Bitcoin Forum

Team behind Bitcoin Core plans to take measures to protect users' funds from attacks such as B2X (SegWit2x). This is written by Reddit user.

As noted, the attack of B2X is based on the fact that bitcoin software wallets perceives hardfork SegWit2X as a valid chain. The developers of B2X intentionally removed protection from replaying transactions. They modified in such a way as to simulate signals from Bitcoin Core nodes...

Read more https://bit.news/eng/bitcoin-core-developers-will-take-measures-o-protect-user-facilities-from-the-segwit2x/

If its true (a lot of fake posts on social media) there is not a lot they can do. At the moment, support for SegWit2x is 83.33% which is not great but still is pretty good. It will happen.

It's still just signalling, which at this point doesn't say everything. I am quite sure that before the deadline a few more miners will leave the ship, further lowering the overall support, but it won't have much of an impact in the end. Realistically speaking, I have no doubt that a chain split will take place due to the ongoing greed. These forks are just another aspect of the greed we have to deal with now ICO's are slowly but surely being taken care of by governments. There is far too much money involved into this fork to not let it come through -- it will happen for sure.

Links to articles about reddit posts are stupid.

BTW, Segwit2x is not an "attack". It is a hard fork promoted by someone other than the developers of the Core wallet. Some people call it an attack because they believe that the developers of the Core wallet are in charge of Bitcoin and only they should be allowed to decide how Bitcoin can be improved.

Chain split will happen whatever the support for SegWit2x is. The problem will be if some big wallet/company decide to stay on old chain and call it BTC. It will cause confusion.

Not an attack?  Why wont the 2x people implement replay protection?  Sounds pretty attackish to me.  And now Jeff G. is ICOing a coin whose main purpose is to avoid contentious hard forks?  Wake up man.

If the developers of Core were really concerned about replay, wouldn't they add replay protection to their software?

You obviously don't understand


Jeff Garzik is quoted as essentially saying "B2X is the real Bitcoin, so we don't need to protect users money"


If a Bitcoin hard fork uses the same network parameters as the original Bitcoin (as B2X does), then if Bitcoin Core changed their network parameters to stop tx replays, then Garzik will just change the B2X net parameters in the exact same way to stop Core, using the same logic that "B2X is the real Bitcoin, so we don't need to protect users money".

So, Garzik, Silbert & the miners basically want to choose what Bitcoin is for all users, and yet you're trying to say this is some kind of benevolent or benign act? Tell me you still agree with that, lol

It seems to me that this could be the beginning of the end. No, I do not believe that bitcoin will die but it can significantly weaken the position of bitcoin. And this situation can last a long time. To ensure that the bitcoin currency has remained number one in the world need to react to its shortcomings and upgrade the coin. It is the responsibility of developers. The fact that they made the monopoly of large pools of miners it was their fault. Now greed is destroying bitcoin from the inside. I'm sad to see this.

Greed is indeed the motive, but it won't cause Bitcoin any harm, at least not in a significant manner long term wise. These forks are nothing more than money making opportunities for those behind them, and that's really it. After everything around the 2x hard fork has calmed down, general interest is reaching bottom lows, the same malicious entities will come up with something else. People shouldn't discard the fact that people like Jihan and Ver (who are both massive holders), will end up with at least $100,000,000 in instant profits, per person, at the time the split has been initiated. And that's calculating from a value of 0.10BTC per coin. No way they would ever discard such an easy money making opportunity.

You make a good point. I'll have to rethink my position on that.


So then you would agree that segwit is an example of the developers of Core & miners basically wanting to choose what Bitcoin is for all users, too.

Yep. They did choose Segwit.


The difference is that they consulted and proposed the change to everyone. Not just their friends. And they did nothing to force anyone to use Segwit, if someone doesn't want to use it, they can still use the regular P2PKH and P2SH Bitcoin address formats. This was a deliberate choice in the way Segwit was designed.


Everything about Segwit2X / B2X design, and it's promotional rhetoric, has the effect of imposing their hard fork on Bitcoin users; no proposition, no consulting. And so no opportunity to agree. That's called force.


So, you were saying...?

I cannot wait for this to happen! This is what most people are concerned about: SECURITY! I think this is one of the many reasons some people are reluctant to using Bitcoins. They are afraid their hard earned money will be hacked, stolen, or lost. These are legitimate concerns that investors alike give fuss to, and thus, it is fitting that these core developers are doing their best to come up with the best possible solution to protect user facilities.

I am excited how this will come about in the future.. I hope the future is not so far enough though. Imagine if there are security measures to protect user facilities? And considering the supply of Bitcoin as of writing? This will affect Bitcoins' market tremendously in a very good way!

Now I am thinking to add more to my Bitcoins because I predict when the above circumstance takes place, there will be increase in demand which the supply cannot compensate. Thus, the rise of Bitcoins! 

Anyone drinking the S2X Koolaid needs to have their head examined.

Go ahead, load up on that shitcoin and see what happens - BCrash certainly has.

Your statements are so full of inaccuracies, distortions, and exaggerations, I wouldn't know where to start. It appears that you are against hard forks. Why not just state that? I suspect that you are afraid that nobody will listen to you if you don't pile on all the crap

This is so sad, When the developers and the Core doesn't even listen to the community, this bring Bitcoin's decentralization to end and that is very alarming for the Bitcoin Community. Will this possibly end Bitcoin? November is near, I think i should should start worrying.

That's because you're lying. There is nowhere to start, because I'm 100% accurate in what I'm saying.



There are some changes to Bitcoin that can only be made using a hard-fork, and they would be useful and important changes. It's difficult to see how you can come to the conclusion that I dislike hard-forks, I've never said anything like that.

And you, uh, accuse me of distortions and inaccuracies? Interesting.

So, just to reiterate:

• Bitcoin Core team designed Segwit so that it's easy either to use it, or not to use it: a soft-fork that can be chosen by users
• Segwit2x team designed the BTC1 software so that transactions appear on both the Bitcoin network and on the B2X fork, and convinced as many miners as they could to use BTC1, which makes using the original Bitcoin network even more difficult: users are pushed, very strongly, to use a different cryptocurrency, programmed by a totally different team

Everything about that is accurate. If anyone disagrees, prove it.

Yes there isn't a lot of things they can do. Good thing is that many exchanges and wallets will implement their own replay protection so we should be ok. After the fork, we can just dump the B2x coin, and show everyone that BTC is still the real coin, and not this "political" attempt to get control over bitcoin.


It actually is an attack, because if it wasn't, they could just implement replay protection and not just claim that they are the legit bitcoin, and that for them, this is just an update and everyone should move to the updated version of the coin. They want to be seen as the true bitcoin, and they are trying to do it the hard way. In terms of technology they are not even doing any big changes. Yes the size increase would offer a temporary help in the scalability problem, but the lightning network is a much better solution and I agree that all efforts should be on it's development. If we increased the size now, we would just have to do it again in a few years from now, so this is not really a solution. Even if it was, and since there isn't an agreement on which road to go, the way they are doing things is not the right way to do it. They are forcing their entrance and that is not correct.

Garzik wants to destroy BTC so Metronome will take off.  That's my conspiracy theory anyway.

What I think is: how many people do care about the upcoming change? How many understand what is at stake?
What I see is that the average person has zero understanding of just about anything that actually matters within this field and also people don’t see a need for understanding this. The only care about "free" money coming from forks. That is completely sad  ::)

Such events that occur this year prove that bitcoin is not a decentralized currency. We have at least two sides which can significantly affect the existence of bitcoin. Developers and miners. It seems to me that the task of the developers to make this algorithm to large mining pools could not dictate terms.