Is Segwit2x Hard Fork a fact?

[raskolnikovx]

Will we have a dip to 3000-3100 till August 21st? Yes or no?

I cannot think on a reason to have a dip. Once SW is activated the price should go up.

[alyssa85]

I don't think Segwit2x is going to happen. They're already campaigning against it. Take a look at the following thread on Reddit for example:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6sqthc/to_signal_nonsupport_of_segwit2x_add/

[§]

I'm wondering if they will still be able to push it through without breaking off another group of support again.

[Paycoinzzz]

Will we have a dip to 3000-3100 till August 21st? Yes or no?

I cannot think on a reason to have a dip. Once SW is activated the price should go up.

Are you sure your opinion is true?
Can you explain helps me the reason make the price of Litecoin after SegWit activited, it falldown -50% the highest price before SegWit?

[paul gatt]

I understand that the New York Agreement had consensus to implement Segwit and 3 months later Segwit2x, which will imply software upgrade by miners and users. But now, lots of people including Bitcoin Core devs are pointing in other directions to solve scalability such as Lightning Network.
So, are we going to have a hard fork by the end of this year and a split between Bitcoin Core people and Big Blockers?

It's still too early to talk about what's going to happen in the future. In fact, I do not care about that, the only thing that bothered me was the value of bitcoin, with constant changes, bitcoin carrying unstable steps, it was not good for everyone.

[xIIImaL]

I understand that the New York Agreement had consensus to implement Segwit and 3 months later Segwit2x, which will imply software upgrade by miners and users. But now, lots of people including Bitcoin Core devs are pointing in other directions to solve scalability such as Lightning Network.
So, are we going to have a hard fork by the end of this year and a split between Bitcoin Core people and Big Blockers?

It's still too early to talk about what's going to happen in the future. In fact, I do not care about that, the only thing that bothered me was the value of bitcoin, with constant changes, bitcoin carrying unstable steps, it was not good for everyone.

Don't worry after segwit2x activation bitcoin value seems settled around 3500$. Please check the value now. I expect bitcoin to touch the next peak with some months.
You cannot just confirm that bitcoin price is unstable. It is fluctuate from 2013 to now.

[kwukduck]

I don't understand peoples issue with a 'large' ledger...
Bitcoin blockchain is less than 3 BluRay movies... What's the big deal?

[thecodebear]

I don't understand peoples issue with a 'large' ledger...
Bitcoin blockchain is less than 3 BluRay movies... What's the big deal?

yeah the "blockchain will get too big" argument really doesn't hold water. Scalability is much more important for the future of bitcoin than miners having to buy some extra disk space. Especially considering the cost of disk space will go down a lot quickly than the size of the bitcoin ledger increases. Honestly I think a 4MB block size would be ideal. That plus segwit would I think mean bitcoin's transaction capacity would be close to 8x what it is now. That plus Lightning Network operating for services that do a lot of transactions would mean bitcoin could probably scale for a good number of years without any new solutions needed. But even 2MB is pretty good. It makes no sense to not increase the block size. With segwit alone we might run into full blocks again in a year or so, which would be bad for everyone.

[§]

For me not the storage is not the problem, but downloading the blockchain, i dont want to be downloading for days.

[fabiorem]

Will we have a dip to 3000-3100 till August 21st? Yes or no?

I cannot think on a reason to have a dip. Once SW is activated the price should go up.

But its not activated yet, it was just signalled.

Activation is due August 21st, after a grace period for the miners to update their software.

I have a feeling there will be a dip, its just difficult to speculate how much it will fall.

[Rahar02]

We're going through the way to activate segwit but the second step of the New York agreement is 2Mb hard fork, as core developers don't want to support 2Mb block size limit and have planned to develop bitcoin core 0.15.0 that will automatically disconnecting any network node which runs the segwit2x fork. Then we will likely have a chain split sooner rather than later, it would allow more freedom for people to choose the best proposal of scaling solution.

[illyiller]

Let's see some actual code and some actual opinions and testing before it's declared a fact. We do of course know what Core will think already.

The people who are signalling aren't stupid. They're all in it for the money. They're not going to risk that money if it's looking too disruptive. It'll only take one or two having  a doubt before the entire house of cards collapses.

Then we're kind of back to square one with the added attraction of BCH for the big blockers to bully everyone with.

I'm up in the air on the whole thing. At a glance, I look at who is supporting Segwit2x (including the vast majority of miners) and it seems like a sure thing. But time and time again, the ecosystem continues supporting Core in the face of contentious change. Segwit2x is the least contentious of block size proposals yet (at least given its support from major economic nodes and miners), but the fact that Core opposes it makes it quite contentious on its face.

If I had to guess: We will see some defectors from the Segwit2x camp over the next couple months. As we approach the fork, FUD will be at all time highs and things will look very uncertain. Then the 2x fork will flop like BCC and yes, we will have 3 chains (BTC and 2 altcoins), but BTC will not be dethroned. I'd give this scenario 10:1 odds. Part of me actually wants some drama so we can get a deep dip to accumulate more coins, but I won't plan on it.

[Wind_FURY]

NYA's role was to do one thing. To get rid of the Core developers. That is why they are fighting with all their might to block the hard fork to 2mb block sizes because they know that will be the end of them as stewards of the network. They can still contribute, but their influence is not as great as they are today.

It will not happen. Besides, there is BitcoinCash if some people want bigger blocks. If the big blockers want Segwit, they can activate it there too. Bye bye.

With 8MB blocks there is no need to implement segwit and increase capacity further. Moreover, now BCH and BTC will follow different paths, including development.

But you do not understand, Segwit is not a scaling solution. It was originally a fix for the malleability problem of Bitcoin. BitcoinCash will the something of the same to fix the same problem. There is already a proposal called Flexible Transactions and some people in the BitcoinCash community are arguing that it is better than Segwit.

[pooya87]

I don't get why people are against 2MB.

They just want to create FUD so that they can open a window for us to buy more bitcoins.

But I remember seeing a graphic were 2mb would result, in the long run, in a 1tb block folder, which is too much for storage.

here is a "graphic" for current 1 MB block size which shows the current blockchain size as 127 GB which grows about 50 GB per year with 2 MB it will increase less than 2x because blocks won't be full from day 1.
in other words 1 TB will take about 20 years with 1 MB
and it will take about 10-12 years with 2 MB (worse case scenario is 8 years which is the year 2025)

Thanks for the clarifications. Is SW2x really the best solution? Isnt SW + LN enough to solve scalability problems without having to produce a Hard Fork?
 

i am sorry i can not answer that because i am not yet convinced about it myself.
there are good arguments for and against the 2MB hard fork but i am not convinced why it couldn't work. and a hard fork is not a bad thing, we saw the 100% support for SegWit and the hard fork can essentially have the same amount of support, in which case nothing bad will happen with enough time and a good plan.

and as for LN, that is a good solution and will help bitcoin a lot in the future but that is a second layer transaction and shouldn't be used "instead" of on chain in my opinion but only "on top of it". and that is one of the reasons for suggestion of 2 MB.

[illyiller]

But you do not understand, Segwit is not a scaling solution. It was originally a fix for the malleability problem of Bitcoin.

Fixing transaction malleability is necessary for the Lightning Network. So yes, Segwit is a scaling solution. It will also enable all sorts of future optimizations, like Schnorr aggregation and MAST, which can further optimize transaction size. This is all part of scaling. Particularly the Lightning Network; we need to take transactions off chain (or otherwise look into things like sharding and tree-chains).

My take on "flexible transactions" was that it was just a kludged version of Segwit for a hard fork implementation.

[piloder]

I understand that the New York Agreement had consensus to implement Segwit and 3 months later Segwit2x, which will imply software upgrade by miners and users. But now, lots of people including Bitcoin Core devs are pointing in other directions to solve scalability such as Lightning Network.
So, are we going to have a hard fork by the end of this year and a split between Bitcoin Core people and Big Blockers?

Yes this is quite likely because the block size debate is not over yet, core is against increasing block size while miners want bigger blocks to get maximum transaction fees when mining a block.

IF there will be hard fork by end of the year than that might create bigger chaos on the market compared to what we had on august 1st.