Bitcoin Forum

So most people agreed to segwit2x, though core never did and now some people who agreed are dropping out. But still the vast majority as far as I'm aware are still supporting the 2x upgrade. And I can't understand why people are so against it, as obviously more scaling is needed and a 2x of block size if just simply a good thing. Unless people think there needs to be more time to test it, though I can't imagine why so much testing and development would be needed since it is simply changes one very small thing. The contention of this issue baffles me, seems to be a very straightforward good second step in scaling bitcoin, the negativity towards it shows the unreasonable toxicity of the bitcoin community and the refusal to prepare the technology for mass market acceptance.

Anyways, which do you guys think will be considered Bitcoin after the hard fork, the original chain or the 2x chain? I'm hoping 2x takes over since it can do twice the transactions with no downside so that is obviously better for bitcoin. Either way I will just be holding my bitcoin and won't move any bitcoin until this whole mess is over and we have a clear winner. But what do you all think?

It looks to me like segwit2x has some heavyweight supporters, so it might be unwise to bet against it. I don't really know though. If you put it that way, I'd rather back segwit2x as well. I'm going to be on wait and see mode for a while.

Mistake, most miners agreed to that fork, people are still supporting overwhelmingly bitcoin core and no other coin, there is no question which is the real bitcoin, segwit2x is just another altcoin that has nothing new to offer, the 2MB fork is not necessary at all and I see as a good sign that support is slowly diminishing for such a useless coin.

The market wants Core. Today the futures market moved Segwit2x UP to 15% of the value of the original chain: https://www.bitfinex.com/order_book/bt2btc

For completeness, you can see the non-2x fork is getting the other 85%: https://www.bitfinex.com/order_book/bt1btc

Your speculation has been surpassed in the month of October before the real event of segwit2x of November. It seems panic selling will not be like that of August Fork that led to massive decline in the market value of bitcoin and other altcoins few days to August 1st event. Bitcoin will ever remain bitcoin no matter what happen during and after the segwit2x of November and there is no course for alarm.

This. Newbies make the mistake of thinking that the miners have the power to direct Bitcoin's development. They do have a "say" but they are not the real power behind where should Bitcoin's development go.

To answer OP, the real Bitcoin after November is the one before November.

It's actually difficult to say, as we are in October and Bitcoin gold is to come, post that in mid November we see segwit2x being activated, so as far as previous comprises segwit2x was leading with the support, and currently there not much news which shows they have lost the support, however in crypto world, anything can happen, we may see core make a comeback. However if core doesn't, then segwit2x is the Bitcoin whether we like it or not, I am just hoping there no mass selling like what we witnessed earlier.

I really don't think that is the case. If it was then Segwit2x would indeed be the real Bitcoin as that is only defined by the one most people choose to use. After the fork, all sites and businesses that accept Bitcoin will continue to use the original chain as the vast majority run Bitcoin Core nodes. Some are planning to distribute the Segwit2x coin as a dividend but none will actually switch to using it.
That's the thing here, it doesn't matter what we individually think of the merits of Segwit2x. It's was the Bitcoin community as a whole choose to adopt that matters.

People tend to switch to which is better and more efficient to use so the one which is the most efficient among the bitcoin version by novemeber will be the one most used. For now I can say that the original bitcoin is the one that will be most used since for me it is the one that looks better to use among the versions bitcoin has. The only problem with it is slow transaction.

Well thats not true at all. Bitcoin is going to need A LOT MORE SCALING in the future, so an increase to 2MB is just the second step on what will no doubt be a lot of steps toward scaling to meet a global mass market demand. Sure it doesn't need the 2MB fork in November, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if segwit blocks are full within a year, at which point it will need larger blocks, so why are you people against it so much when it is obviously needed for the future?

And my first sentence wasn't a mistake. Not only miners but many many bitcoin companies agreed to segwit2x. Only after that did miners jump on board leading up to the segwit upgrade.

So why do some of you people refuse to want bitcoin to be able to scale?? Are you intentionally hoping for its demise and wanting to sabotage it? Or are you just very shortsighted and refuse to look into the future to see that more solutions are needed to scaling. When segwit blocks are full and transaction fees have skyrocketing again and wait times have skyrocketed again will you only then start to think oh maybe we do need 2MB blocks or more!?

The poster directly above this post even said he would want the fork that is better to win, and he claimed it is the original chain hahaha. That is straight up delusion. Current chain can do half the transactions as 2x can, thats the only difference. It's black and white, 2x is twice as good as current chain. I'm sure there will need to be additional hard forks in the coming years to increase the block size further, why are you people making this very obvious upgrade so contentious? The question is do you want bitcoin do be able to do the current amount of transactions, or double the amount of transactions?

It's pretty simple: if you want bitcoin to eventually fail to meet demand then obviously you want to hinder its progress and keep the current chain, if you want bitcoin to handle more transactions and scale better and its price to rise then you support 2x as well as other scaling solutions.

Seems to me this irrational denial of needed scaling is some misguided attempt to pay homage to Satoshi and not hard fork away from his code. You'd rather see Satoshi's dream for bitcoin fail than fork from his code.

No doubt Segwit2X is the updated version with increased block size and some other advantages but there are some disadvantages too. The increase in block size will also increase the risk of attack, however everything has pros and cons. It is true i have also seen a massive support for the SegWit2X but i believe that it would be more better if after November Bitcoin will remain on the same chain instead of 2x chain.

Whether it's November fork or something else, surely the main chain will continue to be the bitcoin. Even if several other forks happen further there will be no change. For the same xapo got a big criticism from experts all around because of its plan to name bitcoin with some other name after the upcoming fork.

What pump? BT2 still trading for even lower than the last time I looked at it. Highest buy order is around 0.14 BTC. We will see how relevant this is when it's all said and done, but it doesn't look good for B2X in the market.

I just wish to get through this already. If segwit2x wins then bitcoin is dead, since corporations would have shown to be stronger than holders.
I hope work is being done right now to stop the NYA scammers.


Transactions are cheap. Being able to run a node is worth more money than doubling blocksize with a rushed hardfork. You can't just say "2x is twice as good as current chain", that's just dumb, there are tradeoffs to this. There's no point in this hardfork, other than Jeff Garzik's 5 minutes of fame and everyone involved in the takeover getting a paycheck.

I got really confused here.
It seems like there is much of misunderstanding.
One guy is at the bulls eye. Bitcoin will remain bitcoin.
Take out segwit and take out everything what will be left? Still it is bitcoin.
The support is what you are trying to imply. Will they support segwit 2x which coulf lead to a drastic drop since it will half the investors.
If something is created it will be an altcoin. Period.

Miners will follow the money. Which ever fork gets higher valuations will receive more hashrate, as everything else would be mining at a loss. Whichever fork gets more hashrate is more likely to survive. Whichever fork survives, will be the new Bitcoin.



The downside is fewer nodes and subsequently increased centralization, making it easier for governments to practically shut-down Bitcoin. Additionally mining could further consolidate, making it even harder for small to mid-sized miners to join the fun.



Here is the meat of the problem. Bitcoin is indeed going to need a lot more scaling. Which is exactly why a linear scaling solution such as simply increasing block size is not going to cut it. Which is exactly why 2nd layer solution such as Lightning Network that have far better scaling properties are so important.

No one is against increasing Bitcoin's transaction throughout. It's just the how that is debatable. And unfortunately the solution is not quite as simple as a block size increase, since a change like that might come with a lot of side-effects that may not be all that obvious at a first glance.

Heavyweight supporters ? Really ? Segwit2x is as dead as it sounds. The only set of people supporting 2x now are the miners because it favors them which to me apparently leads to centralization, totally against why we are here in the first place.

Still, the community decides and once they discover the 2x is as dead as it is, they won't have any choice falling back to core. Most users who do not understand this yet are beginning to, and the support is dropping drastically fast. Better spread the news now, if you do not want to leave your future in the hands of the miners to decide.

Yeah but you NEED the miners in order for whales and us common folk to dump the forked coins in order to force miners to keep mining the legacy. If you don't have a certain amount of hashrate, then how are these transactions that would price in the fork be processed? You need enough hashrate to keep the legacy chain alive in order to dump, it's pretty simple.

So this is the dilemma... will we have enough hashrate? will miners that are signaling "intention" really support the segwit2x chain? that is the only thing that matters now, and I think they are bullshitting and we will have enough hashrate to get this done.

this is utter bullshit! and bitfinex does this kind of stuff all the time. they still had a BTU (bitcoin unlimited) market last time i checked. how can you even sell something that doesn't still exist?!! which means the price is 100% virtual and meaningless. the only purpose of these markets is so that bitfinex can make money from the additional volume it gets (trading fees) and be the first to have that coin listed in case there were such coins.

I believe there's a 70% probability that Core will be "the Bitcoin".


I am pretty sure that you both wrong. Most Bitcoin users ("people") do absolutely not care about the scaling debate. They want a working Bitcoin, and they want to be rich quickly ;D  (Really, I was surprised that many "non-techies" when first told about the debate were supporting Bitcoin Unlimited!)

So everything depends on the "economic" nodes/services like exchanges, wallets and payment processors. The next weeks will be exciting for people that like popcorn! Every minimal move into Core territory could be the one that kills Segwit2x, but if there isn't such a move and the big fishes of the NYA agreement keep supporting it, then it has some chance to win. Together, they have power.

I don't mind ... for me, neither the small-blocker Core proposal nor the "moderate-big-blocker" Segwit2x proposal are bad options, although I'm sympathizing a bit more with Core because the 2x hardfork comes too early.

There is nothing to think about, because after November nothing is gonna happen, just bitcoin gold gets added to the list of altcoins same as that bitcoin cash got added. This doesn't gonna make bitcoin core down and take the lead. Past two days bitcoin cash have been growing and today the growth has started to decline.

The prices are really going berserk, if one sees the chart it went to 5700$, then takes a beating comes down to 5100$ and again today it's 5600$. This is the most volatile trend ever shown, I feel that bitcoin gold won't be successful and it shall fail, then I also believe with recent news showing that segwit2x is loosing support is as dangerous as it gets, cause that can create unnecessary tumble for Bitcoins. If support is clicked expect prices to be 6500$ if not 4000$.

you are confusing 2 different forks!
- bitcoin gold: which is in 6 days (October 25) and it is clearly an altcoin. it even has a different PoW algorithm (Equihash). it is an attempt to make bitcoin GPU mineable!
this fork won't change anything

- SegWit2x hard fork part which falls in November (block height 494,784).
it is the second part of NYA agreement which activated SegWit and now wants to proceed with increasing block size to 2 MB from 1 MB.
this can cause issues since core developers are against it. but a large group of miners and businesses support it, and that creates a split in community.

Earlier,there was a huge support for segwit 2x with about 95% miners support.But now,slowly it has started to decline.F2Pool has withdrawn its support which had compromised 10% in it.So,now,the support is only 85%.Its a great draw back for segwit 2x.Core team has started to enjoy this move.

Not only F2Pool,other two mining pools have also said that earlier they expected that core team would support segwit 2x,but since it does not support it,so they also withdraw their support.

So,probably i tjink that only the original team would exist after the hard fork and so,just holding bitcoins might be the right decision.I would say that due to panic selling,bitcoin price may even fall a little and we should use this opportunity to even grab some more bitcoins.

I think bitcoin core will ever remain the really bitcoin as there have all the bitcoins structure and foundation's of cryptocurrencies and because of this there is not going to be any coins that will ever take bitcoin core. I think bitcoin core will keep growing up as Investors see it as a channel to others cryptocoins.

Bitcoin will stay bitcoin. Forks may say that splitting of bitcoin to form another altcoins but it will never affect its popularity. Cryptocoins are racing for the highest place in cryptoworld. But I think there is no need to worry, another coin will eventually test another's trust to new coins.  If bitcoin gold will not gain enough investors then it will be probably dead too like the first one bitcoin cash.

I'm for original bitcoin, I don't have anything against bitcoin gold, cash, black and white bitcoin, for me this are new altcoins that offer something like many other altcoins, what is better and more useful is individual. After november we will see the same as we saw after august, bitcoin will stay first and strongest, and with bitcoin gold people will earn some money dump their bitcoin gold tokens and that is it. Only interesting thing about bitcoin gold is that can be mined with GPUs, that can make people interested in this new coin and nothing more.

 no mattei which one will be true bitcoin ,i think the safe way is holding both coins ,otherwise if you make a wrong chioce, i will lose all of your bitcoins .

No doubt, this is because there is no other choice and no other alternative solutions other than SegWit2X that will resolve this traffic issues that needs an immediate actions specially that everyday more and more are joining bitcoins investments causing significant increase of transactions in the block chain.

Scaling bitcoin is important, and right now the network as it is, wouldn't be able to deal with a huge increase in the number of transactions. Things need to be done, but I don't think segwit2x is the solution right now because there are other alternatives to explore before having to increase the size of the blocks.

Also increasing the size could help now, but it wouldn't still solve the problem for the long run, so it's not worth the risk in my opinion, and we are already seeing some mining pools withdrawing their support as well. It's simply not the right time to do it.
From what I read a single person (Jeff Garzik, supported by a small few) is trying to impose his way, and doesn't seem to care about proper testing. I think most people are noy against the possible increment in the block size, and it will probably happen, they just want to go for it later, when the majority consider that is safe to go for the fork.

you keep saying bitcoin gold and November but these two have nothing to do with each other. bitcoin gold fork is in about 5 months in this month and then we have another fork called SegWit2x and that is in November.

the BTG one is obviously an altcoin and if it gains enough interest you will need a proper mining rig of GPUs to be able to mine it and one normal GPU in your PC is not gonna cut it.

I am sure 90% bitcoin will be same as bitcoin before the fork AKA bitcoin core.I don't trust Segwit2x or any other bitcoin forks that happens to achieve consensus based on miners/corporate businesses.All they want is to have control over bitcoin.Bitcoin core is the real bitcoin and will stay that way as it has major user support and that's what matters.Miners will come back to core when they see less transactions on 2x chain.  :)

I agree that with how contentious the fork is, I'd rather not have it. Scaling solutions should be put in place when the community mostly supports it. And obviously off-chain solutions will be needed to come anywhere near fully scaling bitcoin. On-chain will never be be able to handle thousands of transactions per second, and maybe not even hundreds. But block size increase should absolutely be part of the scaling solution. I'd rather have as much scaling as we can get on-chain, and then move to off-chain solutions, because obviously having everything on-chain is better since the whole blockchain tech is about storing things ya know, in the blockchain.

I just don't get why people are so against what is a very straightforward and obvious way to scale bitcoin so it can at least handle transaction volume until maybe sometime next year when we can see if lightning network turns out to be a workable scaling solution. The only thing changing would be the block size. That's a very straightforward change. People say there hasn't been enough time to implement it and test it. I can't imagine how that could possibly be the case. Seems that basically bitcoin core has refused to do it and so because of that are trying to say 3 months was too short a time. Well of course it is if you don't plan on spending any of those 3 months doing it!

In summary, there is no reason the 2x upgrade should be contentious. And it shows how deeply toxic the bitcoin community is. But seeing as how it is so contentious I'd rather not have the fork happen and wait until the bitcoin community realizes that scaling is more important than the toxic attitude, which will likely be when bitcoin is at capacity for a long time again and transactions fees skyrocket. It seems the bitcoin community can only see past their own toxicity when the bitcoin protocol is failing. The no2x types seem to be the people that can't look past today, they just blindly say "nope everything is fine right now there can't possibly be any reasons to improve things".

We do not need 2MB blocks right now, we may need them in the future? Of course, but in a month? Of course not, and even if some businesses support the fork it does not matter, all of those entities are powerful but they do not get to decide what people want, it is like designing a video game no one wants and then expecting that it sells well, that is not going to happen, they can fork if they want, but they cannot force people to follow them.

We will all grow weary of the forkathon and then we will grow weary of the insecurity of Core SegWit and then we will beg for the security and immutability of the original Satoshi Bitcoin:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2268216.msg23422490#msg23422490

But the whole point of having a scalable technology is to not wait until the network is all jammed up to do the scaling! Why would you want to wait until the network is jammed to do anything about it?! That's what we had earlier this year and it sucked, you would have thought the bitcoin community would have learned their lesson but apparently not, since as you say, may as well not improve bitcoin now when we won't reap the rewards until a later date. Awful backwards thinking!

Going by that logic Satoshi should have originally made like 0.05 MB blocks and then only once it got congested, and not before, the community could have hard forked to 0.1 MB, then let it get jammed again, and fork again and so on on the way up only creating solutions to problems you know will arise in the future once they start hurting bitcoin, instead of ya know doing the obvious thing and scaling before it becomes a huge problem!

I also see it as another useless fork. Yet the miners support it all the way. It offers no solution, no enhancement for the system aside from the 2mb file sizing.

No one knows what will be the real value of bitcoin and there is no obvious single explanation for the price collapse, though part of it may simply be a market correction of speculative mania that has attracted all sort of new investors to the market. As always, digital currency investing is proving not to be for the faint of heart. Although bitcoin has been in existence for five years, most countries still do not have consistent laws regulating the cryptocurrency.

After the fork or even after many more corrections or  fork may happen in the near future, i think it will still be bitcoin, no other alts now can replace it even those that came from split. Bitcoin still have lots to develop and to reveal in the next few years.

Bitcoin is bitcoin. No other alts can deny that fact and many people are also in the same way and he'll remain in top of all. Don't sacrifice your bitcoin into some new born alts as it has nothing yet to prove in the market, if so you just left crying in the corner.

Either chain can be treated as the real Bitcoin, all depends on the community. Yes, the community will decide what chain will be the true Bitcoin. So if the classic coin will still have the majority of support from the community as well as the miners then it will remain as the true Bitcoin. However, if the community decides that the forked chain will be the new Bitcoin because it can scale or whatever reason they may give, then the latter will be the new Bitcoin.

There is only one original bitcoin and those who copies bitcoin to create another cryptocurrencies will always be called altcoins or alternative coins. It will remain as the leading cryptocurrency in the market and neither hardforks nor segwits will change that. For the few years, many developers attempted to create alternative virtual coins to challenge the dominance of bitcoin but til now no one is able to overtake its current top position.

But still, even if the HF coins surpass the popularity of bitcoin, many still assume that it's an altcoin, no?.
No matter how much those people who try to HF from the original bitcoin trying, bitcoin is still #1 because it has been planted to many people's minds that the only true/real digital currency as for now is bitcoin.

Bitcoin is only one and the original there is no doubt at all, all others are just altcoins Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin gold or whatever are they called. Original Bitcoin community doesn’t have problem with that and it’s clear which chain is the true one. Just don’t know what is all this mess about and so many Bitcoin related coins are totaly useless and after the first thrill they will become totaly worthless. Is it just me or there is somebody else who think that we need more order on the Bitcoin market?

Regarding the latest news and declarations, the current bitcoin (core/legacy) will remains the real one.

  But there will be lots of trouble if the hashrate of legacy blockchain really decreases. It s going to be a real jungle between FUDders and scammers, trying to get benefits from the chaos...

Theres no actually in need of these new bitcoin forked coins which they are just really an another altcoin in the market which i cant see any difference of it among others.Questioning on whose gonna be the real bitcoin? Then theres no brainer to answer such question.The king would be always the king and yet bitcoin is already 7 years old.Why would compare into those new ones??

My problem with forks is that if they want to start a new coins out of nothing I do not have a problem with it but with so many forks the bitcoin brand gets weaker since now there are three bitcoins and soon there are going to be four so for a newbie this is going to be confusing and they may end up buying the wrong coin thinking they are buying the original.

I’m against and will not support it that’s for sure. I’m not close minded for change but if it will not cause more good to community than bad then it’s for them to prove. This question is not answerable for me because at the first place the choices are not even comparable.

Let the one that supports it continue and let those members of this community, investors and user decide for what they think is right for themselves. It is pathetic to question it for we do respect yours.

Its just a ask-demand market. Everyday media announcing bitcoin related news and speculations. Too many new comers jump in the board.
Production still remains same and going to be a halving in 2019 this is what going to be priced.

i see most people are starting to support this new forked coins called bitcoin2x  and many of them believed that it can replace the original bitcoin but i dont really think so because it has lack of features which is replay protection but i think that can also be fixeed on the future updates of this coin. although most people are still onto bitcoins and i guess no one can still surpass or beat bitcoins not even those forked coins.

Throughout the previous forks, only one Bitcoin remains and stands strong. Most of the bitcoin users still choose to support bitcoin even weeks before the upcoming fork. They plan to dump whatever it is that they get in their wallets as soon as they get it during the fork. Some try to give it a shot by choosing to still hold it or trade it because they believe their to be potential but bitcoin would still remain and continues to be resilient despite the hardforks and segwits that we experience.

I wish to emphasize the following fact : it seems that the maintainer of the btc1 fork has proven little/poor expertise in implementing the replay protection routine before eventually reverting it.

So the question is : do we, users, have  to use a so poorly maintained branch ? Not to mention the modifications of the code of that branch that would follow and would most probably compromise the stability of the whole thing...

This is a *bad* halloween joke. 

Why many people are against sigwith2x is because, bitcoiner see it as governments taking over the control of bitcoin! I have read many blockchain technology experts comment on this and all of them keep repeating this comment in the article and post. On reddit I read last week when an expert was saying this should not been allowed to happen as sigwith2x is politicians take over of bitcoin. To me after the fork we would remain with bitcoin core and bitcoin core will ever remain the original bitcoin.

I started to consider all of the forked bitcoins as altcoins. They're not any type of bitcoin after they are forked from the main and exact blockchain. They can't replace the exact BTC and they can't fool people. Stay awake and adopt the real bitcoin only.

B2x is supported by coinbase and will be traded within hours. Say what you want, this fork is different - this one has miner support and will have some real value and unlike the other 2 shitcoins will take some away from btc.

Coinbase will quote it as "B2X", the futures put it at 0.15 BTC

The worst danger IMO is Bitpay, but they will follow the money at the end. Sooooo There is 15% risk !

 

Yeah, like Bitmex traders are never wrong.  ::)

@chesthing : you got a point

Are they trying to setup an UNITY-type replay protection  ?
=> https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/pull/138

I would like to believe that bitcoin will still remain as the main crypto coin and that segwit 2x  will be just like the bitcoin cash although it is supported by coinbase I think it cannot surpass the market bitcoin has established in the past year also the value appreciation we are enjoying these days makes bitcoin more worthy to earn. If segwit would need to replace bitcoin it needs to make people believe that it is worth and that it will not crashed and suddenly lose its value.

Miner support is dropping rapidly.  It recently went from 86% support to 63%.  Very unlikely to get much support to be any kind of legitimate threat to BTC. 

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/charlie-lee-gbminers-has-stopped-signaling-for-segwit2x-hard-fork/

recent blocs 492512, 492479 show otherwise ...

I will claim that even if one of the forks was able to overcome bitcoin and got a bigger market cap than bitcoin, that will not make it the original, that will only make it the most popular coin or the coin with the most money backing it, there is only one bitcoin and that is the one created by satoshi and maintained by the core devs and it does not matter the amount of forks there are that is never going to change.