcoin Core. I think I've recently spotted one at Xapo.

Fuck yeeeeeeeeee

in the last segwith they were born BCH, and not happened with BTC. this segwith mayber born BTG and not happened with BTC. BTC is hero