Post your SegWit questions here - open discussion - big week for Bitcoin!

[ChromaticStar]

Blockstream is a company that is building services on top of Bitcoin. And they've been the thorn in the side of sane scaling for Bitcoin for THREE YEARS now. I can't believe this arguing is still ongoing. It's really becoming rather pathetic watching people copy/paste the same arguments over and over.

Personally, I still hold BTC, but now choose to invest my time and money into Bitcoin Cash, as I believe it is superior technology that is unencumbered by the endless negativity, technical debt, and uncertainty in the BTC scene. Almost every day I hear positive news about Bitcoin Cash, such as "new exchange added", "new wallet launched", "new vendor accepting", and "tipping on the rise". It reminds of the good old BTC days here...

So how are you going to scale to global acceptance? If more and more people started using BCH, and all transactions were on the main chain, pretty soon you wouldn't have 8 MB blocks, but 8 GB blocks every 10 minutes. A block chain growing faster than the streaming capacity of almost everyone's internet connection. Please, BCH is a shitcoin, it can not scale. Lightning network is the only alternative. Try looking at ETH's blockchain growth rate and you'll see why Vitalik and team are trying so hard to solve their scaling problems for it to survive.

What does "scale to global acceptance" mean?   Scaling is one thing, and global acceptance is another.  Blockstream's wonderful work killing Bitcoin caused the tech world to accept and embrace other cryptos. There is no "one coin to rule them all". If you put together the top 10 cryptos (excluding premines and tokens), their networks and blockchains can easily accommodate billions in daily volume. Even the most foaming-at-the-mouth Kore fanboi must admit that BCH simply has 8x the capacity of BTC. It's simple math.

Your average joe is not going to care what crypto they use, as long as the value hold steady or keeps going up.  And I can tell you now that they won't be using Lightning...

Funny you should mention ETH's scaling - it's pretty horrible, but at least Vitalik is not artificially limiting it!

Segwit gave BTC a peak 4x scaling capacity, that's why people are hesitant to embrace 2x which would be 8x capacity and presents technical challenges. So no, BCH only has twice the capacity of BTC now that Segwit is active. If you think BCH can handle 8x, then 16x, then 100x capacity, you're going to figure out there's more to scaling than just increasing block size. A few MBs may not seem like a lot in today's world, but when it comes to validating blocks and forming consensus throughout the entire network, which is what blockchain is, it's a lot!

Not sure why you don't think they'd use Lightning to send instant transactions. Why would they want to wait for their transaction to be verified when it can be done instantly?

As for Core killing BTC, that's probably an overstatement. BTC is hardly dead. If anything kills it at this point, it will be politics. The 2x fork in November may do just that. There's lots of other bright coins out there, and I've been part of the reason they've been rising. If BTC fails, I will just find another coin to use, and it won't be BCH.

You're more than welcome to use BCH if you want, but realize you'll face scaling problems of your own if your blocks ever fill up. From the looks of it, blocks are being mined about 30% faster on BCH, sometimes it's been a block a minute. This will present big problems down the road if the blockreward dies off too quickly without enough transaction fees, they'll be little reason to mine it for next to nothing.

I haven't sold my BCH yet, but I probably will after the November hard fork of BTC. I just don't see why you love it so much. Why is it so much better?

[1714839069]

1714839069

[1714839069]

1714839069

[1714839069]

1714839069

[Nathan Dyer]

I have a question. Since segwit requires 95% of miners to upgrade. What if 20% from these are Bitcoin core enemies doesnt want to upgrade to delay the segwit upgrading of Bitcoin core? Are we going to stuck from very slow blockchain forever? Sorry If my question doesnt have any sense

[JayJuanGee]

I have a question. Since segwit requires 95% of miners to upgrade. What if 20% from these are Bitcoin core enemies doesnt want to upgrade to delay the segwit upgrading of Bitcoin core? Are we going to stuck from very slow blockchain forever? Sorry If my question doesnt have any sense

Your question makes no sense. 

The punchline is that segwit already happened.. its a done deal.  Therefore you would need 95% to go against it to change it rather than a lack of 95% for it.

Do you recall what happened in July 2017?  There was first the threat of the BIP148 user activated softfork; however, a BIP91 compromise caused the signaling of segwit and thereafter the 95% threshold of signaling that locked it in by August 10 or something like that.  Once segwit was locked in then it was done, so at that point, you would have needed 95% to go against it to reverse it or to change it back...


Regarding your assertion of a slow blockchain, sounds like you are talking about fiction rather than fact, or maybe you are just supposing that segwit is not locked in, when it is?

Anyhow, the blockchain has been great in the past several months, transactions fast and fees low.. and possibly spam attacks have not been as heavy because some of that previously spam directed hash power has been aimed at mining BCash instead of attacking bitcoin?


So even though you still might hear some bitcoin naysayers and bitcoin saboteurs talking about high fees and slow transactions, they are generally making shit up in order to spout their antibitcoin and/or alt coin pumping rhetoric.

[classicsucks]

Blockstream is a company that is building services on top of Bitcoin. And they've been the thorn in the side of sane scaling for Bitcoin for THREE YEARS now. I can't believe this arguing is still ongoing. It's really becoming rather pathetic watching people copy/paste the same arguments over and over.

Personally, I still hold BTC, but now choose to invest my time and money into Bitcoin Cash, as I believe it is superior technology that is unencumbered by the endless negativity, technical debt, and uncertainty in the BTC scene. Almost every day I hear positive news about Bitcoin Cash, such as "new exchange added", "new wallet launched", "new vendor accepting", and "tipping on the rise". It reminds of the good old BTC days here...

So how are you going to scale to global acceptance? If more and more people started using BCH, and all transactions were on the main chain, pretty soon you wouldn't have 8 MB blocks, but 8 GB blocks every 10 minutes. A block chain growing faster than the streaming capacity of almost everyone's internet connection. Please, BCH is a shitcoin, it can not scale. Lightning network is the only alternative. Try looking at ETH's blockchain growth rate and you'll see why Vitalik and team are trying so hard to solve their scaling problems for it to survive.

What does "scale to global acceptance" mean?   Scaling is one thing, and global acceptance is another.  Blockstream's wonderful work killing Bitcoin caused the tech world to accept and embrace other cryptos. There is no "one coin to rule them all". If you put together the top 10 cryptos (excluding premines and tokens), their networks and blockchains can easily accommodate billions in daily volume. Even the most foaming-at-the-mouth Kore fanboi must admit that BCH simply has 8x the capacity of BTC. It's simple math.

Your average joe is not going to care what crypto they use, as long as the value hold steady or keeps going up.  And I can tell you now that they won't be using Lightning...

Funny you should mention ETH's scaling - it's pretty horrible, but at least Vitalik is not artificially limiting it!

Segwit gave BTC a peak 4x scaling capacity, that's why people are hesitant to embrace 2x which would be 8x capacity and presents technical challenges. So no, BCH only has twice the capacity of BTC now that Segwit is active. If you think BCH can handle 8x, then 16x, then 100x capacity, you're going to figure out there's more to scaling than just increasing block size. A few MBs may not seem like a lot in today's world, but when it comes to validating blocks and forming consensus throughout the entire network, which is what blockchain is, it's a lot!

4MB is only the theoretical block capacity with Segwit, assuming everyone is using Segwit transactions (which last I checked is not possible from any GUI). Right now less than 7% of BTC transactions use Segwit (source: http://segwit.5gbfree.com/countsegwit.html), so right now the BTC blocksize capacity is only slightly more than 1MB. The spammers are leaving it alone for now, likely only because they didn't want to tank the markets.

Not sure why you don't think they'd use Lightning to send instant transactions. Why would they want to wait for their transaction to be verified when it can be done instantly?

As for Core killing BTC, that's probably an overstatement. BTC is hardly dead. If anything kills it at this point, it will be politics. The 2x fork in November may do just that. There's lots of other bright coins out there, and I've been part of the reason they've been rising. If BTC fails, I will just find another coin to use, and it won't be BCH.

You're more than welcome to use BCH if you want, but realize you'll face scaling problems of your own if your blocks ever fill up. From the looks of it, blocks are being mined about 30% faster on BCH, sometimes it's been a block a minute. This will present big problems down the road if the blockreward dies off too quickly without enough transaction fees, they'll be little reason to mine it for next to nothing.

I haven't sold my BCH yet, but I probably will after the November hard fork of BTC. I just don't see why you love it so much. Why is it so much better?

Maybe I overstated - Kore was killing ME for 3 years with their obstinate trolling. I want BTC to succeed and 2x drama to end without too much pain, I really don't care which side prevails as long as the markets and confidence survive.

It's not that I love BCH, it's that I really don't like Segwit. It's an ugly 6000 line hack that created tons of technical debt, for little tangible gain. I don't trust Blockstream or DCG to do what's best for the ecosystem - their incentives are aligned with pushing LN and crippling Bitcoin. LN is centralized and will be immediately regulated on the off chance that it is successful. Since it currently doesn't work, I doubt it ever will reach the mainstream. Why not just use an altcoin instead of LN, as several billions of dollars are doing every day?

[ChromaticStar]

It's not that I love BCH, it's that I really don't like Segwit. It's an ugly 6000 line hack that created tons of technical debt, for little tangible gain. I don't trust Blockstream or DCG to do what's best for the ecosystem - their incentives are aligned with pushing LN and crippling Bitcoin. LN is centralized and will be immediately regulated on the off chance that it is successful. Since it currently doesn't work, I doubt it ever will reach the mainstream. Why not just use an altcoin instead of LN, as several billions of dollars are doing every day?

I'm not going to listen to the whole video again, but Maxwell recently stated that BCH was implementing their own version of Segwit, but just called it a different name:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSRoEeqYtJA

Segwit opens the possibility for more options that will be required as cryptocurrencies are adopted. Beyond just lightning, there's also atomic swaps. Like you mention, there are altcoins that people can use, but most people aren't going to want to buy all the alts everytime they want to transact with the right one, so instead they'll just atomic swap for what they need. I'm not going to say much more about it because I'm really not an expert, but from what those who are have been saying and the updates to several of the alts, Segwit is going to play a pivotal role with further developments to crypto.

[classicsucks]

It's not that I love BCH, it's that I really don't like Segwit. It's an ugly 6000 line hack that created tons of technical debt, for little tangible gain. I don't trust Blockstream or DCG to do what's best for the ecosystem - their incentives are aligned with pushing LN and crippling Bitcoin. LN is centralized and will be immediately regulated on the off chance that it is successful. Since it currently doesn't work, I doubt it ever will reach the mainstream. Why not just use an altcoin instead of LN, as several billions of dollars are doing every day?

I'm not going to listen to the whole video again, but Maxwell recently stated that BCH was implementing their own version of Segwit, but just called it a different name:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSRoEeqYtJA

Segwit opens the possibility for more options that will be required as cryptocurrencies are adopted. Beyond just lightning, there's also atomic swaps. Like you mention, there are altcoins that people can use, but most people aren't going to want to buy all the alts everytime they want to transact with the right one, so instead they'll just atomic swap for what they need. I'm not going to say much more about it because I'm really not an expert, but from what those who are have been saying and the updates to several of the alts, Segwit is going to play a pivotal role with further developments to crypto.

Atomic swaps is one of the cooler ideas I've seen floated lately. I'm still not sold on Segwit at all, Swapping currencies is best NOT implemented in the coin layer - it's clearly an exchange-level function (you ever use Shapeshift?). Despite its security issues, I hear Coinomi implements such swaps within a wallet, Down the line, people could be using alts without even knowing it!

As for BCH implementing a "Franken-Segwit", how would Maxwell know such a thing, and why would the BCH devs change their minds about their staunch opposition to Segwit? This opposition was one of the primary reasons they launched BCH!    Honestly those statements sound like the typical type of trolling that Maxwell does...

[Aum Ram]

I'm having a really hard time understanding why there is so much disagreement over Segwit2x and Core. I've tried to find answers but everyone seems to have a different one. So far I've heard the following:

Segwit2x is supported by a corporate backed development team and only about money, not bitcoin. They are supporting the fork to divide us and kill Bitcoin. I don't know if this is true or not, but would like more info if someone has a reference.

Segwit2x is a hardfork and Core does not like to hardfork. Fair enough, but blocksize can't stay at 1 MB forever. Why would we split the community if we're going to need it down the road anyway.

Segwit2x is simply unnecessary. Read above.

Segwit2x code is unreliable and opens up new attack vectors. I didn't think this was anything other than a basic change of block size parameters and nothing else.

Segwit2x was for the big blockers who got their BCH.

According to this: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support#Developers Core is unanimously opposed to Segwit2x. But why? What is so bad about it?

I don't know who's side I am suppose to be on. I'm inclined to side with the most talented of the group, which would be Core, but again why do they hate Segwit2x so much?

Honestly whoever wins depends on only single thing: Who keeps the (BTC) handle on the exchanges? That is the only thing that matters. People don't care about what chain has what. Whichever maintains the main "BTC" name will dominate the market as that is what all existing exchanges and services utilize, that is what the traders are using first and foremost and is what people will encounter. Fracturing of bitcoin only shows weakness which will hurt the coin in it's entirety as it devolves in just petty infighting with none of them actually accomplishing much in acceptance which is what is important to keep the market from ending up as a dot-com bubble.

[DooMAD]

Atomic swaps is one of the cooler ideas I've seen floated lately. I'm still not sold on Segwit at all, Swapping currencies is best NOT implemented in the coin layer - it's clearly an exchange-level function

Exchanges are just a throwback to our broken traditional finance sector.  Bitcoin was designed to work as a trustless peer-to-peer transaction between two participants, cutting out the middlemen in the banks.  But instead we somehow recreated a role for middlemen, along with a central point of failure in terms of security.  Reducing the need for centralised exchanges at protocol level can only ever be positive.  I've been wanting Atomic Swaps to be an actual thing for ages for this very reason.

As for BCH implementing a "Franken-Segwit", how would Maxwell know such a thing, and why would the BCH devs change their minds about their staunch opposition to Segwit? This opposition was one of the primary reasons they launched BCH!    Honestly those statements sound like the typical type of trolling that Maxwell does...

If you don't want to take his word on it, some guy on Reddit pointed it out about 2 months ago.  Same as the bech32 addresses being discussed on a mailing list here.  BCH seems to cherry-pick the bits they like, although that isn't necessarily a bad thing, reinventing the wheel and such.  It's not the same as actually having SegWit, obviously, but they are both integral components of it.

[kellogsblocks]

I'm having a really hard time understanding why there is so much disagreement over Segwit2x and Core. I've tried to find answers but everyone seems to have a different one. So far I've heard the following:

Segwit2x is supported by a corporate backed development team and only about money, not bitcoin. They are supporting the fork to divide us and kill Bitcoin. I don't know if this is true or not, but would like more info if someone has a reference.

Segwit2x is a hardfork and Core does not like to hardfork. Fair enough, but blocksize can't stay at 1 MB forever. Why would we split the community if we're going to need it down the road anyway.

Segwit2x is simply unnecessary. Read above.

Segwit2x code is unreliable and opens up new attack vectors. I didn't think this was anything other than a basic change of block size parameters and nothing else.

Segwit2x was for the big blockers who got their BCH.

According to this: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support#Developers Core is unanimously opposed to Segwit2x. But why? What is so bad about it?

I don't know who's side I am suppose to be on. I'm inclined to side with the most talented of the group, which would be Core, but again why do they hate Segwit2x so much?

Honestly whoever wins depends on only single thing: Who keeps the (BTC) handle on the exchanges? That is the only thing that matters. People don't care about what chain has what. Whichever maintains the main "BTC" name will dominate the market []

And bitfinex has made a statement on it https://www.bitfinex.com/posts/223 

[MarketMagic]

I'm having a really hard time understanding why there is so much disagreement over Segwit2x and Core. I've tried to find answers but everyone seems to have a different one. So far I've heard the following:

Segwit2x is supported by a corporate backed development team and only about money, not bitcoin. They are supporting the fork to divide us and kill Bitcoin. I don't know if this is true or not, but would like more info if someone has a reference.

Segwit2x is a hardfork and Core does not like to hardfork. Fair enough, but blocksize can't stay at 1 MB forever. Why would we split the community if we're going to need it down the road anyway.

Segwit2x is simply unnecessary. Read above.

Segwit2x code is unreliable and opens up new attack vectors. I didn't think this was anything other than a basic change of block size parameters and nothing else.

Segwit2x was for the big blockers who got their BCH.

According to this: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support#Developers Core is unanimously opposed to Segwit2x. But why? What is so bad about it?

I don't know who's side I am suppose to be on. I'm inclined to side with the most talented of the group, which would be Core, but again why do they hate Segwit2x so much?

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.

That is it, in a nutshell. This takeover attempt lead by Barry Silbert’s New York Agreement is veiled (albeit somewhat thinly in my mind) by the Segwit & big block debate to take attention away from the true intention of the miners & businesses. The ambition of Bitcoin miners & businesses will always inherently lean toward centralized control as they are unwilling to sacrifice efficiency for network security. This intention is in stark contrast to the aspirations of the average Bitcoin users who desire security and decentralization above all else. While there exists some debate between users regarding block size I believe even those who champion a push for larger blocks would outright condemn the ensuring totalitarian control over the network.

We must realize as a community that the Segwit2x code is not the argument, whether you desire big or small blocks, Segwit or no Segwit it is not relevant. The point remains the method by which the centralized mining cartels & businesses are attempting to force this change through the protocol and what is likely to happen in the future should they succeed. Should Segwit2x client change be successful;

A) It will be proven without a doubt that the Bitcoin network with all its hash power security and global scale CAN BE gamed. Any protocol changes that the miners / businesses want or are PAID / COERCED to want can be made, full stop. If they want Bitcoin to be inflationary rather than deflationary or to have 42 million minable coins rather than 21 million its just a matter of 1’s and 0’s at this point.

B) Power of development for the Bitcoin project will be taken out of the hands of the Core development team. The same team that has kept the Bitcoin network secure and stable with near 100% uptime for the past 8+ years. It is anyone’s guess who will stay on to develop the Segwit2x client.

C) Bitcoin’s status as a decentralized currency will be stripped. Bitcoins future will be entirely in the hands of centralized business’s and mining bodies. I am sure they will form some type of administrative group to discuss THEIR needs. The users will not be represented. (Sound familiar?).

D) There is no guarantee that the Bitcoin project will even remain open source. Once enough hash power and economic support lend themselves to the Segwit2x client the new miner controlled development team can easily flip the switch to closed source is they so desired.

The miners and businesses operating on the Bitcoin blockchain are entirely incentivized to centralize the networks development & operation as much as is possible. Centralized control will always be more efficient than decentralized consensus and thus adds to the bottom lines of businesses and miners alike. The users MUST NOT allow these bodies to take control of the network. Miners and business’s exist to serve the users & the network, NOT the other way around.

I suppose it is in the nature of human beings to desire power and control over others. Why this is exactly I can’t say, but I doubt anyone would argue the point. An attack of this type was bound to occur sooner or later in the Bitcoin space, I had no doubts of this. However I am taken back a bit by the lack of common understanding of exactly what is taking place here. For years a 51% attack on the Bitcoin network was in the forefront of every users mind and yet in the midst of a hostile takeover attempt all I see is complacency. Many posts on Reddit and Twitter are content to see that Segwit will be pushed through “in some form” but take no account to the method by which it occurs. They have been so aptly sold on the benefits of Segwit that they pay little attention to men pulling the strings behind the cloth. We would be far better off to have Bitcoin as it stands today without Segregated Witness then to allow manipulation of the protocol in this manner.

The only true power we as users have is to educate one another on the issues, whether they lie in the technical, economical or game theory realms as we move forward. At this point it seems clear that decentralized systems such as Bitcoin will always be under attack by centralized authorities wishing to take more control. If the Bitcoin project is to succeed the user base will need to be dynamic in their defense & understanding.

[ChromaticStar]

I'm having a really hard time understanding why there is so much disagreement over Segwit2x and Core. I've tried to find answers but everyone seems to have a different one. So far I've heard the following:

Segwit2x is supported by a corporate backed development team and only about money, not bitcoin. They are supporting the fork to divide us and kill Bitcoin. I don't know if this is true or not, but would like more info if someone has a reference.

Segwit2x is a hardfork and Core does not like to hardfork. Fair enough, but blocksize can't stay at 1 MB forever. Why would we split the community if we're going to need it down the road anyway.

Segwit2x is simply unnecessary. Read above.

Segwit2x code is unreliable and opens up new attack vectors. I didn't think this was anything other than a basic change of block size parameters and nothing else.

Segwit2x was for the big blockers who got their BCH.

According to this: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support#Developers Core is unanimously opposed to Segwit2x. But why? What is so bad about it?

I don't know who's side I am suppose to be on. I'm inclined to side with the most talented of the group, which would be Core, but again why do they hate Segwit2x so much?

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.

That is it, in a nutshell. This takeover attempt lead by Barry Silbert’s New York Agreement is veiled (albeit somewhat thinly in my mind) by the Segwit & big block debate to take attention away from the true intention of the miners & businesses. The ambition of Bitcoin miners & businesses will always inherently lean toward centralized control as they are unwilling to sacrifice efficiency for network security. This intention is in stark contrast to the aspirations of the average Bitcoin users who desire security and decentralization above all else. While there exists some debate between users regarding block size I believe even those who champion a push for larger blocks would outright condemn the ensuring totalitarian control over the network.

We must realize as a community that the Segwit2x code is not the argument, whether you desire big or small blocks, Segwit or no Segwit it is not relevant. The point remains the method by which the centralized mining cartels & businesses are attempting to force this change through the protocol and what is likely to happen in the future should they succeed. Should Segwit2x client change be successful;

A) It will be proven without a doubt that the Bitcoin network with all its hash power security and global scale CAN BE gamed. Any protocol changes that the miners / businesses want or are PAID / COERCED to want can be made, full stop. If they want Bitcoin to be inflationary rather than deflationary or to have 42 million minable coins rather than 21 million its just a matter of 1’s and 0’s at this point.

B) Power of development for the Bitcoin project will be taken out of the hands of the Core development team. The same team that has kept the Bitcoin network secure and stable with near 100% uptime for the past 8+ years. It is anyone’s guess who will stay on to develop the Segwit2x client.

C) Bitcoin’s status as a decentralized currency will be stripped. Bitcoins future will be entirely in the hands of centralized business’s and mining bodies. I am sure they will form some type of administrative group to discuss THEIR needs. The users will not be represented. (Sound familiar?).

D) There is no guarantee that the Bitcoin project will even remain open source. Once enough hash power and economic support lend themselves to the Segwit2x client the new miner controlled development team can easily flip the switch to closed source is they so desired.

The miners and businesses operating on the Bitcoin blockchain are entirely incentivized to centralize the networks development & operation as much as is possible. Centralized control will always be more efficient than decentralized consensus and thus adds to the bottom lines of businesses and miners alike. The users MUST NOT allow these bodies to take control of the network. Miners and business’s exist to serve the users & the network, NOT the other way around.

I suppose it is in the nature of human beings to desire power and control over others. Why this is exactly I can’t say, but I doubt anyone would argue the point. An attack of this type was bound to occur sooner or later in the Bitcoin space, I had no doubts of this. However I am taken back a bit by the lack of common understanding of exactly what is taking place here. For years a 51% attack on the Bitcoin network was in the forefront of every users mind and yet in the midst of a hostile takeover attempt all I see is complacency. Many posts on Reddit and Twitter are content to see that Segwit will be pushed through “in some form” but take no account to the method by which it occurs. They have been so aptly sold on the benefits of Segwit that they pay little attention to men pulling the strings behind the cloth. We would be far better off to have Bitcoin as it stands today without Segregated Witness then to allow manipulation of the protocol in this manner.

The only true power we as users have is to educate one another on the issues, whether they lie in the technical, economical or game theory realms as we move forward. At this point it seems clear that decentralized systems such as Bitcoin will always be under attack by centralized authorities wishing to take more control. If the Bitcoin project is to succeed the user base will need to be dynamic in their defense & understanding.

I wrote that comment several weeks ago. Since then I've realized just how bad 2x is and agree with everything you are saying. I don't know what is going to happen in November, but I am 100% behind Core with this. If 2x becomes the leading chain and Core gives up, I will probably move more into decentralized alt coins and keep minimal 2x coins. I'm not sure what the best coins are at the moment, but any advice would be appreciated before the fork.

[ChromaticStar]

I'm having a really hard time understanding why there is so much disagreement over Segwit2x and Core. I've tried to find answers but everyone seems to have a different one. So far I've heard the following:

Segwit2x is supported by a corporate backed development team and only about money, not bitcoin. They are supporting the fork to divide us and kill Bitcoin. I don't know if this is true or not, but would like more info if someone has a reference.

Segwit2x is a hardfork and Core does not like to hardfork. Fair enough, but blocksize can't stay at 1 MB forever. Why would we split the community if we're going to need it down the road anyway.

Segwit2x is simply unnecessary. Read above.

Segwit2x code is unreliable and opens up new attack vectors. I didn't think this was anything other than a basic change of block size parameters and nothing else.

Segwit2x was for the big blockers who got their BCH.

According to this: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support#Developers Core is unanimously opposed to Segwit2x. But why? What is so bad about it?

I don't know who's side I am suppose to be on. I'm inclined to side with the most talented of the group, which would be Core, but again why do they hate Segwit2x so much?

Honestly whoever wins depends on only single thing: Who keeps the (BTC) handle on the exchanges? That is the only thing that matters. People don't care about what chain has what. Whichever maintains the main "BTC" name will dominate the market []

And bitfinex has made a statement on it https://www.bitfinex.com/posts/223 

This is news to me and very encouraging. I was kind of expecting this from Bitfinex and I'm more or less expecting Coinbase to follow up with a similar statement. I hold most of my coin's private keys, but will be dumping whatever 2x coins Bittrex gives me day 1.

[miguelmorales85]

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.

[hv_]

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

[overdraft]

I’m in wa state and as far as I can tell can only exchange with Coinbase. Should I be worried about this recent back and forth between core and Coinbase? Oh and FYI I’m green as hell with all of this so if my questions come off as ignorant... sorry, not sorry.
Chears

[ChromaticStar]

I’m in wa state and as far as I can tell can only exchange with Coinbase. Should I be worried about this recent back and forth between core and Coinbase? Oh and FYI I’m green as hell with all of this so if my questions come off as ignorant... sorry, not sorry.
Chears

The fighting isn't between Core and Coinbase, it's between Core and Segwit2x. Bitcoin is going to fork again in mid November into 2 competing chains. If you own Bitcoin on the day of the fork, you will own equal coins on both chains. The bad thing is Segwit2x is not implementing replay protection on their chain. If you own your coin's private keys, you will need to take steps to avoid losing them in replays. You should send your coins to yourself simultaneously on each chain to distinctly different addresses until you have them split. It may take several tries to get it to work. If you leave your coins on Coinbase, they have stated that they will give you coins on both chains and taint them to avoid replays. Someone might disagree with me, but since you're new to Bitcoin, I'd recommend you leave your coins on Coinbase and let them do all the work of getting them on the correct chains. I am going to do it the hard way and split them myself. Once you feel technically proficient at how to do it, I'd recommend keeping your bitcoins only on addresses to which you control the private key as well.

By the way, I hate Segwit2x and will be selling a big chunk of them once I can.

[overdraft]

I’m in wa state and as far as I can tell can only exchange with Coinbase. Should I be worried about this recent back and forth between core and Coinbase? Oh and FYI I’m green as hell with all of this so if my questions come off as ignorant... sorry, not sorry.
Cheers

The fighting isn't between Core and Coinbase, it's between Core and Segwit2x. Bitcoin is going to fork again in mid November into 2 competing chains. If you own Bitcoin on the day of the fork, you will own equal coins on both chains. The bad thing is Segwit2x is not implementing replay protection on their chain. If you own your coin's private keys, you will need to take steps to avoid losing them in replays. You should send your coins to yourself simultaneously on each chain to distinctly different addresses until you have them split. It may take several tries to get it to work. If you leave your coins on Coinbase, they have stated that they will give you coins on both chains and taint them to avoid replays. Someone might disagree with me, but since you're new to Bitcoin, I'd recommend you leave your coins on Coinbase and let them do all the work of getting them on the correct chains. I am going to do it the hard way and split them myself. Once you feel technically proficient at how to do it, I'd recommend keeping your bitcoins only on addresses to which you control the private key as well.

By the way, I hate Segwit2x and will be selling a big chunk of them once I can.

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/coinbase-to-support-both-blockchains-following-segwit2x-fork/

...
Romero stated that Coinbase will provide customers with access to coins on both blockchains, although they may restrict access following the fork until both blockchains are stable and secure. “We are currently working on the engineering and security requirements for each bitcoin blockchain ,” the post continues.

Although not directly referenced, the post comes just one day after Bitcoin.org threatened to publicly denounce companies that support SegWit2x and do not publicly commit to meet certain demands. In particular, companies must agree to only use the term “Bitcoin” and ticker symbol “BTC” to refer to the original blockchain and may not do anything to “deprive users of their bitcoins”.

The Coinbase announcement appears to meet the second condition since it promises that customers will have “access to bitcoin on both blockchains” following the fork. However, Romero says they will not release a detailed plan for how they will name the two blockchains until closer to to the scheduled date for the fork.

However, the announcement does not appear to have appeased SegWit2x opponents. Cobra-Bitcoin, one of the current domain owners of Bitcoin.org, wrote on Github that the statement “isn’t really helpful” and that Coinbase must “immediately clarify that they will continue to call the current Bitcoin blockchain ‘Bitcoin’ with the ticker symbol ‘BTC’.” This would seem to imply that the announcement is not sufficient to remove Coinbase from the list of companies Bitcoin.org will publicly denounce.

Blockstream CSO Samson Mow — another vociferous critic of SegWit2x — suggested on Twitter that Coinbase’s position may violate the terms of the “BitLicense,” the financial services license bitcoin firms must receive to operate within New York state. Specifically, he pointed to language that prohibits licensees from altering a product or service in such a way that it is rendered “materially different” from its status when the license was approved or raises potential safety concerns and operational concerns.

This is what had me concerned

[ChromaticStar]

I’m in wa state and as far as I can tell can only exchange with Coinbase. Should I be worried about this recent back and forth between core and Coinbase? Oh and FYI I’m green as hell with all of this so if my questions come off as ignorant... sorry, not sorry.
Cheers

The fighting isn't between Core and Coinbase, it's between Core and Segwit2x. Bitcoin is going to fork again in mid November into 2 competing chains. If you own Bitcoin on the day of the fork, you will own equal coins on both chains. The bad thing is Segwit2x is not implementing replay protection on their chain. If you own your coin's private keys, you will need to take steps to avoid losing them in replays. You should send your coins to yourself simultaneously on each chain to distinctly different addresses until you have them split. It may take several tries to get it to work. If you leave your coins on Coinbase, they have stated that they will give you coins on both chains and taint them to avoid replays. Someone might disagree with me, but since you're new to Bitcoin, I'd recommend you leave your coins on Coinbase and let them do all the work of getting them on the correct chains. I am going to do it the hard way and split them myself. Once you feel technically proficient at how to do it, I'd recommend keeping your bitcoins only on addresses to which you control the private key as well.

By the way, I hate Segwit2x and will be selling a big chunk of them once I can.

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/coinbase-to-support-both-blockchains-following-segwit2x-fork/

...
Romero stated that Coinbase will provide customers with access to coins on both blockchains, although they may restrict access following the fork until both blockchains are stable and secure. “We are currently working on the engineering and security requirements for each bitcoin blockchain ,” the post continues.

Although not directly referenced, the post comes just one day after Bitcoin.org threatened to publicly denounce companies that support SegWit2x and do not publicly commit to meet certain demands. In particular, companies must agree to only use the term “Bitcoin” and ticker symbol “BTC” to refer to the original blockchain and may not do anything to “deprive users of their bitcoins”.

The Coinbase announcement appears to meet the second condition since it promises that customers will have “access to bitcoin on both blockchains” following the fork. However, Romero says they will not release a detailed plan for how they will name the two blockchains until closer to to the scheduled date for the fork.

However, the announcement does not appear to have appeased SegWit2x opponents. Cobra-Bitcoin, one of the current domain owners of Bitcoin.org, wrote on Github that the statement “isn’t really helpful” and that Coinbase must “immediately clarify that they will continue to call the current Bitcoin blockchain ‘Bitcoin’ with the ticker symbol ‘BTC’.” This would seem to imply that the announcement is not sufficient to remove Coinbase from the list of companies Bitcoin.org will publicly denounce.

Blockstream CSO Samson Mow — another vociferous critic of SegWit2x — suggested on Twitter that Coinbase’s position may violate the terms of the “BitLicense,” the financial services license bitcoin firms must receive to operate within New York state. Specifically, he pointed to language that prohibits licensees from altering a product or service in such a way that it is rendered “materially different” from its status when the license was approved or raises potential safety concerns and operational concerns.

This is what had me concerned

We will have to wait and see what Coinbase calls their two chains. I hope they take the same position Bitfinex has and continue to call the current unaltered chain BTC. It wouldn't be smart of Coinbase to call it something else, they would lose a significant number of customers. It is after all the 2x chain that wants to change developers and rules of consensus.

[classicsucks]

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".

[hv_]

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