Segwit2x is nothing short of a coup attempt by businesses & miners in the Bitcoin space to oust the core developers of the Bitcoin code and force their control in the direction of Bitcoin technical development.
I don't disagree with you, but you must consider how and why this happened. Segwit had a 0% chance of adoption without Segwit2x. Kore was so adamant that Segwit must be adopted but totally unwilling to compromise on blocksize. Silbert drafted an agreement to increase blocksize to 2MB in exchange for the miners rolling out Segwit, which the miners went along with. Then, Kore suddenly claims that the 2MB hardfork can't happen, just like they did when they breached the Hong Kong Agreement. They've basically destroyed their credibility and isolated themselves on an island of dweebs, in an echo chamber of censored reddit posts. It's pathetic watching these "cypherpunks" appeal to the SEC, claiming Garzik is committing computer fraud, and threatening lawsuits. I won't miss all of their drama. I'm expecting that Bitcoin Cash's replay protection will be merged into the 2x and 1x forks at the last minute (irony). There is no other way to prevent absolute mayhem. Also I expect the BTC 1x and 2x spam transaction level to rise astronomically, creating a situation where transactions are unconfirmed for a week or more. This could be pretty stressful if there are replay attacks happening! Not to mention the price fluctuations, likely leading to some exchange defaults and "hacks". Yep - I also expect some very high increase of the difficulty before the fork, also with some Bitcoin Cash power houses, after this the 1x legacy core crap will have more troubles to get mined - maybe also some attacks on the reorg after - that will force core to do a PoW HF and finally get an SWalt. And I also expect a huge move of NYA coins and 2X supporters to exchanges to dump the 1X crap for 2x Bitcoin since with no haspower > no tx > brutal fees ( nice to see RBF working then) > no use case > no buyers. Up to this I expect them to keep up the BT1 futures as high as possible that dumb masses will pay them a lot when they dump it after the fork. But before this all I expect more fights, drama and popcorn shortage and mods removing our posts here in some minutes  Good point about hash power surges. Buying miners is probably a more effective "vote" than screaming on social media... I hear MacAfee just bought 2k Bitmain units. POW change is a joke to me - how could anyone believe you can change the POW and it will "still be Bitcoin"? That's exactly how hundreds of altcoins were born! I suppose that when the BTC mempool becomes full again during the 2x fork and fees rise past $100 per transaction that people will be panic exiting to alts, since no onchain transaction is required for alt buys. That will put strain on exchanges, who will be over capacity. Plenty of hacks and "hacks" are likely. Those who have the stomach for it will be buying the dip, and trying not to catch a falling dagger... Being in prediction mode I stumbled across a legend predictive post of yours here, could you remember this? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1804141.msg18107756#msg18107756I'd say was 99% correct  |
|
|
|
Nope, a very small minority that thought big blocks were important, yet were proven wrong by their failed shitcoin called Bcash, are rooting for Segwit2x.
It's always the same with those rats..r/btc bigblockers are all rats. They jump from a sinking ship to another sinking ship. They shit on Bitcoin while XT was the best thing ever.. They shit on Bitcoin while Classic was the best thing ever.. They shit on Bitcoin while BU was the best thing ever.. They shit on Bitcoin while NChain was the greatest thing ever.. Few months ago Bitcoin ABC was the greatest thing ever while shitting on Bitcoin.. Now those rats shitting on Bitcoin while Bcash is the greatest thing ever while it's bugged. Those noobs actually believes people will create financial assets on there bugged code. Pathetic! With any section of your list core has lost more and more support - and pls add the NYA list. Could you see now where the issue might be? I do not wonder that we see so much shouting of the self isolated here / twitter - but this is only a few . Bitcointalk seems to be the last place to discuss this controversial but I guess we just better take our popcorn. |
|
|
|
Go away already.
Yawn - this I accept and seems all big ones and many others have followed this lonesome advice much earlier. |
|
|
|
Why are they always this separate entity who supposedly has to follow obediently and silently?
Because the most *power* in Bitcoin have the users, otherwise the system has failed. Why should this "power" include telling other people what software they can or can't run? If users could do that (and I'm glad they can't) THEN the system has failed. Users will always have the freedom to decide which chain they wish to transact on. Why isn't that enough for you? Why do you want to dictate terms to people who don't owe you a damn thing? It's baffling that most of the people here simultaneously bitch about miners having too much power, whilst in the same breath trying to relegate them to slave status.
Listening to the community and developers has nothing to do with being a slave. Your use of the word "listening" here distinctly implies not just "hearing" what the community and developers are saying, but also "obeying". Hence slave. They listened. They just didn't agree. That's allowed. Deal with it. Either the alignment of incentives will prove them wrong to disagree, or it won't. Whichever it turns out to be, most of those miners you currently disagree with will, most likely, eventually be back on the same chain as the majority of users, because the most profitable chain to mine will be the one most people transact on. And you'll still, most likely, be complaining about how terrible they all supposedly are, despite the fact there's nothing you can do to prevent their involvement. And even if you could prevent their involvement, you'd have to sacrifice one of Bitcoin's primary tenets of permisionlessness in order to do so. It's far simpler just to let them get on with whatever the hell they want to do. You can still run whatever code you want. Beyond that, you're as impotent as everyone else. Everyone wants to rely on their hashpower, but no one wants them to have any freedom. It's unrealistic.
Wrong. Quite a lot of people would be extremely satisfied if Jihan completely left. Until 5 minutes pass and they find another boogeyman to plead for someone in authority to "save" us from. Quite a lot of people are morons in that regard. It's all getting a bit too overprotective and interfering lately. Like people who whine about forks having the name "Bitcoin" in them because it might confuse people, or those who would gladly prefer to restrict freedom in the name of supposed security. Hardly the cypherpunk values Bitcoin was founded upon.  This is most of the people in the thread. You are all Helen Lovejoy. Stop it. I think, if we're genuinely going to be a community, we need to drop this ridiculous "us and them" mentality.
You haven't been reading the other "side" lately, have you? Stop preaching bs. I'm not here saying any "side" has any kind of moral high ground. Both have done stupid, petty crap. Neither comes out of this looking good. Again, it takes two to tango, stop pretending any "side" is innocent here. So going forward, we need to stop having "sides". We need to stop the polarising fragmentation, the tribalism, the pointless bickering and the incessant baseless character assassinations. I'm confident Bitcoin will emerge stronger after all this drama blows over and will set a precedent that all the cypherpussies on this board and elsewhere were utterly wasting their time and blood pressure fretting over issues of "control" and "power" in vain. People will run the code they want to run and the network will move forward accordingly. ++ this Freedom of choice |
|
|
|
When you go to logic, what does this tell you of your bitcoin than ?
"Your Bitcoin"? You're showing signs of shill delusion again. You cannot trust any TX any more since it's done by 'the evil' all over ?
Anyone knowledgeable enough would simply see the stupidity of that question. Then again, big blockists aren't famous for their intellect nor knowledge.  So pls stop supporting this yours evil bitcoin any more and give up.
No. I shall publicly scrutinize both Bitmain, Jihan, Ver & co. for the cartel like behavior. They are the true scum of Bitcoin. You just cannot admit that you've not the same strong position than others with more skin in the game than littly you. So it is very easy to rant against these but not very clever to do in public and let many show how rotten your charachter is deep inside. You do not provide / support any good solution for keeping the community together for many years now. Now we can all see what issues we got with that splitting. |
|
|
|
Und hier hoch die verspätete 4850 € Rakete...YIIIIIIIHAAAAAAAAAA! ;-) Moin, was eh? Augenreib... |
|
|
|
Entspannte 9 Millionen Dollar Wall auf Bitstamp Shit - ertappt  |
|
|
|
meine anvisierten 5,2 k perfekt getroffen und nun ..?  Hat was |
|
|
|
Ok, so you really want to convince us how powerful Bitcoin corporations are
Except they're not
Let me give you some advice:
Powerful people don't talk about how powerful they are. They just use their power.
People pretending to be powerful, that's who likes to talk.
So, if Bitcoin companies really could force users onto a hard fork they don't want, they'd just shut up and do it.
Which doesn't explain why there's always people hanging around these forums, talking about how the latest-greatest hard fork is gonna be unstoppable. Until it dies like all the others. Again.
No - I do not want to 'convince' anybody. I tell what I SEE. I'm very analytical. I see a very limited and exhausted NO-SAY group posting the shit out of themselves (by blank fear), most of them already ALL IN in bitcoin but no money left for buying up their 1X coin (or even mining power) - since limited by head count and fiat - wealth. At the other side I see all the big ones with 1000x quiet clients & buying power behind, the entire potential of the fresh net new money and cheap fees lovers - lots of long term investments into mining and companies - they will just ask you once to join the train or pass better w/o any 'replay shit'. |
|
|
|
Just for the record
There is nothing technical binding any miners to Segwit2x, at all.
The signalling is just that: signalling. There is no evidence that signalling miners are using the S2x software to mine with, which is all that could actually cause the Bitcoin hashrate to drop.
The posters above in this thread are well known and consistent scaremongers for Segwit2x, as well as many previous alt-dev hard forks. Their output is always contrived to scare Bitcoin users into accepting Segwit2x (or the latest alt-dev hard fork attempt), when the fact is that Bitcoin users always have the choice to reject alt-dev hard forks
Core will be RBF Users will be replaced by companies Forum talk will be replaced by business talk Nodes will be replaced by data-centers. De-centrality and security is still in place. Scaling is a result of logistic growth. Miners have shown to us what scaling is. It is not in individual control any more. You might have too less investments (mining) in the game and so have no say anymore. Competition is better than censorship. Not many are left here to tell you friendly since you've made yourself most bitcoiners to declared enemies . |
|
|
|
I hope you guys supporting 2x realize that you want to live the future of your valued assets in the hands of some greedy miners and companies who are looking for ways centralize bitcoin. I would rather go for an increased fee than having that. I will stick with bitcoin core till the end and fu** all forks by dumping them for core once they step in. Let's shoot em dead on arrival. 2x is just another free looser coin as far as I am concerned. You could first work out about what 'centralize' really means and what degree is enough before you start making FUD. You might learn this after the fork but who cares when this forum here turns over and 1x is a PoW changed alt I've got my popcorn ready and wait. |
|
|
|
What is this?
Segwit2x is going to happen. Why sit here and say it won't? It has so much support for miners and the companies. Making some post on a forum showing how Core doesn't want it is just making you look bad.
Everything is going to be ok.... Calm down lol. Everyone is always so on edge about hard forks, meanwhile bitcoin goes even higher each time...
You came here to write this non-sense comment to fill up your monthly post quota so you can get paid from sig campaign, huh? Pity. He obviously did. Such a loser with shallow knowledge and understanding. I can support the idea of other pools being Bitmain Proxies.
Antpool, btc.top, viabtc, btc.com, bixin, bitcoin.com > %60 of the hashrate.
I am not so sure about Bixin and bitcoin.com, but the others are definitely Bitmain proxies and there was *evidence* of this in the past. BITMAIN is evil. When you go to logic, what does this tell you of your bitcoin than ? You cannot trust any TX any more since it's done by 'the evil' all over ? So pls stop supporting this yours evil bitcoin any more and give up. |
|
|
|
Segwit2x is nothing short of a coup attempt by businesses & miners in the Bitcoin space to oust the core developers of the Bitcoin code and force their control in the direction of Bitcoin technical development.
I don't disagree with you, but you must consider how and why this happened. Segwit had a 0% chance of adoption without Segwit2x. Kore was so adamant that Segwit must be adopted but totally unwilling to compromise on blocksize. Silbert drafted an agreement to increase blocksize to 2MB in exchange for the miners rolling out Segwit, which the miners went along with. Then, Kore suddenly claims that the 2MB hardfork can't happen, just like they did when they breached the Hong Kong Agreement. They've basically destroyed their credibility and isolated themselves on an island of dweebs, in an echo chamber of censored reddit posts. It's pathetic watching these "cypherpunks" appeal to the SEC, claiming Garzik is committing computer fraud, and threatening lawsuits. I won't miss all of their drama. I'm expecting that Bitcoin Cash's replay protection will be merged into the 2x and 1x forks at the last minute (irony). There is no other way to prevent absolute mayhem. Also I expect the BTC 1x and 2x spam transaction level to rise astronomically, creating a situation where transactions are unconfirmed for a week or more. This could be pretty stressful if there are replay attacks happening! Not to mention the price fluctuations, likely leading to some exchange defaults and "hacks". Yep - I also expect some very high increase of the difficulty before the fork, also with some Bitcoin Cash power houses, after this the 1x legacy core crap will have more troubles to get mined - maybe also some attacks on the reorg after - that will force core to do a PoW HF and finally get an SWalt. And I also expect a huge move of NYA coins and 2X supporters to exchanges to dump the 1X crap for 2x Bitcoin since with no haspower > no tx > brutal fees ( nice to see RBF working then) > no use case > no buyers. Up to this I expect them to keep up the BT1 futures as high as possible that dumb masses will pay them a lot when they dump it after the fork. But before this all I expect more fights, drama and popcorn shortage and mods removing our posts here in some minutes |
|
|
|
Ich bin zudem sehr überzeugt davon, dass LN eine verkleinerung des Mempools bringt. (auf lange Sicht).
Problem ist nur, dass es überhaupt keine Aussagen zum Status von LN gibt oder wann damit zu rechnen ist.
Sorry - ich sehe grosse Schwierigkeit mit solchen Aussagen. ("Ich bin sehr überzeugt, dass .... habe aber keine Ahnung von was wie wann") 1) LN hat ein schwächeresTrust-Level als on-chain, dh ohne längere live Bewährung (vgl. on-chain 8 Jahre!) > wird niemand mit gesundem Verstand grosse Summen hierein Anvertrauen - nur Pocket-Money - Use Case ? Mempool ? Zeiraum ? 2) Je nach Alt-Coin Konkurrenz (oder gar MasterCard usw) ist der Mem-pool auch leerer 3) Wenn man jedes Business (seitens 1X / Blockstream = selber Business) verteufelt und als Bitcoin-Feind bezeichnet (Bitcoin.org), wird der Mempool auch leer - prima Idee /s - > Es gibt leider nicht genügend Nerds, Geegs, Cypherpunks, No2x users, die man noch als Wachstumspotential lokalisieren könnte und dabei ohne Business skalieren + wachsen kann / müsste. Hier wird leider zuviel Unsinn behauptet und spekuliert ohne saubere wissenschaftliche / ökonomische Analysen. In Foren kann man allerdings auch nichts anderes erwarten - sorry. Der nächste Wachstums- und Skaliereungsschub KANN (muss leider) nur durch Business geschen, das genau für solche wichtigen Analysen Geld ausgibt - ist logisch. |
|
|
|
No2x. The future of the protocol should be decided through the deliberations of computer scientists, not an agreement reached behind closed doors.
2x is being rolled out in a reckless way. I think it is prudent to take part in the network that values slow and properly deliberated changes to the code, not hasty hard forks. Backwards incompatibility is a serious issue to consider when designing a network like bitcoin.
NYA has much more money, power and scientists on board than you might know - and the NYA is already active and saved the asses of the UASF minority fork ( no replay protection!!) - due to this NO2X can fork off and look for hashpower left (stagnation as I said above) or stay by allowing little more block_size - not a big deal. |
|
|
|
Generally I'd say that understanding the NYA 2X move is bit complex. It's about proper on-chain + off chain scaling and lower fees as low as possible. In this forum here or at Reddit / Twitter we see 'only' some individual legends, heroes = early adopters fighting each other trying to use a abstract majority behind themselves like the 'users' , 'hodlers' but nobody can really speak for the masses that are already in bitcoin or the bigger (billions) still missing one that should get attracted to. We see legends posting here for keeping this at 1x for different reasons and fighting against NYA. Where would you locate the 1X supporters - already in the early adopter group (mostly fine with the actual situation and rather high fees, fine with store of value - don't care about growth that much) ? or In the group that care about the quiet, unpolitical masses and the real potential if fees are way lower ? I'd say NYA does care much more about the quiet, unpolitical (missing) masses because of bitcoin = money = business. They care also about bitcoin price increase much more than the early adopters - most of these legends I'd expect to be 'all in' already - not much fresh money can be expected from those - rather cash out = price pressure. NYA needs to care about increasing Bitcoin price much more since they expect ppl to do business and this business will grow better with higher Bitcoin value . So 2X is the way to go - but I do not expect much support here  |
|
|
|
So wie ich Erik Voorhees / Shapeshift und Barry Silbert verstehe, haben sie lange Core gebeten, das Ergebnis sehen wir jetzt bzw im November. NYA müssten zusammen genügend Kapital und Hashpower haben, dass es keinen 1x Coin mehr geben sollte. Eine Investitionsberatung soll dies aber nicht sein, denn meist kommt es ja anders als man denkt.
Aber kommt es nicht letztlich darauf an wer was unter welchem Namen verkauft? bitfinex schreibt: As the proposed consensus protocol Segwit2x project appears likely to activate, we have elected to designate the Segwit2x fork as B2X, for now. The incumbent implementation (based on the existing Bitcoin consensus protocol) will continue to trade as BTC even if the B2X chain has more hashing power. Nö, wenn 1x die Hashpower fehlt, kann man nix mehr senden, wertlos. Wenn die Grossen (NYA) 1x dumpen, wertlos. Wenn Core PoW ändert, dann ist der ein Alt ohne Grosse, wertlos. Der Wert bleibt dem normalen Hodler jedoch erhalten. Bitcoin ist dann eben der 2x Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Aus meiner naiven newbie und nicht technikbelasteten Perspektive würde ich sagen: Solange bitcoin (BTC) draufsteht wirds gekauft und als bitcoin befunden.
Alles andere sind altcoins die sich auf dem altcoin-Markt behaupten müssen.
Für transfers zwischen exchanges nutze ich z.B. lieber Litecoin, weil billiger und schneller. Aus meiner Anwendersicht scheint Litecoin für meine Zwecke klar überlegen - trotzdem investiere ich in überwiegend in bitcoin, weil da die Aufmerksamkeit hingeht. Sicher auch in Zukunft.
Wer darf den Namen behalten? Wer bestimmt das überhaupt?
Vermutlich wie bei allen Dingen: Das Kräfteverhältnis - darauf kommt es immer an. Die NYA hat bei weitem mehr 'power' in fast allen Belangen, ausgenommen Forum-Posts und Kappen. So wie ich Erik Voorhees / Shapeshift und Barry Silbert verstehe, haben sie lange Core gebeten, das Ergebnis sehen wir jetzt bzw im November. NYA müssten zusammen genügend Kapital und Hashpower haben, dass es keinen 1x Coin mehr geben sollte. Eine Investitionsberatung soll dies aber nicht sein, denn meist kommt es ja anders als man denkt. |
|
|
|
Thank you for all the replies. I have been reading them and there are a few solid reasons to support Bitcoin Core but I also want to play a little of devil's advocate.
I would like to read from 2X detractors at least ONE good thing about it.
It is hard to me that everything 2X supporters stands is a lie or against bitcoin nature.
On a tech base it boils down to decide between 3'fundamental scaling options Core: do not allow more on-chain space and keep the max block size at 1MB, no HF needed with SW, but build scaling around this by off-chain scaling 2X: Allow little more freedom of choice and add 1MB to on-chain scaling , HF needed in November 2017 Bicoin Cash: Maximize on-chain scaling (8MB, no SW) and let Moore's law doing most if the scaling job. HF done in August 2017 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
