Bitcoin Forum

I have been observing social media polls and saw how high the number of people who haven't picked a side in this debate or who just don't think its important. I am interested if finding out whether it is important to have a position or not? Please note I am not saying they should pick a side but I am just interested in why they claim to not care. Is it because they are ignorant of what the debate is really about  or they really dont care because they dont think their opinion matters

Users should care, but the fact of the matter is, most don't even understand Bitcoin. This is the nature of the adoption S-curve. Most users don't even understand the technology, let alone do they have an opinion about the block size debate.

I think that more users support #No2x than support the Segwit2x fork. However, I think the majority of users don't have a strong opinion at all. The fact is that consensus rule changes should be viewed on a scale of multiple years. Both sides think they can ram through forks in a couple months, though. It's pretty destructive, and basically puts incompatible forks at extreme disadvantage because most of the ecosystem opts for the status quo by default.

Most users just think it as another hard fork and they would get free air drop and get some coins free.But people who have some knowledge about bitcoin expect no2x to succeed as they find no problems in the existing bitcoin.So,they think that there is no need of segwit 2x activation.

Indeed, I think the experience of Bitcoin Cash has given people unrealistic expectations for this fork. Many think it's just a free airdrop of a new altcoin. They don't seem to realize that if companies like Coinbase, Blockchain.info and Xapo follow the 2X chain and refer to it as "Bitcoin" that they will be migrating to a new network -- and bringing all their customers with them.

For example, Blockchain.info is one of the most widely used wallets in the ecosystem. Someone using this wallet to accept transactions will accept B2X as valid payment, even though they may have thought they were receiving BTC. When they go to pay someone in BTC, all they will have is B2X. This could lead to major confusion, network disruption, and financial losses for users. I wish Segwit2x were just an airdrop, but really, it's much more dangerous.

If that will happen you will have EPIC dump on bitcoin . But not only bitcoins this will be nuke for all coins at end becouse all coins can be chalenged same way.
X country will tell you that is X coin and another country will say you "no this is X coin with KYC only true coin".

B2X is corporation takeover bitcoin.

Honestly I'm kind of terrified. This could be the month where Bitcoin fails completely. A complete split in the network would not be good at all.

I'd prefer that this get settled in a more-or-less amicable fashion. More importantly, both sides should start listening to one another about what they want to get out of this. Ordinary users will likely just care that Bitcoin keep its promise of being a cheap, fast, secure, relatively anonymous alternative to banks that can't shut down on them just because some bean counter at a bank got nervous.

You bet your arse they should care.

Most people don't know at all. Most people don't understand.

The people who do may feel they have no influence over this debate so there's no point in picking a side. I don't think that's valid but it's understandable.

USERS do not have a say in this.

MINERS have a say.

Now, is it important to have a position on a matter (as a user) that you do not have a say in?

I think the answer is yes......

Users absolutely have a say in it. If nobody changes their client, current bitcoin nodes won't accept the new blocks.

It's important to have a say for sure. S2X is a power grab, nothing more and nothing less. It is an attempt by an influential minority to fracture the community and gain control. Divide and conquer.

The majority should resist it. If no one perceives it as valuable, then it will have no value. S2X winning over the original Bitcoin creates a dangerous precedent, in which anyone can usurp Bitcoin's throne, creating further instability. Bitcoin is decentralized, and the community as a whole should decide whether a hard fork is necessary. It's basically our responsibility to take a stand, no matter which side you're on.

That's true for full nodes. It's not true for wallets that use traditional SPV architecture. Electrum recently released a fork detection mode with Segwit2x in mind, so that's the exception there. People using Blockchain.info or Breadwallet won't be changing anything they do, but the chain they're using might change depending on what miners do.

Some exchanges (like Coinbase) may also change the BTC symbol to follow the 2X chain. That could have a significant effect as well, given that it's the largest volume US exchange and that many people use it for a web wallet. One thing is for sure: have plenty of popcorn ready for next month.

Huh?

Coinbase, for example, has said they (their program) will support both, and if after a while one dominates, then they will drop the weak one.

But miners still gotta mine or there's nothing.

And if most of the people will terrified no wonder the bitcoin value will fall down because they easily panic and sell their bitcoins  without knowing and understanding what is the true objective of SegWit2X event, but im waiting to this opportunity to happen because i will have the opportunity to purchase bitcoin in cheapest price once again.

How do you justify this story?

SegWit was the corporate takeover.  It was pushed by Core developers working for Silicon Valley startups that want to push the transaction fees into their payment channels.  It definitely favors corporate interests.

The 2x upgrade will increase the blocksize, which should lower transaction fees, and improve confirmation times.

Tell me exactly how a larger block size will favor a corporate takeover of Bitcoin.  Keep in mind increasing the block size was promised by the lead developer of bitcoin EVERY TIME scaling issues were raised.

We were promised a fix to the scaling problems.  Segwit hasn't fixed anything.  Increasing the block size will fix the problem. 

As far as I can see, not implementing 2 Mb blocks will favor the corporate takeover of bitcoin, assuming bitcoin doesn't just fail entirely over the issue.

Lol okay sure. But honestly how would that ever be measured? Number if downloads? It doesn't seem realistic to gdt an accurate number of people using any wallet.

I think so. Segwit2X may not need to do this because I find it just a trick to create new coin to get more profit for them.

That surely is a confusion among people who don't know much about Bitcoin and the fork. According to me the name "Bitcoin" should not be given to anybody as it reminds of everyone that it's the king of cryptocurrencies. Whichever fork happens for whatever reason should use any other name other than Bitcoin. It will surely lead to a confusion among people as to which side they are in and which coins they are using.

The upgrade should be done as it improves the overall capability of Bitcoin but it has to tackle some major problems like the change in name itself, letting the customers choose what they want, protection from hackers and other issues in splitting the chain.The split will enhance the networks capability and it must be done at some point of time when the network will be overloaded. So if the split provides security and enhances the network at the same time then there should not be any problems in people supporting it.

There's no "lol okay sure" about it. Simply put, 2MB segwit blocks are against the consensus rules built into the vast majority of bitcoin nodes out there. When the fork hits, those blocks will not be propagated by the nodes running now, only new btc1/2x nodes.

I think bitcoin user just want use normal bitcoin. it is good enough for us. only trader need something new to fud, rumor and get money

Social media polls aren't very representative and can just easily be manipulated. Like, there's a poll on CoinDesk with nearly even results for all 3 options - support, oppose, not decided, but lets not forget that CoinDesk belongs to the same DCG that is behind the fork. Users who frequently engage in Bitcoin discussions usually have pretty strong opinion on the fork - just check /r/Bitcoin or this forum, you'll rarely see anyone undecided. Those who don't have their opinion yet are probably newbies or people who threat Bitcoin very casually, because both don't have enough knowledge to understand what's happening. But they would quickly learn if someone from the forkers would tell them to install btc1 client and import their private keys - because that sounds really suspicious even for unexperienced users.

Of course users should care, not just that, they should understand what segwit2x is. These two previous forks, especially the august one, gave a wrong idea that this will just be another altcoin. People should know the positive and negative side of implementing segwit2x. This confusion and ignorance of the matter will be more destructive than the downside of the proposal itself.

Fork all they want. I'll stay with the original, core's roadmap makes much more sense, increasing blocksize is the easiest way to scale but trade-offs are inefficiency, security and much more prone to censorship. Anyone who thinks increasing blocksize is the only way to scale is uncreative, like tax easiest way for government revenue. #NO2X

yes people like me only want to use bitcoin to make another money but if there is any free of coins that people could get then we are waiting for the free one. i think with the segwit2x, people can know and learn the process of bitcoin, the journey of bitcoin itself is still a long way to go and we need to know what is happen in bitcoin itself.

I don't agree - we want a faster Bitcoin for example. You can only use it in shops, for example, once it gets a lot faster.

It's never going to be faster. 10 minutes is the sweet spot. It may be faster with layers on top, but I don't think the core ways in which the original chain operates are going to change now.

The solution is slow the shops down, make them serve beer. Ring a bell every block solved.

All the world's shops must bow before Satoshi.

:)

i think a better question would be "how many users understand which side is correct and by how much?"

that in my opinion is the most important question that should concern everyone. are people just blindly following, investing, dreaming about the future? or are they actually knowledgeable enough to at least understand why things like bitcoin cash are bad or maybe even good?

that is one of the things that occupies my thoughts these days. and i try to educate myself enough so that whey i say i am against BCH fork (or Segwit2x or others in the future) i say it because i understand what i am saying (even if i am wrong) not just following what others say emotionally.

I don't have the technical knowledge to choose really and am relying on the people who do to make the correct decision.

I am also afraid that the segwit2x can harm the bitcoin. Before the HF on 18-19 Nov the price may have some drops and dips, but the 'free money' hope will hold it comparetively high. Many noob traders don't understand the risks this HF brings (unlike Bcash HF in 1 Aug). The truth is that after the HF there will be much FUD and this is never good for the price. I can only imagine what may happen to the price if such uncertainty is in the air for days and weeks. If the bad news from China lead on several occasions to 30-ish% drop in price for a day, imagine what will do the fear of 2x chain killing the legacy chain. The stupid and greedy pool owners don't understand that if the investors are dissapointed by a too heavy blow on the price, they will never go to the 2x chain. There is a possibility that both coins combined will have much less value in the long run. Now, I am a hodler and don't want this to happen, but if the price goes above 6K once again, I may be tempted to sell and wait better times to invest again.

Users should absolutely NOT care about which side wins because it is not about sides. The Bitcoin network is decentralized and votes and agrees on the state of the network every 10 minutes. People vote with their full nodes with has the complete history of the Blockchain.

Unfortunately I doubt you will get an answer. Everytime I hear someone say,'B2X is corporation takeover bitcoin", I have yet to hear that person back it up with facts when challenged. Now, personally I am terrified of the consequence of fork. What I know for sure we need a solution to these high transaction fees. And we were deceived into thinking 2X will be implemented after segwit. We all know LN is not ready, to me increasing the block size does buy us sometime while we look for more permanent scaling solutions.

PTB cares about TWO THINGS

1.) Who controls BTC-CORE, e.g. who writes the CODE, the CODE is what makes the block-chain, already the new BTG ( Bitcoin-Gold  ) doesn't import the classic block-chain, they have their own blockchain, and their own addresses. SEGWIT will also create their own block chain data-structures. The entire "FORK" program BCC,BTG, BSEG are all designed to fragment and create FUD ( read the Chinese plan to take over BTC )

"He that controls the BTC SOURCE control's BTC in the future"

2.) They "PTB" ( Kosher Nostra ) they want the BITCOIN-BRAND, the name, the $200+ Billion USD market-cap and good will.

It's clear here on this forum that the little people only care about "FREE SHIT COINS", but this is only dilution of BTC, and violates Satoshi's original limit of BTC to 21 Million.

The full nodes run SOURCE CODE, which they download from "BITCOIN CORE", or who ever has the MOST POLITICAL muscle to convince +51% of the MINERS to run that source code. The Block-Chain/Merkel Tree don't mean fuck, every time a new source is installed they can easily automate a -reindex and reformat the entire blockchain/database as the wish.



HE WHO CONTROLS the SOURCE CONTROLS BTC

Eventually IMHO the plan of NYA is to go closed source, once they take over BTC with SEGWIT-2, then they will say that the block-chain needs to be encrypted, and that the source needs to be closed to prevent hacking, and the BTC will be just like the "FEDERAL RESERVE BANK", with the exact same ppl running BTC.