Poll: What do you think will happen with bitcoin in August after the fork

[junan1]

Ya. Blockstream/Bitcoin Core devs have been known to not keep their word.

I think BCC will run until November as a contingency to see if core will actually implement 2x. If core does not, then BCC will be 2x. If core does, then BCC goes away. It's quit simple its really up to core to decide if they will honor 2x or not. BCC is just there as a backup because with SegWit being an irreversible change, any engineer/dev/ops team would like to have a contingency regardless of factions, its a saftey measure..

Blockstream did not sign the Silbert Accord (a.k.a. the New York Agreement)

I don't see any current Bitcoin Core devs on the list of supporters either (the former lead developer Gavin Andresen did sign the agreement).

In fact, Bitcoin Core as an organisation would be effectively breaking its word if they did add SegWit2x logic to Bitcoin Core.

[1715291760]

1715291760

[1715291760]

1715291760

[1715291760]

1715291760

[1715291760]

1715291760

[1715291760]

1715291760

[williamuk]

Blockstream did not sign the Silbert Accord (a.k.a. the New York Agreement)

I don't see any current Bitcoin Core devs on the list of supporters either (the former lead developer Gavin Andresen did sign the agreement).

In fact, Bitcoin Core as an organisation would be effectively breaking its word if they did add SegWit2x logic to Bitcoin Core.

Indeed, they totally refuse to submit to the wishes of the community. Unbelievable behaviour

[Kwelstr]

Option 2 for me, but being a "Newbie", I'm not able to vote.

Because I wanted to be fair and impartial, both blockchains will be different from the one we have now, they both implement changes, the core supports SegWit2x and a small group of rebels support bitcoin cash.

A rare virtue in this debate.  +1

More accurately, I'd say that the two sides are "SegWit" and "Bitcoin Cash".  The "2x" part of the SegWit2x agreement is highly controversial among those on the SegWit side.  The Bitcoin Core developers, for example are almost universally opposed to SegWit2x.  

Finally, might I suggest you also run this poll in Chinese on the Chinese subforum here?  I've noticed they're paying more attention to this fork and that the threads are less one-sided.  It would be interesting to compare the two.

Can you give me a good translation? I don't trust Google translate to do a good job with the technical names.

[ikeo]

Ya. Blockstream/Bitcoin Core devs have been known to not keep their word.

I think BCC will run until November as a contingency to see if core will actually implement 2x. If core does not, then BCC will be 2x. If core does, then BCC goes away. It's quit simple its really up to core to decide if they will honor 2x or not. BCC is just there as a backup because with SegWit being an irreversible change, any engineer/dev/ops team would like to have a contingency regardless of factions, its a saftey measure..

Blockstream did not sign the Silbert Accord (a.k.a. the New York Agreement)

I don't see any current Bitcoin Core devs on the list of supporters either (the former lead developer Gavin Andresen did sign the agreement).

In fact, Bitcoin Core as an organisation would be effectively breaking its word if they did add SegWit2x logic to Bitcoin Core.

The whole premise of miners signaling for BIP91 was for SegWit2x, that's why it was not BIP148. It was a compromise. If Core holds onto this like you are saying, there will be a split. Also Gavin being the lead, his signature should've represented the team. Because the team changed, doesn't mean the agreement changes with it.  I think it's healthy for bitcoin to grow up. I would think of it like a civil war. Businesses and countries have to sit on the side to see who will win. Bitcoin big block or Bitcoin w. SegWit. Competition is not only healthy, it is needed to prove which iteration will be more widely adopted.

If you support decentralization. Then you know there's no central entity and trying to keep it centralized is against its nature. This could be looked at in the future as an attack on bitcoin by one side or the other and the decentralized nature allowed both to try and see which version actually works better. Otherwise, it is centralized control where one side dictates to the other. I think this fork is by definition what decentralization was meant to be, not just nodes but decision making and the proper use of a fork. In my experience scaling systems, most of the anti-bcc arguments aren't true. A lot of this scaling stuff has been done 10x over by many centralized companies over the last 7-10 years. The amount of volume bitcoin usage on a system/network level is small compared to large orgs and highly inefficient. The rebel nature and passion behind it make it pretty powerful, but to unleash the power using configs from 2010 to prevent DDoS is a limiting factor.  At this point, its preventing legitimate traffic and we know it.


From the blog post in your link... It's a choice.. Some people would rather leave onchain vs. adding "additional layers" while breaking up the original blocks.

Our vision for Bitcoin is to .... by providing the foundation for additional layers on top of the protocol and interfaces with other systems.

... users always retain the choice over which software they run.

[fishfishfish313]

OP, why do you not want to call them for what they really are? BTC and the altcoin BCC? There is no need to hide the truth from the people in the forum that BCC is an altcoin.

THIS.  SO MUCH THIS. 

BCC, if it survives, is an alt coin.

[European Central Bank]

Indeed, they totally refuse to submit to the wishes of the community. Unbelievable behaviour

how do we know what the wishes of the community are? the new york agreement was one room full of people.

[Wendigo]

SegWit2x hardfork will commence in November so in a way the poll wording is kinda misleading. Bitcoin Cash might as well cost jack shit at the end of the year. I think the coin with the longest chain will win the mainstream masses.

[junan1]

Finally, might I suggest you also run this poll in Chinese on the Chinese subforum here?  I've noticed they're paying more attention to this fork and that the threads are less one-sided.  It would be interesting to compare the two.

Can you give me a good translation? I don't trust Google translate to do a good job with the technical names.

I'm afraid not.  I've been using online translation tools and doing my best to read past the odd language generated.

[ethereumhunter]

For now I am still confused and do not understand what will happen to bitcoin after August 1, a few days ago I sold bitcoin, and I prefer ETH, is my decision right? 

we only can wait for 1st august as we don't know yet. i hope you still have another bitcoin because if bitcoin price is increase you never regret for selling bitcoin yesterday. ethereum is a good choice for you to buy and i think ethereum will increase too someday. its too many prediction in out there that telling about this and they only give prediction without knowing what is happen later so i think we don't have to worries and let we see what will happen later.

[Wind_FURY]

OP, why do you not want to call them for what they really are? BTC and the altcoin BCC? There is no need to hide the truth from the people in the forum that BCC is an altcoin.

Because I wanted to be fair and impartial, both blockchains will be different from the one we have now, they both implement changes, the core supports SegWit2x and a small group of rebels support bitcoin cash. So on August 1st we will have a fork with 2 different versions of bitcoin, not a bitcoin and an altcoin, regardless of who gets to keep the BTC symbol.

What would be unfair would be to call them something else taking away what Bitcoin really is and what BCC really intends to do. Call them for what they are please. BTC - Bitcoin the original. BCC - Bitcoincash the altcoin.

There is no need to confuse the forum.

[junan1]

If Core holds onto this like you are saying, there will be a split.

The same can be said to the parties of the Silbert Accord.  Both camps have a great deal of support and neither can reasonably back down this time.  There will almost certainly be a controversial hardfork in November, quite possibly dwarfing the August 1st drama.

Also Gavin being the lead, his signature should've represented the team.  Because the team changed, doesn't mean the agreement changes with it.

Gavin passed the reigns to Wladimir in April, 2014.  Gavin's last commit to Bitcoin Core was in April, 2016.  The agreement was signed on May, 2017.

I think it's healthy for bitcoin to grow up.

Excerpts from the January, 2016 statement by Bitcoin Core I referenced earlier:

"Our vision for Bitcoin is to expand the flexibility of the system to work efficiently at extremely high scale, while at the same time maintaining security and the core properties of decentralization that make Bitcoin unique."

"Changes to the Bitcoin consensus rules can be made through either soft forks or hard forks (see Appendix A)."

"It turns out it is possible to add almost any new feature with a soft fork. Occasionally, hard forks may have some benefits, and if there is near-universal agreement, these benefits may outweigh the downsides. Except for these rare cases, soft forks are to be preferred."

Evidently, you're in agreement with the Bitcoin Core team on this.

Businesses and countries have to sit on the side to see who will win. Bitcoin big block or Bitcoin w. SegWit. Competition is not only healthy, it is needed to prove which iteration will be more widely adopted.

Well said, although I would say that which branch ends up being more widely adopted is a side issue.  The freedom of choice is the thing.

This could be looked at in the future as an attack on bitcoin by one side or the other and the decentralized nature allowed both to try and see which version actually works better.

Bitcoin Core, by not allowing themselves to be dictated to by the parties of the Silbert Agreement, is exercising the very freedoms you and I both champion.  The same freedoms Satoshi exercised when he decided to try and build his own money.

At this point, its preventing legitimate traffic and we know it.

I don't doubt you, but what is legitimate traffic?  What if, in the future, the amount of legitimate traffic is far more than we know how to accommodate in a trustless, decentralised way?

From the blog post in your link... It's a choice.. Some people would rather leave onchain vs. adding "additional layers" while breaking up the original blocks.

Our vision for Bitcoin is to .... by providing the foundation for additional layers on top of the protocol and interfaces with other systems.

... users always retain the choice over which software they run.

I completely agree.  Some good points.

[ikeo]

I completely agree.  Some good points.

Good points to you as well. I appreciate the clarification and corrections. I think Blockstream | Core should have the ability to vote for a change course of the original vision and if there is consensus then that is the way it will be. I just don't like the censorship that is happening on r/bitcoin and I don't agree with a lot of the misinformation being passed around.

I am in agreement with consensus and the nature of decentralization. Some people are confusing the fork as if it will result in centralization. It will not. It will prove what the world thinks is bitcoin. Our individual beliefs are moot in the greater scheme, but trickery and censorship I really didn't like seeing when I was researching between the two. Neither side should be dictated to if they didn't reach an agreement which is why I think this is the appropriate use of a fork. Like you said and we both agree, let the people and the market choose.

As far as which is the altcoin, if you go by the Satoshi whitepaper, BCC is the original and continuing on the original chain. BTC w. SegWit cuts it up and modifies it which, to me, is the altcoin since it is no longer the same chain from the genesis block. It is a fundamentally different chain from a code and technology point of view.

I am also in agreement that mid November is going to be the real date to watch. If Core does not apply the 2x, from what Bitcoin.com mentioned, they will move hashpower to BCC. After that i think others will follow. I think instead of another hardfork, miners will skip SegWit all together and back BCC. This would make it 2 bitcoins rather than 3. If the agreement is not kept, there's no reason to have 2x at all. Then Bitcoin BigBlock vs. Bitcoin SegWit, fight in the world market for marketshare and usage. This is definitely an interesting time. Both can technically coexist but peoples ego's wants one to die to hold the title. IMO, BCC is the better option for a country like Japan/Korea/etc to use in the retail space. BTC will be better as an asset type.

As the network grows it becomes more expensive to do DDoS especially with a higher cap. SegWit is by nature a centralized payment channel. We will deal with that issue when the time comes. The cap itself is artificial. Esp. to a devops guy, its kinda silly to think "processing power" will be out of reach of peoples hands if bitcoin ups the block to 2MB. There is really no technical reason not to implement 2x. The only thing SegWit does is allow a payment channel for Liquid that take fee's from miners. We'll no doubt be DDoS'ed on SegWit before hitting 8MB on BCC.

[CryptoTraderGuildGM]

Can someone make a smart contract for this and let the participants send their bet and let's see which one wins on DECEMBER 31, 2017, after all the drama and confusion settles(even past the possible Nov drama)?

So we can get something out of this endless debates.

-east

[ikeo]

Can someone make a smart contract for this and let the participants send their bet and let's see which one wins on DECEMBER 31, 2017, after all the drama and confusion settles(even past the possible Nov drama)?

So we can get something out of this endless debates.

-east

don't need a smart contract... It's all really up to core. SegWit2x or a Melee. hopefully we all learn a little something from these debates. It's much better than the bashing i see all over the place. I think BCC can crash hard its all centralized on cores decision to 2x or not. That i can't predict, instead, I'm going to hodl with my blanket.

[dmty.0809]

my hope
BTS and BTL will coexist but BTL will have a lower value, like ETC and ETH 

[junan1]

As far as which is the altcoin, if you go by the Satoshi whitepaper, BCC is the original and continuing on the original chain. BTC w. SegWit cuts it up and modifies it which, to me, is the altcoin since it is no longer the same chain from the genesis block. It is a fundamentally different chain from a code and technology point of view.

I don't disagree.  I stand by the claim I made on Monday on HostFat's thread:

"Altcoin" implies not Bitcoin but both of these coins have a good claim to the name "Bitcoin".

If you think that one of the branches is not really Bitcoin then I challenge you to identify it and explain why.

I am also in agreement that mid November is going to be the real date to watch. If Core does not apply the 2x, from what Bitcoin.com mentioned, they will move hashpower to BCC. After that i think others will follow. I think instead of another hardfork, miners will skip SegWit all together and back BCC.

It's a possibility.  A hardfork affords the opportunity to clear out a lot of technical debt and elegantly fix many problems, including all those that SegWit addresses (see: Flexible Transactions).  While it's young, Bitcoin Cash could easily undergo such a hardfork upgrade and absorb some good tech from other teams that have shown interest: Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin Classic.  Grown well, Bitcoin Cash could serve as a lightning rod in the coming SegWit2x storm.

By the way, I've started using the ticker BCH instead of BCC now that both Bitfinex and Kraken have adopted it.  The conflict with BitConnect Coin was bugging me.

[JohnMacaron]

OP, why do you not want to call them for what they really are? BTC and the altcoin BCC? There is no need to hide the truth from the people in the forum that BCC is an altcoin.

No, it's not. BCC is CONTINUATION of working stable Bitcoin chain, whilst BIP148 is utter bullshit that will go down cause of its sheer stupidity and uselessness.

[European Central Bank]

OP, why do you not want to call them for what they really are? BTC and the altcoin BCC? There is no need to hide the truth from the people in the forum that BCC is an altcoin.

No, it's not. BCC is CONTINUATION of working stable Bitcoin chain, whilst BIP148 is utter bullshit that will go down cause of its sheer stupidity and uselessness.

classic.

pinhead developers, pathetic hash rate, contempt from the major players.

yep. it's gonna be a super smooth roll out.

[ikeo]

As far as which is the altcoin, if you go by the Satoshi whitepaper, BCC is the original and continuing on the original chain. BTC w. SegWit cuts it up and modifies it which, to me, is the altcoin since it is no longer the same chain from the genesis block. It is a fundamentally different chain from a code and technology point of view.

I don't disagree.  I stand by the claim I made on Monday on HostFat's thread:

"Altcoin" implies not Bitcoin but both of these coins have a good claim to the name "Bitcoin".

If you think that one of the branches is not really Bitcoin then I challenge you to identify it and explain why.

I am also in agreement that mid November is going to be the real date to watch. If Core does not apply the 2x, from what Bitcoin.com mentioned, they will move hashpower to BCC. After that i think others will follow. I think instead of another hardfork, miners will skip SegWit all together and back BCC.

It's a possibility.  A hardfork affords the opportunity to clear out a lot of technical debt and elegantly fix many problems, including all those that SegWit addresses (see: Flexible Transactions).  While it's young, Bitcoin Cash could easily undergo such a hardfork upgrade and absorb some good tech from other teams that have shown interest: Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin Classic.  Grown well, Bitcoin Cash could serve as a lightning rod in the coming SegWit2x storm.

By the way, I've started using the ticker BCH instead of BCC now that both Bitfinex and Kraken have adopted it.  The conflict with BitConnect Coin was bugging me.

Thanks for the links and I agree about the name but BCH doesn't sound cool though.  I don't consider BitConnect a real coin though imo. I don't really like it. We'll see the results soon. Cheers.

[GideonGono]

Some people that are not living under a rock know that bitcoin is going to hard fork come August first. After two weeks, when the dust settles we should have more clarity on the results of this split of the blockchain. I want to poll all BitcoinTalk members to see their perspective on this fork. Do you see gloom and doom or do you see opportunity and exciting times coming.

Please vote so we can have a sample of the community.

I think you lack one choice that is "there will be no fork." It is not guaranteed that there will be a fork but rather a possibility. Also we can say that all for sure (regarding your poll and choices) since we don't have the grounds to say what will be better, which will gain a lot of attention, or  anything which will make your poll inaccurate.