Bitcoin Forum

First things first, BITCOIN WILL NOT SPLIT! As you can read in this great article by Jimmy Song, all miners will switch to SegWit2x. Why? Cause if they dont, they ll lose A LOT OF MONEY. So newbies, stop panic, once more, THERE WILL BE NOT SPLIT. Speculators, stop spreading FUD, we talk about the future of entire crypto economy. So, at least for a couple of days, pls tone down your filthy tactics of spreading panic.

Second, thank you Jimmy Song for such a great piece.

For those interested, please read the entire piece here:

https://medium.com/@jimmysong/uasf-segwit2x-scenarios-and-timelines-1a540336c4be

I ll just copy a few lines stating:

"The earliest that BIP91 can lock-in is block 476784, which should be around ~2017 July 21 10:00 GMT. This would be ahead of schedule as Segwit2x was scheduled to be released July 21. This would mean that BIP91 would activate 336 blocks later at block 477120 (~2017 July 23 18:00 GMT). At this point, all blocks not signaling BIP141 (Segwit) would get orphaned off the network. Since presumably at least 80% of miners would not accept such blocks, miners that create blocks without signaling BIP141 would likely lose the coinbase reward and fees (roughly 14 BTC or $30k as of this writing). As such during the 56 hours or so between blocks 476784 and 477120, we will most likely see every miner upgrade (if necessary) to signal for Segwit."


Still, read the entire piece.

I believe you meant to say will not SPLIT. the fork is happening and all the things you are explaining in your comment is saying it is happening. and with the current 79% of the blocks signaling for BIP91 which is for SegWit activation it is highly possible to have a simple, drama free, smooth fork. exactly like the P2SH soft fork which nobody even remembers because it was smooth :D

Well, English is not my first language, but yes, your term s correct. Fixed! Thx.

The point is there will NOT BE TWO Bitcoins. Scheduled fork ll take place 3 months from but all miners will have to upgrade and accept SegWit2x. Not cause they like it or not but cause of not losing money.
The best single motivator - MONEY!

There is so much confusion around the whole process, makes you wonder if this is early growing pains or is this going to happen again in the future? The decisions made now will impact everything going forward! I'll. Try reading the information posted to gather more knowledge, but sometimes it just feels overwhelming

Well, I cannot put in less simple words besides saying there s no need to panic, the upgrade s moving ahead of schedule and it will result in faster and more stable network.
Everything seem to be in order.

There can't be two bitcoins in the same ecosystem anyway.If still the split happens,we will have a bitcoin and another altcoin. I read through the post,preciously written but hey do you think all the miners would play safe ? There is this little chance the split would still happen I feel.

I'm glad it will be working in bitcoin's favor.The post theymos wrote (which appears on the forum page) should be easy to understand.

There s no doubt in my mind all miners will fall in line. Cause even if it would split, the other alt Bitcoin would be so heavily dumped by BTC holders, into oblivion. Not to mention security issues, orphan issues, etc.
For large BTC pools, the best choice is to support BTC, let it grow and let price increase.

Expecting to reinvent Bitcoin via this kind of split is just foolish. Cause ordinary BTC holders are not involved into mining, only large farms are. So, if I have a majority supported chain, which is this 80% Bitcoin, I cannot mine the alt Bicoin cause I have no ASIC, why again would I hold it? What kind of benefit does it bring for me besides free coins to dump?

Nah, they ll all fall in under SegWit2x.

Yeah there will be no two bitcoins. If BIP 91 locks in before August 1, there would be no UASF or probably no UAHF. The entire network would have Segwit and even then if a small percentage of miners go ahead with UAHF (ViaBTC/Jihan) it would be against their economic incentive and if  they do then a separate blockchain, altcoin which is in no way related to bitcoin or going to compete with the Segwit activated main chain.

Coinbase had announced that they wouldn't support any UAHF coin, same would happen with other exchanges, the alt, Bitcoin ABC/Bitcoin Cash would be dumped immediately.

...

I hope that you are right, crazyivan.

Your observation that makes the most sense to me is the money!  If "they" (anyone blocking SegWit at this point) achieve their goal, then THEY will lose money too.  BIG money.  And now it is beginning to look like a done deal (SegWit activation soon).

That may be our best hope for relative stability in Bitcoinistan: "Follow the money."


EDIT: BTC price edging upward ($2360 or so) would hint that you are right in your confidence.

That's not by chance. That's how Satoshi designed it.

The entire system of BTC is just so marvelously well thought through, it still amazes me...

Definitely. Back on 1/2 of this 336-block signaling period there has been like 75% signaling which caused panic due to no shortage of FUD around the forum otherwise. But I'm more inclined to listen on -ck than any newbie fuddaccount.
Just in between 3~4 dozen blocks signaling took up over 80.4% and on this travel speed, on same velocity will clearly take up another +5% and another +5% following. It's allready clear by now that BIP 91 succeeded.
Some rage dumps should be seen as a nice buying opprtunity.

the thing about price is that it has always been more of a game. a mind game that the bigger players play to make more money. the bitcoin history if full of them. and each time the news seems more ridiculous that the last time and each time it is effective! and they do it again and again and make more money each time...

$700+ drop is A LOT of profit. and we are talking about shorting on the way down and then having access to extremely cheap coins. that is enough incentive to do these shenanigans.

and while we are talking about price let me tell you it is $2399 right now :o

Huh? What do you mean "hint that I right"???

I m always right when talking about BTC. I do not give advice often but when I do, I m right. :)
I told people 3 years ago to buy DMD Diamond when it was 18 cents. Look at it now.

By coincidence (?), BTC has rocketed to ~$2450 since I wrote above.  Hmm, THAT kind of price rise would hint even more that you have an excellent read on BTC's situation.

You're on a roll.  Keep writing.  Maybe $2550 next hour?  :)

[This Bearing/Gold/BTC guy does not know enough about other cryptos to mess with anything other than BTC]

Exactly. Price as justification is poor rationale.
But hey, it's $2468 now and on a sharp rise :D

Buahahhahah. If only my posts would fuel BTC price rise. I d wear down this keyboard by the end of the day. :)

By using segwit2x software you are risking a 40 billion dollar marketcap in the hands of incompetent developers. You are delusional if you think all the miners will support segwit2x hardfork in 3 months. They are just signaling BIP91 to get segwit activated and avoid the august 1st drama. Once segwit is activated the majority of miners will go back to running safe Core software and not the btc1 crap.

Yeah, that s gonna happen. That s why they signal SegWit2x so they could not use it. Great conclusion bud.

Anyway, can I say $2600 BTC or not today?

$2600 reached. Can we get to $2700?

I m not sure how much of this is due to the fact people withdraw coins from exchanges into safe storage so noone trades them. But this should reduce BTC to alts trade not BTC to Fiat.

Hopefully I'm not too late to buy in. I see no obstacles to reach $3000  ;D

The coming hard fork after the SegWit2x soft fork is the real big deal. This soft fork is controlled by miners. The hard fork is controlled by all Bitcoin users. All Bitcoin clients have to change software to use the new coin. There will be two coins!

What that time comes miners will have to keep their software (btc1) and go with the hard fork, or change software so that they stay with the old coin while still having BIP91 compatibility & SegWit with the SegWit2x hard fork specifically removed (so that only the soft fork portion is maintained), or further modify things so that they can do merged mining on both coins.

There will be no hardfork, it's going to be fun seeing btc1 join XT, Classic, Unlimited, ABC... they are running out of names!

But of course, we will have uncertainty months which will ruin the current uptrend. Big blockers will ALWAYS run whatever positive uptrend is happening, this is how they profit from bitcoin, they set shorts then they crash the market, they are the biggest hypocrites.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2018728.msg20166890#msg20166890).  You aren't in any position to lecture people about hypocrisy.  Still awaiting a reply by the way.  Care to name a previous UASF yet?  And tell us one more time how UASF couldn't possibly result in two chains despite the fact that the clue is in the damn name.  That shit's priceless.



So you're still of the view that it doesn't take two sides to have a dispute?  Everyone agrees except for the people that disagree?  Is that it?  More fine logic from BillyBobZorton.   ::)

I hope there is no split or hard fork on bitcoin, maybe this is just an issue, no one can be sure until the time comes, we can only wait what will happen, I think bitcoin will rise more than 30% if not split at 1 August, I guess many do not want split on bitcoin, because it will make the price down and we will suffer a loss

UASF was successfully used to activate P2SH soft fork (BIP16). Even Satoshi used UASF.


Indeed, the clue is in the damn name: SOFT FORK.


In a dispute there are 2 sides: one is wrong and one is right. Big blockers are wrong.

*sigh*  
Here we go again.   ::)


Again, a complete failure on your part to comprehend the difference between a conventional softfork and a user activated softfork.  Miners supported BIP16 and there was no need to attempt to force miners to follow the economic activity.  That was a conventionally activated softfork achieved with consensus, not some nodes vs miners "line-in-the-sand" type bullshit where nodes deliberately try to fork miners off the network unless they agree.  That has never happened in the history of Bitcoin.  There has only ever been one attempted UASF and it just got REKT.  As such no user activated softforks have ever occurred.

BIP16 was indeed a soft fork.  
It.  Was.  Not.  User.  Activated.
Learn the difference.


Here's bitcoin.org (https://bitcoin.org/en/glossary/uasf) to help you out:


To which I'm sure your reply will be something along the lines of "But it says right there soft forks are temporary, duh", but what you fail to realise is that a user activated softfork can still cause a hardfork if the miners refuse to follow.  The "softfork" part of UASF is really a misnomer in that regard.  Its very design is to force either a split or a concession.  There is no middleground.




Indeed:  FORK.  As in TWO CHAINS.  Soft or hard doesn't make a difference when it's user activated.  In the context of UASF, Fork means two fucking chains you damned imbecile.  A reorg might eventually wipe out one of the chains, but a reorg was never guaranteed had UASF not been REKT.  The second chain might die off and be a complete non-event if it doesn't have adequate support, but again, that was never guaranteed had UASF not been REKT.  Take particular note of the emphasis on "might".  To spell it out for you, if those mights don't happen, the result is a hardfork and a permanent split.  If one group of miners had continued building on a minority UASF chain and another group of miners had continued building on a longer legacy chain, that adds up to two chains and a permanent split.  Thankfully that situation has been avoided (because UASF got REKT).

Funnily enough, that's why bitcoin.org had to put a warning up about UASF (https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2017-07-12-potential-split) (which you in your infinite stupidity assumed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2018728.msg20117213#msg20117213) was referring to "JarzikCoins").  There is clearly and undeniably a scenario in which UASF could have resulted in a permanent split and two chains.  If you are too dense to understand how that could have potentially played out, even after I've made it abundantly clear in the above paragraph, then I'm afraid I can't help you any further.  It's plain as day to everyone else with more than two brain cells to rub together, though.



Yet strangely, many of them appear to have a firmer grasp on both reality and the more technical aspects of Bitcoin than you do.  I doubt the other smallblockers appreciate you undermining their arguments by talking complete bollocks all the time, so you might want to work on that.  At least try to look like you know what you're talking about before spouting off.  You're letting the side down.

Or, better yet, (and more than a little off topic) you could stop perpetuating the whole bigblocker vs smallblocker ignorant tribal sect crap and just use some common sense (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1911288.0) when it comes to the issue of blocksize.  

For this last part, I'm ranting to the world in general now.  Just about everyone out there still seems to be of the impression the blocksize has to be a whole number, but not a single person has ever given even the slightest attempt at justification for why that should be.  Apparently that's too much to ask.  Why the everloving shit does it have to be 1MB vs 2MB?  What's wrong with 1.01MB and 1.02MB?  Why is that so inconceivable?  We're using a currency with eight decimal places, FFS.  Is it really beyond the realm of comprehension to add two decimal places to the blocksize and work in smaller increments?  We could avoid so much bigblocker vs smallblocker idiocy with such a simple change in scope.  There's clearly no need to double the blocksize when smaller and more frequent adjustments would suffice.    

That's an oddly confident statement to make when you know that Bitcoin Cash (https://www.bitcoincash.org/) is happening on August 1st, and that there will most likely be a block size increase to 2MB in three months due to SegWitx2.
Those hard forks required consensus from miners.  Bitcoin Cash does not, and SegWitx2 is part of a broader agreement.*
This is tinfoil-hat level bullshit.

*Miners could break the agreement, but it seems unlikely.  Regardless, there will be at least one hard fork and also a chain split from UASF.

It really depends on how you look at it and what are your intentions why you're using bitcoin. The main point of Segwit is to solve some scaling issues that we are facing and what we might face in the future. There are too many articles around there that are circulating which explained how Segwit could help bitcoin as it grows big. But honestly, I'm still wondering how off-chain transactions would work. Still can't wrap my empty head about it.

I don't understand your logic. There is no way it will not split if 2x gets so much support,
core devs already stated they'll be programming in a separate chain, and I think a lot of miners will follow.