Yeah, I stopped reading at 'forced to support'. So has the fascism around Bitcoin already started? 'Forced to support' new forks that are potentially harmful? Anyone can create a fork, so it doesn't mean you need to support every single one of them that comes along. It doesn't mean that 'they' can ram it down our throats and we just have to live with it. That's complete bullshit.
You're right - it's complete bullshit. Inasmuch that the conjecture that (if I may paraphrase) 'it is being crammed down the users' throats'. Users can safely (if so desired) totally ignore the S2X fork, and continue using the segwit core fork with no changes. Sure, others might replay their S2X transactions corresponding to their core transactions, but so what? If you don't care about S2X, and are fully ignoring it, that's your choice.
But things are different for exchanges. They are in a business where they have a fiduciary responsibility to their customers. As such, they cannot assume that their customers agree to ignore the S2X fork, and any value bound up thereupon. In this sense, they are forced to support S2X. What does it matter to you? If you are not a customer, it does not affect you at all. If you are, you are free to throw away any S2X coins that they hold for you. Again, you the customer has a choice. The business does not. It's the proce of being a business holding value for customers. C'est la guerre.
Edit: And if anyone in Bitcoin believes that all this constant 'forking' is completely normal behavior in order to improve Bitcoin, they are delusional. It is being done to attempt to divide the community and eventually derail/topple Bitcoin. Nothing more and nothing less. Their goal is to de-value and marginalize Bitcoin completely.
This may be true for some value of 'they'. For the 'they' that I associate with, it is completely false. We fork to get the Bitcoin we desire. In my case, a more capable Bitcoin supporting the use cases that core threw overboard in their ludicrous Raspberry Pi fetish.
The proof in what I'm saying will be when we get passed Nov and into next year, and yet there will be talk of more and more future forks. No existing chain will ever be good enough, even though the system we have now is working perfectly fine (actually better than fine) for all the actors involved.
Sure - for all the actors still using Bitcoin. Because all the actors whose use cases were destroyed by full blocks, interminable waits, and escalating fees left. Because it wasn't working at all for them.
Maybe. Let's say you're a Bitcoin first timer and you want to buy some bitcoin. You create a Coinbase account, log in, and whaaat? There are two different bitcoins? Bitcoin (Segwit), and Segwit2X?
Segwut? Why are there two bitcoin versions? Which am I supposed to buy? And what's this Bitcoin Cash thing I'm also hearing about? It's not listed here. So where do I go to buy that?
Which version do merchants support? Do they accept all of them, or just some of them?
This all just too confusing. I think I'll pass and just buy this ETH stuff.
Ethwut? Why are there two Ethereum versions?
Granted - you have a point there. Just a poor choice of alternative example, I guess.
I dunno... is it really that different than sorting out which SPDR fund to buy?
Selling more forks of Bitcoin doesn't sound seem like a sound business model for future gains to me. Does it to you? Is their future goal to have like 5-10 forks of bitcoin available for buy/sell? Does that sound like a good strategy?
Well, if the arc of acceptance goes the way the S2X advocates are hoping, S1X will atrophy in days with merely a whimper, leaving S2X as the one true segwit chain. This is the reason for no replay protection - such would make it impossible for the forks to re-merge. Note that every valid S1X transaction is also a valid S2X transaction, so no rollback in such a case.
I can't speak to the verity of their market mass. With ~95% of miners still signaling, it seems plausible at least. We should know by late November.
Bitcoin is turning into a settlement layer
Well, that is one view. Certainly, if one throws in with core, then this attitude must be adopted to avoid the cognitive dissonance that would otherwise result. Some of us still believe in the promise of "Bitcoin: a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System". Which, incidentally, is our motivation to fight for the protocol that enables such.
Why are corporate suits working as heads of Bitcoin brokers (Coinbase, BitPay, Shapeshift, etc.) LOBBYING for a block size increase, which presumably only benefits the miners, a portion of the industry that these brokers supposedly have no direct involvement with?
Because it _doesn't_ benefit only the miners. It restores to Bitcoin the use cases that have been cast out of the lifeboat in pursuit of core/Blockstream's insane Raspberry Pi fetish. Thereby allowing greater usage at lower coset with less friction for all participants. Thereby creating additional incentives to use Bitcoin by more people for more things. Thereby being increasingly attractive to an increasing population. Thereby increasing value. Thereby driving adoption. Thereby creating greater stake among humanity. Thereby increasing antifragility.
Poll
