Mainstream Media: Bitcoin split is good

[eaLiTy]

I am in favor of Segwit, off chain transactions, LN, Schnorr signature, these are necessary to prevent miner manipulation to some extent and also to give users a choice. I am not good with too much technicalities, basics, Segwit is a block size increase/block weight increase. Transaction malleability, 4:1, 1:4. If I am right the base limit is around 2 MB.

From what i understand segwit is not just a block size increase,they do increase the block size limit by removing the signature data from bitcoin transaction ,i am not sure whether it is the best possible solution to free space so that more transaction can get through and if some one has a better solution for that i am all for it,there is nothing wrong in having competition for having the best solution for bitcoin.

[Iranus]

Segwit2x enables double-spending from what I heard

Common sense would dictate that you are wrong.  The main point of the blockchain is to prevent double spending.

Just like they have said it is not possible on the current blockchain with the tech involved?

No one who understands how Bitcoin works would say that.  They would say that after sending a transaction it's possible to double spend, and that as the transaction receives confirmations it becomes exponentially less likely that a user can double spend.  Eventually the chances of a double spend are negligible and you can safely ignore it.

See how that assumption turned out.. just as yours will.

The "assumption" (understanding of how Bitcoin works) that I have just explained is correct.  SegWitx2 makes no changes which would alter that.

There will be someone who will flip the script and then you will have what was said can not be done with the current blockchain.

Please explain how you think that SegWitx2 increases the possibility of a double spend.

[The One]

I am in favor of Segwit, off chain transactions, LN, Schnorr signature, these are necessary to prevent miner manipulation to some extent and also to give users a choice. I am not good with too much technicalities, basics, Segwit is a block size increase/block weight increase. Transaction malleability, 4:1, 1:4. If I am right the base limit is around 2 MB.

Now I guess this where the big blockers don't agree. I personally do believe 1 MB blocksize wouldn't be enough forever, sooner or later it needs to be increased. Big blockers believe a soft fork implementation to increase blocksize wouldn't be sufficient in the future and I guess Segwit + 2x increases the base block limit to 8 MB.

But hard forking the network three months from now would be suicidal. I am not dragging myself into the politics of bitcoin, just my opinion. Core has been working on bitcoin from the beginning. I don't know if Core would agree upon a hard fork or not. If yes then the Core developers and Jeff Garzik team of developers could work together to create a robust code through efficient planning and multiple testings and then implement it one year from now.

In my honest opinion I do believe bitcoin should scale with an equal blend of off chain and on chain implementations. Off chain solutions might be a bit harsh on miners, once all the bitcoins have been mined, incentives would be transaction fees only, a necessity for a PoW protocol, and off chain solutions would keep them in check.

Nope.

Playing around with miners fees and what they may mine in the future is stupid. If miners don't get the fees, they won't mine and Bitcoin will fail. You are also making the same assumptions that the miners in 20 years time will be the same miners now. Punishing today miners at the expense of future miner is folly.