[2017-08-02]Could SegWit2x Lead to Three Different Bitcoins?

[joshy23]

Could SegWit2x Lead to Three Different Bitcoins?

he New York Agreement which ostensibly solved Bitcoin’s scalability crisis may actually end up causing a third Bitcoin to be created.

The agreement resulted in the creation of the SegWit2x plan, calling for the immediate implementation of Segregated Witness and agreeing to a November hard fork that will double the Bitcoin block size.

While this sounds entirely logical, the problem is that SegWit2x is a compromise. Like all compromises, neither side gets everything they want.

Not an ordinary compromise

SegWit2x isn’t an ordinary compromise, though. One side, the big blockers, had to grant an immediate concession by activating Segregated Witness. They now have to trust that the other side, SegWit supporters, will follow through with their promised block size increase in a few months.

However, having received what they wanted, the implementation of Segregated Witness to be exact, the SegWit camp could easily renege on their promise to increase the block size.

If this happens, miners who support big blocks might go ahead and launch the hard fork anyway. This could result in BTC-SegWit (what we have today), Bitcoin Cash launched on Aug. 1 with little miner support at present, and BTC-SegWit2x.

Such a split would actually be significantly more damaging than the Bitcoin Cash chain split since it would presumably have the support of a large number of miners.

It’s also likely that some non-big block miners would go along with the fork since they promised to do so when they signed the agreement.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/could-segwit2x-lead-to-three-different-bitcoins

[cr1776]

Could SegWit2x Lead to Three Different Bitcoins?

...

SegWit2x isn’t an ordinary compromise, though. One side, the big blockers, had to grant an immediate concession by activating Segregated Witness. They now have to trust that the other side, SegWit supporters, will follow through with their promised block size increase in a few months.

...

It almost seems like the author thinks that some very small group of people can speak for everyone else and bind them to an agreement.   That said, I doubt the agreement will be on the NYA timeline, but wouldn't be surprised if a block size increase eventually happened. Getting some of the improvements from segwit, particularly script versioning and the improvements it will enable, was worth a compromise given what it will allow.

[Carlton Banks]

The issue with 2x is not really technical, it's political.

The programmer leading the 2x team (Jeff Garzik) has been part of 2 or 3 attempts to take control of Bitcoin's source code and development for nearly 3 years now. Garzik has long been associated with or directly espoused views that Bitcoin needs to be changed so that it's not like internet cash (which is what everyone has always thought Bitcoin was supposed to be)

Segwit 2x is gonna end up as Bitcoin Fiat basically, Garzik is a fan of blacklisting and "won't someone think of the children" US-liberal types, and always has been.

Bitcoin is about liberty, and as long as Bitcoin users choose the option that gives them maximum power and choice, then there's nothing Garzik and his precious protection racket (otherwise known by their criminal aliases "international institutions" and "governments") can do about it.

Stop trying to steal Bitcoin Jeff, how many times to do you have to be told, coward?

[iram1011]

Offcourse, there is a threat of another split by Segwit2x hardfork scheduled in November. The fact that a significant percentage of the economic nodes have signed an agreement to hard fork means, well, that there will probably be a hard fork. Depending on how much of the network (miners, merchants, economic nodes) hard forks and what response some objecting companies may have, this may mean 2 Bitcoins at that point. The scaling drama hasn't over yet.

[Carlton Banks]

The scaling drama hasn't over yet.

"Scaling" is a facade and always has been, the conflict is about control. Who controls the code, who controls the direction Bitcoin takes. And the users decide, not some corporate cartel.

[Rahar02]

I have just checked segwit2x (intention) on https://coin.dance/blocks?update and it has reached 90% support
According to NY agreement, Segwit2Mb proposal:
- Activate Segregated Witness at an 80% threshold, signaling at bit 4
- Activate a 2 MB hard fork within six months

If bitcoin transactions could be done faster and we pay less fees, than 1Mb block size and segwit will be enough, scale proposals always cause some drama and bitcoin split again? I don't want to count bitcoin cash, but only one bitcoin could has bigger support from people, business and companies such as today in everywhere acceptance.

[hatshepsut93]

SegWit2x isn’t an ordinary compromise, though. One side, the big blockers, had to grant an immediate concession by activating Segregated Witness. They now have to trust that the other side, SegWit supporters, will follow through with their promised block size increase in a few months.

If you check list of people and companies who signed New York agreement, you'll find that most of them are big blockers, Chinese miners, and companies tied to Barry Silbert. Maybe there's not even a single "SegWit supporter" on that list, so this "agreement" is pretty one-sided. So, any claims that someone is breaking NYA by opposing 2x fork is just a stupid propaganda, because one can't break something they didn't sign.
If miners will decide to fork, chain split is pretty much guaranteed, and we'll very likely to end up with much less total value than now.

[supercops]

I heard of this.
Someone saying they are looking at another name to call it.
BCN was one of them.

[DooMAD]

The issue with 2x is not really technical, it's political.

The programmer leading the 2x team (Jeff Garzik) has been part of 2 or 3 attempts to take control of Bitcoin's source code and development for nearly 3 years now. Garzik has long been associated with or directly espoused views that Bitcoin needs to be changed so that it's not like internet cash (which is what everyone has always thought Bitcoin was supposed to be)

Segwit 2x is gonna end up as Bitcoin Fiat basically, Garzik is a fan of blacklisting and "won't someone think of the children" US-liberal types, and always has been.

Bitcoin is about liberty, and as long as Bitcoin users choose the option that gives them maximum power and choice, then there's nothing Garzik and his precious protection racket (otherwise known by their criminal aliases "international institutions" and "governments") can do about it.

Stop trying to steal Bitcoin Jeff, how many times to do you have to be told, coward?

Your argument is based on a flawed premise.  You can't "take control of Bitcoin's source code" because there's no one in control to take it from.  You can only release code and see who freely chooses to adopt it.  It's the users securing the chain, both non-mining full nodes and miners, who make the decision over which codebase they wish to make use of.  If Garzik is a fan of blacklisting, that doesn't matter unless those beliefs are enforced in the code.  If it is in the code, users will obviously factor that into their considerations when selecting the client they want to run.  They're not stupid, so stop treating them as such with your nanny-state mindset.

Bitcoin is absolutely about liberty of the users, which involves you actually letting them fucking choose, not telling them what choice to make.  Napoleonic complex much?

And how many times do you have to be told?  Bitcoin does not have an owner, so it cannot be stolen from anyone.

[Carlton Banks]

If no-one is in control of the source code, how come only 3 people have access to the source code keys, hmmm? Your arguments are just wordplay, some person is always in charge of the code at any one time. You make it sound like anyone can just change the code at will, but that's not the way software development is structured. You don't like this fact too much, huh



And it's simple, if Garzik gets his hands on the blockchain, we're all screwed, and you're all too happy to promote arguments that say that's cool. It's not cool.


Listen: I am a Bitcoin user no different to any of us. And I'm allowed to express my preference for Bitcoin's direction any way i like, which you regularly seem to wish to deny me!

It's you that's trying to police the users, not me. And I always seem to be your chosen victim to bully! What's that about!!!?

[DooMAD]

If no-one is in control of the source code, how come only 3 people have access to the source code keys, hmmm? Your arguments are just wordplay, some person is always in charge of the code at any one time. You make it sound like anyone can just change the code at will, but that's not the way software development is structured. You don't like this fact too much, huh

3 people have access to the source code keys for one specific repository maintained by one specific development team.  And as you are more than fully aware, no other development teams, including 2x or Jeff Garzik, can ever seize control of that specific repository.  I'm pretty sure we already had this discussion and you were making the same stupid assertions about theft then, too.  So why are you still making the same grossly disingenuous assertions now? 

You know no one can touch Core's GitHub but them, yet you still try to convince others that someone is trying to seize control of it?  Why are you trying to perpetuate this fallacy?

Listen: I am a Bitcoin user no different to any of us. And I'm allowed to express my preference for Bitcoin's direction any way i like, which you regularly seem to wish to deny me!

It's you that's trying to police the users, not me.

You can express your preference, just do it honestly.  I don't think that's too much to ask.  If I'm "trying to police the users" by correcting grossly abhorrent lies when I see them, then I'm sorry if that's too much for your delicate fanboy sensitivities.  Again, you know Core's repository is theirs and theirs alone.  No one can take it away from them or prevent them from publishing whatever code they please.  Again, you're the one trying to cast aspersions on other developers for doing something they're perfectly entitled to do.  If you were successful in your goal and did prevent them from doing what they're doing, that means users wouldn't have a choice to begin with.  Why is it only freedom when it's something you happen to agree with?  Why aren't people free to develop their own clients without you branding them thieves when you know they aren't?

And I always seem to be your chosen victim to bully! What's that about!!!?

Yeah, I've never pulled anyone else up about this point.  And that's just the last month alone!  Thing is, unlike you, most of them actually learned something from it.  It's hardly my fault you keep talking the same old bollocks.  For the record, I will call out anyone I see spouting that "hostile takeover" crap, so get over yourself, snowflake. 

[Carlton Banks]

Still just playing with words and their definition to make your "point", huh


There is one Bitcoin blockchain, and one set of rules operating on the Bitcoin blockchain, and there can be only one of each: always 1 set of rules for 1 Bitcoin blockchain, and, 1 team that works on maintaining and developing it all at any one point in time. You seem to be desperate to prove otherwise, for some reason!

People are allowed to choose to change to different teams and their code, via a hard fork. And I'm a person, expressing my opinion about the choice. And your problem is..... ?

[taxmanmt5]

I think that just because of all the stress that was associated with the previous week if there was going to be something like that they would put it off for a little while. These things can be a major pain in the butt and people know that now.  Good to see nothing major happen and bitcoin is back on track to make it all time high of 3200$ +.

[posternat]

I think that just because of all the stress that was associated with the previous week if there was going to be something like that they would put it off for a little while. These things can be a major pain in the butt and people know that now.  Good to see nothing major happen and bitcoin is back on track to make it all time high of 3200$ +.

There's a lot of preparation, a lot of stress during the process, and a lot of stress afterwards. For that reason I think the people are willing to accept a lot of limitations in their coins for the next month or so because they don't want to have to go through that. In reality it was a real tension week or so for all the bitcoin holders and miners too.

[buwaytress]

Previous to this, the big blockers had always seen missed deadlines as Segwit Supporters (I don't like the term but will use it as the article did) reneging on promises. But I'm not sure that even with Segwit2x there is any promise - rather a commitment to compromise.

There is one more possible outcome I believe. Post SegWit, some would hope that a few from the big blockers side would be convinced that SegWit is enough and a block size increase not necessary. Perhaps they might switch sides, or at least further postpone 2MB?

From what I can tell, there is a softening stance on both sides. I don't see any reason for this compromise not to take place, but assuming there are still plenty of reasonable people on both sides, you never know how the outlook could change after each step of the way. Things should get clearer after full Segwit activation.

I'll check back when http://segwit.co/ says yes.

[DooMAD]

Still just playing with words and their definition to make your "point", huh


There is one Bitcoin blockchain, and one set of rules operating on the Bitcoin blockchain, and there can be only one of each: always 1 set of rules for 1 Bitcoin blockchain, and, 1 team that works on maintaining and developing it all at any one point in time. You seem to be desperate to prove otherwise, for some reason!

People are allowed to choose to change to different teams and their code, via a hard fork. And I'm a person, expressing my opinion about the choice. And your problem is..... ?

Uh oh... someone's in denial.  


I don't have to play with anything to make a point.  Reality makes the point perfectly well enough all by itself.  A team that isn't that "1 team" you like to pretend is the only one that exists just had a BIP lock in on the network by miners using another piece of software.  Software that the "1 team" didn't make.  Or are you now claiming that Core merged BIP91 into BitcoinCore and we didn't see those warning messages about a block format it couldn't recognise?  You are empirically and demonstrably wrong, because we already have more than one development team with code actively deployed on the network, and it didn't require a hard fork to do it.  You're the one desperately trying to twist words to make that simple fact somehow look like an act of theft, when it patently isn't.  Stop living in denial and accept the plain-as-day truth that Bitcoin functions perfectly well with multiple developers providing code.  It's beyond refute now.  It literally happened.  We all saw it.  

And yes, if a hard fork does occur, people are perfectly free to chose their path as well, but that's not what we're talking about here.  This is about more than one development team providing code to the same chain and it still works faultlessly.  Stop arguing.  You can't win this one.  Anyone with eyes can see it.  This is the new reality you need to adjust to.  I suggest you find a way to cope with that.

You can have a favourite team who you like to support if you want, but this isn't sports.  There doesn't have to be a winner and a loser at the end of the day.  All teams can chip in and help out and everyone wins by having a choice.  That's the beauty of it all.  It's an astonishing feat that it still works with so many dissenting views thundering away in the background.  We've successfully disproven the idiom that "too many cooks spoil the broth" and yet you don't seem pleased by that accomplishment.  Why can't you just appreciate it for what it is and revel in its splendour?  

And at the very least, even if you can't appreciate the beauty of it, could you at least stop trying to pervert it into something sordid with your petty accusations of theft and ill-intent?

[Carlton Banks]

Still just playing with words and their definition to make your "point", huh

Software that the "1 team" didn't make.  Or are you now claiming that Core merged BIP91 into BitcoinCore and we didn't see those warning messages about a block format it couldn't recognise?  

Uh, Core merged BIP91, so it's Core code. Like you're so fond of saying, anyone can write something and submit it for Core to review (you're not so fond of pointing out the difference between Core accepting BIP91 and Core rejecting Segwit 2x, funny that)

Notice how I don't need thousands of words to describe actual reality, yet it's supposedly me that's twisting the argument....

[bbc.reporter]

The issue with 2x is not really technical, it's political.

The programmer leading the 2x team (Jeff Garzik) has been part of 2 or 3 attempts to take control of Bitcoin's source code and development for nearly 3 years now. Garzik has long been associated with or directly espoused views that Bitcoin needs to be changed so that it's not like internet cash (which is what everyone has always thought Bitcoin was supposed to be)

Segwit 2x is gonna end up as Bitcoin Fiat basically, Garzik is a fan of blacklisting and "won't someone think of the children" US-liberal types, and always has been.

Bitcoin is about liberty, and as long as Bitcoin users choose the option that gives them maximum power and choice, then there's nothing Garzik and his precious protection racket (otherwise known by their criminal aliases "international institutions" and "governments") can do about it.

Stop trying to steal Bitcoin Jeff, how many times to do you have to be told, coward?

If Jeff Garzik wants bigger blocks and he is risking another debatable hardfork, then why does he not support and contribute to bitcoincash directly? He could propose a malleability fix like segwit or improve and fix the bugs in flex trans and try to convince the bitcoin cash community to impelement that in place of segwit.

There is no need to bother bitcoin anymore. If you are not happy with the core development team, there is always bitcoincash.

[DooMAD]

From what I can tell, there is a softening stance on both sides. I don't see any reason for this compromise not to take place, but assuming there are still plenty of reasonable people on both sides, you never know how the outlook could change after each step of the way. Things should get clearer after full Segwit activation.

I'll check back when http://segwit.co/ says yes.

This.  Now that things are finally moving forwards, rather than everyone arguing over speculations of "what might be", we can soon base our views on observable effects and adjust course as needed.  Not long now 'til SegWit.  At the time of writing, 350 blocks to go, approximately 2-and-a-half days time.

If Jeff Garzik wants bigger blocks and he is risking another debatable hardfork, then why does he not support and contribute to bitcoincash directly? He could propose a malleability fix like segwit or improve and fix the bugs in flex trans and try to convince the bitcoin cash community to impelement that in place of segwit.

Because freedom?  He can support and contribute to any chain, or multiple chains if he so chooses.  His choice, not yours.

Still just playing with words and their definition to make your "point", huh

Software that the "1 team" didn't make.  Or are you now claiming that Core merged BIP91 into BitcoinCore and we didn't see those warning messages about a block format it couldn't recognise?  

Uh, Core merged BIP91, so it's Core code. Like you're so fond of saying, anyone can write something and submit it for Core to review

And the truth shall set you free!


Just because another development team adopted BIP91 first and deployed it to the network first, it doesn't mean Core can't then merge the code afterwards.  Everyone can still play happy families together.  No theft involved.  Just like if another development team were to release 2MB code and if consensus were to approve that, Core can also choose to merge that code and continue on as normal.  Again, no theft involved, no hostile takeover, no one taking control of anything.  Just two development teams sharing code and Bitcoin still works perfectly.  

Bitcoin functions perfectly well with multiple developers providing code.  Fact.

I'm pleased to see you're finally beginning to see the light.  Well done, there's hope for you yet.

[Carlton Banks]

If Jeff Garzik wants bigger blocks and he is risking another debatable hardfork, then why does he not support and contribute to bitcoincash directly? He could propose a malleability fix like segwit or improve and fix the bugs in flex trans and try to convince the bitcoin cash community to impelement that in place of segwit.

There is no need to bother bitcoin anymore. If you are not happy with the core development team, there is always bitcoincash.

Better question: why fork Bitcoin at all? Unless you can make a really solid case that the direction of the Core developers is dangerous to Bitcoin's value, then hard forks that change the development team will always just look like thinly disguised coup attempts, no matter how much well meaning hand-waving accompanies them.

Still just playing with words and their definition to make your "point", huh

Software that the "1 team" didn't make.  Or are you now claiming that Core merged BIP91 into BitcoinCore and we didn't see those warning messages about a block format it couldn't recognise?  

Uh, Core merged BIP91, so it's Core code. Like you're so fond of saying, anyone can write something and submit it for Core to review

And the truth shall set you free!


Just because another development team adopted BIP91 first and deployed it to the network first, it doesn't mean Core can't then merge the code afterwards.  Everyone can still play happy families together.  No theft involved.  Just like if another development team were to release 2MB code and if consensus were to approve that, Core can also choose to merge that code and continue on as normal.  Again, no theft involved, no hostile takeover, no one taking control of anything.  Just two development teams sharing code and Bitcoin still works perfectly.  

Bitcoin functions perfectly well with multiple developers providing code.  Fact.

I'm pleased to see you're finally beginning to see the light.  Well done, there's hope for you yet.

*Sigh*

So you're just playing with semantics about what the word "team" means to score some playground points?


Nothing changes as a result of what you've said.

At this point in time, Core controls the source code. Unless people like you can start the job of turning everyone against Core (which would be a smart move if Core were being incompetent with their control, but there is no case for that now or previously). No-one's arguing that's not possible, simply that it's a bad idea right now (but you're such a terrible troll that your reply to that is "wrong! it is possible! you are wrong!", so not much point in me saying "noooo, I'm actually just saying it's a bad idea....")


Instead of arguing all these complicated hypotheticals so that you can stick your tongue out and say na-na-na-na-naaa-naaa, why not stay on-topic (like my post you responded to), and tell us all about how much more wonderful Bitcoin is going to be when Jeff Garzik controls it instead? You don't seem to have an opinion at all, considering how many words you have to use to say precisely nothing