The problem in this case is that you need to trust the third party to do right by customers. It's better to cut the third party out entirely and make sure that you have access to your funds anytime you want. That goes for BTC but also BCH or BTG or B2X.

One thing of note here: To ensure that you have access to both BTC and B2X after next month's fork, you need to control your own private keys. But it's a bit more complicated than that. For example, you control your private keys on Blockchain.info. So you can safely extract anything held by those private keys after the fork. But if you try to send/receive "BTC" using Blockchain.info after the fork, you have no way of knowing which chain you are using. Beware!

It's unlikely to net much, but you might get something. I would never do it with any device that I planned to use in the future for something else; they need to be throwaways. They are likely to get fried.

I definitely wouldn't bother mining Bitcoin... you'll get literally nothing. Monero is the best option I can think of, and it's easy to set up with Coinhive. I don't know much about Electroneum. I've heard it's a scam.

I think it's much better to buy into cryptocurrencies with whatever amount of money you can spare, then trade amongst different coins. Mining isn't worth the effort without dedicated hardware.

If you're willing to accelerate this transaction, I'd appreciate it:
e767dfc654724b7a0d8d7fb3af98f4aedd3e9db594c443563cef7b077f328157

I didn't realize there was so much network congestion right now. Thanks!

Totally. I'd be willing to run the campaign pretty cheaply (by forum standards) if the devs need a signature campaign manager. I'd love to help get the word out about our little diamond in the rough.


Are you talking about the first or the second airdrop? There were a bunch of people disqualified from the first airdrop, and the tokens were partially redistributed in the second one.

This is how opt-in soft forks work, and it's part of the beauty of the forward compatibility that Satoshi built into Bitcoin. Basically, legacy nodes are able to process future versions of themselves, even if they don't full understand them, and they are still fully enforcing the consensus rules. The consensus is still intact if the witness data is segregated and transmitted in parallel to legacy blocks. The FUD that big blockers are spreading about "Segwit getting rid of signatures" is just that -- FUD.


You, along with many of us, will help to create a network split in November when the Segwit2x fork occurs. We will remain on the original network. It's difficult to say what miners will do at that time, so it's difficult to say how disruptive the event might be. It might be damn near impossible to get transactions confirmed if most miners really do leave our chain.

My recollection is that they weren't deceptive about the Bitcoin Cash situation. To be fair, the BCH launch was super rushed, and the developers barely implemented replay protection in time for the launch. And I don't really think Coinbase acted as if they would credit users immediately.

This situation is different, though. The BTC1 repository hasn't even changed since August, and is unlikely to change at this point. And Coinbase officially said that they expect to have withdrawals operating smoothly for both coins "within a few days." I don't think they said anything like that with BCH. Coinbase wants B2X to succeed, so they won't make it difficult for users to withdraw it.

It depends whether you believe Bitcoin can hard fork and still remain "Bitcoin." Technically, when a hard fork occurs, a new altcoin is always being created, and the hope of the fork developers is that users of the legacy chain will switch to the altcoin. If there is widespread disagreement over the name "Bitcoin" then I think the legacy chain should retain the name, because that is technically correct, as the new coin is an altcoin.

This raises important questions... would "everyone" really ever leave Bitcoin for an alt? I think this would only happen if a truly existential protocol flaw were discovered. If that happened, I think there would be wide agreement to fork.

I'm choosing to hold both. If miners follow through and switch chains, then block time on the legacy chain could become untenable; we could be forced to change POW in the worst case scenario. At the same time, 2X is rightfully viewed as a corporate takeover attempt of the protocol, and I think a lot of bitcoiners would dump it because of that.

I'm not confident enough in the outcomes to bet on any one contingency. In theory, I would like to dump the B2X coins, but I can't risk being wrong and killing my portfolio's value because of it. I can live with a dip in dollar value. I can't live with losing BTC value if B2X emerges victorious from this.


Both chains would be compatible with Electrum. Supposedly the latest version of Electrum can detect forks among servers, and will prompt you to choose which chain you want to transact on. I haven't read into the details too much, though.

I'm still holding onto my ELITE, just not in the original airdrop address. I couldn't help moving my tokens to the top of the sell-side order book on Etherdelta, just in case anyone decides to fat finger an order. But the order is so high that I think I'll be holding these for a while.

Thanks for the updates, dev. Glad to see our token listed on CoinmarketCap now!

Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Gold -- neither are good precedents here. The reason BTC rallied in late July/August was because of BIP91 and resolution of the BIP148 chain split threat. BCH was just a sideshow altcoin. BTG is even more of a sideshow... it hasn't even launched and people are increasingly not taking it seriously at all. BCH has replay protection and BTG is supposed to.

That's quite a bit different than B2X, which has no replay protection and is backed by much more of the ecosystem. There could be a very messy split, and I'm not sure that the futures market is totally pricing in all the possibilities right now.

I'm tempted to get a hardware wallet, but I'm still too paranoid. With generalized hardware like a PC, I feel reasonably confident that my hardware isn't compromised out of the box. And the Core software is battle-tested for many years now. I don't have the same confidence with hardware wallets. Not at all.

It's enough trouble for me to verify signatures on binaries. I wouldn't know where to begin auditing one of these devices, and I don't know anyone who I could trust to do it. I'm amazed at how quickly these hardware wallets are being adopted. But then again, it seems like most people in the cryptocurrency space get scammed at least once or twice before they start asking the right questions, so I shouldn't be surprised.

Damn, I've never heard of anyone having their limit lowered to $0. This must be new. Would you mind saying what country you are from? Bittrex recently started locking lots of peoples' accounts, and it seems to be based on country of residence.


This is the right section (Service Discussion > Exchanges). If there are questions/concerns about exchanges in the Service Discussion forum, they get moved here. Straight up scam accusations go here, but it's a bit premature for that. Hopefully you hear back soon.

Can you help me out with this one?
3875375ff42470dbe2d64ffe31185fc3de987975ca3f185abb551493ea26c41c

Thanks!

There is no BTC/CNY because nothing has changed about the situation. China-based exchanges are still in wind-down mode if they haven't shut down already. Domestic order book exchanges are prohibited (at least until a licensing regime emerges -- unconfirmed).

The .pro is not based in China. It's a Hong Kong exchange (like Bitfinex is or once was). OKEX (Okcoin's international exchange) and BTCC similarly are Hong Kong companies. They can't easily interface with CNY -- at least not openly and transparently.

That they are accepting USDT means they are pretty desperate for trading fees amidst the crackdown.

I think that the word "fork" helps to indicate the potential for contention and chain splitting. In the software world, a "fork" generally means copying another repository's open source code and changing it -- a new vision, so to speak. That's what is happening with a contentious fork. The difference in Bitcoin is that this also indicates a network split, which also means a currency split. Two forks of Bitcoin with incompatible, live networks means 21 million coins x2.

Fortunately, up to now, there is wide agreement that the legacy chain is BTC (and there is only 21 million of them). But if there is truly widespread disagreement, things could get very messy, with people sending and receiving money on the wrong chains. I'd hardly call that an "upgrade."

To be fair, Bitcoin Cash was created out of thin air. So was CLAMS. And from the look of it, there will be many more, with Bitcoin Gold coming next. After the fork block, they are mined, but "being a mineable cryptocurrency" is a pretty low bar to set. If you give me a few bucks, I can give you copy/paste code to launch your own coin, too! But unless you can convince people to use it, it won't have any value.

I don't have any problem with the "token" label. It's not really much different from "coin" is it? We don't like the association with ICO tokens, sure, but as far as the English language goes, is it really inaccurate?

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.

Actually, the above post is true. I think you misread it. It doesn't say anything about BTG.

Jaxx gives you access to your private keys. It's not a web wallet. After the Segwit2x fork, you can extract any private keys that held BTC and they will hold both BTC and B2X. The same is true of the BTG snapshot, once the network actually launches.

And it's true that people should avoid transacting until they know how to split their coins.


It doesn't matter if Jaxx is part of the NYA. Jaxx users still have their private keys. It's not a web wallet like Xapo where users can lose BTC just by holding BTC in the web wallet.

Electrum under default settings is just as unsafe as Jaxx to use after the fork. It doesn't enforce consensus rules and randomly connects to trusted servers. As there is no replay protection, Electrum should be usable for both B2X and BTC after the fork. So you can be replay attacked just the same.

You should be telling people to move their coins to a Core wallet, not Electrum, if you're concerned about people losing BTC.

This was the consensus opinion based on their first blog post a few days ago. But you seem to have missed their follow-up announcement. Read here: https://twitter.com/coinbase/status/922992686512070657


Before, during, and after the fork, Coinbase will refer to the legacy chain as "Bitcoin." However, after a period of time (at their discretion), they will begin referring to the chain with most accumulated difficulty as "Bitcoin" whether that is the legacy chain or the 2x fork. They have basically taken the position of Blockchain and Xapo, which is actually a huge victory for the "Segwit2x movement." It means if miners switch to 2x, the 2x chain gets the name "Bitcoin" (for Coinbase customers).

Oh, I definitely think that the uncertainty brought by the upcoming November fork is the larger fundamental reason for all the bearish sentiment. I just think that the Bitcoin Gold snapshot was a small catalyst for a dump in BTC and a relief rally in alts. The larger context is Segwit2x, like a black cloud over the market.

It seemed a couple days ago that the risks were subsiding, since Coinbase said the existing chain would retain the BTC name. Turns out both Coinbase and Gemini are calling the most-work chain "BTC" so it seems they might still be backing 2x after all. So, the uncertainty worsens...