Do you support Bitcoin Segwit2x?

[ThomasMuller]

Hello Gentlemen and Ladies,

Since we are all being impacted by the Bitcoin Segwit2x change, I would like to kindly ask you for 1 minute of your time and vote for yes/no to the change. It looks like that they are only listening to the miners but what about the rest of the community (investors, exchanges, retailers, etc)?

http://www.esurveyspro.com/App/Polls/DirectPoll.aspx?id=50424

 I will run this poll in every social media I can remember but please help spread the word feel free to copy and send the link. There are no catches or soliciting, I just would like for this to be a 100% collaborative decision.

Miners, Exchanges and Customers should be heard.

Thanks a lot.

[Mad7Scientist]

SegWit2x is a hard fork scheduled for about 3 months after the first phase of adoptoin which gives us the SegWit2x soft forked version SegWit, so technically it doesn't change Bitcoin, it's the creation of a new coin but all wallets and coins in those wallets will be preserved. The new coin will be called Bitcoin though. You can continue to use classic Bitcoins if you want but it will be difficult and nearly everyone else will be on the SegWit2x chain.

I think it's too soon for this. Let SegWit (not SegWit2x) do its job for now. The current chain cannot grow more than 53GB per year. Ultimately these change lead to more changes involving increasing the size of Bitcoin and we'll be at 1TB per year. Then practially nobody other than serious Bitcoin users are going to be able to run full nodes. So that's more centralizaton.

I guess this means the chain could fork 3 times, with the BIP148 or SegWit soft fork, then SegWit2x's version of SegWit intentional soft fork, then the SegWit2x hard fork.

[CryptosapienZA]

Yes, I do support Segwit2X

[BrewMaster]

I guess this means the chain could fork 3 times, with the BIP148 or SegWit soft fork, then SegWit2x's version of SegWit intentional soft fork, then the SegWit2x hard fork.

NO. i don't think so.
because there is no "SegWit2x version of SegWit" there is only 1 SegWit. if SegWit2x locks in SegWit successfully then all the rest of them (BIP141, BIP148) will see SegWit activated. it is the same thing but with different thresholds. and majority of nodes are already running Core clients which has no problem with SegWit.

split will only happen if after SegWit2x activated SegWit, some miners go against SegWit and never upgrade. and these "some miners" based on the support will be less than 14%.

the other one about hard fork will be the same story. if the hashrate is low and nodes don't go for it then there will be a split.

[Kprawn]

Hey, I am happy to go with the majority and follow the longest chain, if SegWit2x is the route people decide, then so be it. There is no use pissing

against the wind, if this is what the majority wants. We decided, when we joined this experiment.. that we will go where the majority wants to go,

and if it is SegWit2x ... then we go with it. I have had my strong opinions on some of these things, but I am not stupid enough to throw money

on a losing horse. 

[jekjekman]

Definitely yes, because Bitcoin Segwit2x will increase the blocksize of Bitcoin and most of all for the good of the future of it so I have no oppose to it.

If you think that the developers of Bitcoin only listens to the miners then with that I am disagreeing with you because in my own opinion developers do listen to all of Bitcoin community, they do not do such thing that will be bad for Bitcoin that is why Bitcoin is keep on surviving up until now.

As Anton Antonopoulos once said that if somebody thinks that they are the one who in charge with Bitcoin then they are not, and it applies to all aspect with the investors, miners, developers, exchanges, etc.

[Iranus]

Hey, I am happy to go with the majority and follow the longest chain, if SegWit2x is the route people decide, then so be it.

This is a terrible way of thinking.  It's almost impossible to gauge what the majority actually wants, unless you're blindly following hash rate.

In elections, do you vote for whichever candidate has the best poll results?  Of course you don't, because you have an opinion of your own, and if you had done this you would have voted for Clinton in the US elections even though Trump ended up winning.

I'm all in favour of agreeing in the end and following consensus, but I'll be waiting at least a couple of weeks before making a judgement on what the consensus already is.  If it's something I strongly disagree with then I would support the smaller chain.

I will run this poll in every social media I can remember but please help spread the word feel free to copy and send the link. There are no catches or soliciting, I just would like for this to be a 100% collaborative decision.

Even if your intentions are genuine, this is unrealistic.  A poll which realistically will not reach a majority of the BTC community will not have any influence over others.

[Reid]

Even if your intentions are genuine, this is unrealistic.  A poll which realistically will not reach a majority of the BTC community will not have any influence over others.

No he will not. This will have nothing to do and will create no impact.
Even if you look at the other polls. They can't be reached by majority here.
Maybe you can get like 5 percent of the users to vote. Then what about those who are outside the forum.
Regarding this segwit fuss that have been all over the forum it seems like it is getting a lot of support but still that doesn't mean we all have the same opinion about this.
 I dont support it yet and I dont really know what it should be.
BU also created a ruckus on bitcoin and it failed and now this. 

[naughty1]

SegWit2x is a hard fork scheduled for about 3 months after the first phase of adoptoin which gives us the SegWit2x soft forked version SegWit, so technically it doesn't change Bitcoin, it's the creation of a new coin but all wallets and coins in those wallets will be preserved. The new coin will be called Bitcoin though. You can continue to use classic Bitcoins if you want but it will be difficult and nearly everyone else will be on the SegWit2x chain.

I think it's too soon for this. Let SegWit (not SegWit2x) do its job for now. The current chain cannot grow more than 53GB per year. Ultimately these change lead to more changes involving increasing the size of Bitcoin and we'll be at 1TB per year. Then practially nobody other than serious Bitcoin users are going to be able to run full nodes. So that's more centralizaton.

I guess this means the chain could fork 3 times, with the BIP148 or SegWit soft fork, then SegWit2x's version of SegWit intentional soft fork, then the SegWit2x hard fork.

To be honest, I do not support segwit2x, it's not perfect, technically, it still has a hole. If possible, I hope bitcoin does not change, bitcoin core is still the best.

[senin]

It's impossible to say whether SegWit2x should be supported, since few people know the technical side of this issue. If in the end this will double the number of bitcoins, this seems to be quite good. However, as the doubled bitcoins will coexist and will not they
 At the same time, conflict or cause users inconvenience in another way?