Bitcoin Forum

in November, 75% of the pools will move on seqwit2x without the consent of the developers of bitcoin

Good luck with that. Trying to convince yourself is good but scalability issues is a made up issue. Plus you don't realize that segwit2x has no solution against quantum computing attacks but bitcoin.org does. So good luck with the advertisement of segwit2x.

And if they manage to pull that off, they will no longer be mining bitcoin. I hope they have a blast :)

These forks are cashgrabs. When you have  shit ton of bitcoin, a thought must arise in ones head. How can I generate value out of thin air just by changing a small (comparatively) bit of code, and how can I make bitcoin cheaper so that I can buy more?

"A fork!"

I say all this because these baby forks will never gain enough traction to surpass and replace bitcoin, which is the aim of their existence. Its an alt with the same mining algo, which to me means a rival coin (cuz so many of the features are literally the same). If you want to break away from the consensus, do it on your own dime, not on the back of bitcoin.

And now you have to explain "fork" when you explain "bitcoin", which is already a pickle.

 say all this because these baby forks will never gain enough traction to surpass and replace bitcoin, which is the aim of their existence. Its an alt with the same mining also, which to me means a rival coin (cuz so many of the features are literally the same). If you want to break away from the consensus, do it on your own dime, not on the back of bitcoin.

I think it should pools not to depend on developers who want to keep decentralization, that came up with seqwit2x. Protection against double transaction set is not want to seize the sticker of BTC apparently, the developers also do not want to concede with a sticker, in the end all will suffer bitcoins. Bitcoins will not be available for input on the exchanges until the sticker is not defined warring. On the contrary the fuss: "I bought bitcoins, and can not sell, Scam!"

I will stay with the original Bitcoin (bitcoin.org). I agree that scalability issue is a bit made up right now. Bitcoin wasn't designed for small purchases. It is great for bigger payments, especially between people who aren't from the same country. After introducing SegWit transactions are already fast and cheap (even thought there's only 10% SegWit addresses adaptation) so why would we increase the block size limit to 8 MB?

The thing is people also said this about the internet before it became mainstream. Back in the 1980's people did not think of the internet like it is today, but rather only big corporations would own websites and people would visit and shop on them, but these days everyone can have their own website, and I think Bitcoin should be the same.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1263.msg23376405#msg23376405

I don't negate that Bitcoin might be used for daily payments in the future but I think that increasing block size isn't the best way to do it. Introducing SegWit already helped us to decrease the transaction fees. Did you mean that Bitcoin will be centralised because the same thing happened to the Internet? Internet purpose wasn't to become mainstream, they planned to used it for education and military purposes.