Bitcoin vs Bitcoin2X - November, whats it gonna be for you?

[Maheshkumar_Hrangkhawl]

There is no point in trusting the Core. If they have their say, then the block size will be reduced to 100KB, and the fee will be like $100 per transaction. Their model will not survive in the long term future. So I will stick with BTC2X and I'll dump BTC Core.

[gentlemand]

    From what I've read of the Core contingency plans; they will introduce a proof-of-work change to recover from an event where no blocks are being minted.
    Yeah, that would mean no timely transactions for a little while as wallets get upgraded, but by no means would there be infinite weeks between timespans.

That seems very sensible, but who's going to mine it? If Bitcoin goes from acres of ASICs back to GPUs that is a vast amount of disruption.

[kokojie]

There is no point in trusting the Core. If they have their say, then the block size will be reduced to 100KB, and the fee will be like $100 per transaction. Their model will not survive in the long term future. So I will stick with BTC2X and I'll dump BTC Core.

Then you should have supported BCash instead. Both BSegwit and BSegwit2X will lead to $100 fees on chain, 2X is just a bandaid to delay the inevitable, segwit will eventually lead to normal users not able to afford on chain transactions period

[Prem.Soorajpaul]

There is no point in trusting the Core. If they have their say, then the block size will be reduced to 100KB, and the fee will be like $100 per transaction. Their model will not survive in the long term future. So I will stick with BTC2X and I'll dump BTC Core.

Then you should have supported BCash instead. Both BSegwit and BSegwit2X will lead to $100 fees on chain, 2X is just a bandaid to delay the inevitable, segwit will eventually lead to normal users not able to afford on chain transactions period

Yeah.. SegWit2X is just like a temporary solution. This 2MB block size solution will not resolve all the issues in the long term. Once the number of users increase, once again we are going to witness transactions delayed by 2-3 days.

[Grrizz]

There is no point in trusting the Core. If they have their say, then the block size will be reduced to 100KB, and the fee will be like $100 per transaction. Their model will not survive in the long term future. So I will stick with BTC2X and I'll dump BTC Core.

I think you missunderstand the situation, core isn't against a block size increase they are just against doing it right now. Segwit increases the number of transactions that can be handled by a block something like 2x on average (depending on the transfers in the block), makes block scaling more viable and makes side chains like lightning network feasable (moving a lot of transactions off the blockchain and enabling fast, cheap, microtransactions). Core is against segwit2x because not only is it being rushed, they believe (and rightly so IMO) forking should only be used as an "emergency" measure, it would be far better to put off a fork untill it is nessisary and include as many fixes and longer term improvements to the code in a single fork as possable with proper, thorough testing and peer review.

From what I understand the segwit2x node blocking is being implemented to help avoid bogging down the network by preventing incompatable nodes from connecting to each other.

[Chicago]

From what I understand the segwit2x node blocking is being implemented to help avoid bogging down the network by preventing incompatable nodes from connecting to each other.

Hi Grrizz,

    The node blocking goes a little further than just that, because the change can be introduced ahead of schedule; it will help to make certain that nodes are already well-connected to (good) peers and that the network goes into the event without there being a disruption for DoS leading to islands of nodes that would otherwise take a while to settle if the node happened to have had all of its previous outgoing connections to *soon to be bad* (incompatible) nodes.

    The contention in the PR is about how the node blocking is otherwise making "currently compatible" nodes, non-viable and is seen as adversarial; yet since doing so implies protecting the network when the other side does their "Network Upgrade" it is also seen as quite conservative.

    All these things have to be done carefully; and I wouldn't want to be the one pushing code to so many users unless I was damn sure of the behaviors and emergence.
    It looks like the Core devs are well aware of the system emergence the node blocking will produce (as designed).

    I would rather see the swarm aligned for network segmentation ahead of time, then play a game of entropy roulette looking for peers when all of the good nodes have already reached their maximum connection limit.

Best Regards,
-Chicago

[Grrizz]

From what I understand the segwit2x node blocking is being implemented to help avoid bogging down the network by preventing incompatable nodes from connecting to each other.

Hi Grrizz,

    The node blocking goes a little further than just that, because the change can be introduced ahead of schedule; it will help to make certain that nodes are already well-connected to (good) peers and that the network goes into the event without there being a disruption for DoS leading to islands of nodes that would otherwise take a while to settle if the node happened to have had all of its previous outgoing connections to *soon to be bad* (incompatible) nodes.

    The contention in the PR is about how the node blocking is otherwise making "currently compatible" nodes, non-viable and is seen as adversarial; yet since doing so implies protecting the network when the other side does their "Network Upgrade" it is also seen as quite conservative.

    All these things have to be done carefully; and I wouldn't want to be the one pushing code to so many users unless I was damn sure of the behaviors and emergence.
    It looks like the Core devs are well aware of the system emergence the node blocking will produce (as designed).

    I would rather see the swarm aligned for network segmentation ahead of time, then play a game of entropy roulette looking for peers when all of the good nodes have already reached their maximum connection limit.

Best Regards,
-Chicago

Interesting, that makes a lot of sense, thanks for the run down

And lol, yep, you would definitely have to be very thorough (and have balls of steel) to be pushing code to a userbase like the BTC network

[cr1776]

There is no point in trusting the Core. If they have their say, then the block size will be reduced to 100KB, and the fee will be like $100 per transaction. Their model will not survive in the long term future. So I will stick with BTC2X and I'll dump BTC Core.

I think you missunderstand the situation, core isn't against a block size increase they are just against doing it right now. Segwit increases the number of transactions that can be handled by a block something like 2x on average (depending on the transfers in the block), makes block scaling more viable and makes side chains like lightning network feasable (moving a lot of transactions off the blockchain and enabling fast, cheap, microtransactions). Core is against segwit2x because not only is it being rushed, they believe (and rightly so IMO) forking should only be used as an "emergency" measure, it would be far better to put off a fork untill it is nessisary and include as many fixes and longer term improvements to the code in a single fork as possable with proper, thorough testing and peer review.

From what I understand the segwit2x node blocking is being implemented to help avoid bogging down the network by preventing incompatable nodes from connecting to each other.

I think you hit the nail on the head here.  The public statements on the dev mail list etc are more about the rushed timeframe for a hard fork that is not an emergency.  Taking the statements at face value, of course.  If Core were to come out with a statement staying something like, in 0.16.x or 0.17.x Core will support a block size increase to 2MB (or whatever) I think that would take the wind out of 2X's sails and resolve the NYA issue prior to a contentious hard fork.

As far as the 100kb block, that is what one Core developer (luke-jr) had stated.  I didn't see others echoing it.

With Segwit alone the increase in block size should mitigate blocks being full quite quickly unless the spamming doubles or triples which is not inexpensive.  

I guess we'll see how things progress going forward, and it will be interesting regardless.  

[Ayers]

Too much forking. Why can't we just focus with Bitcoin vs Ethereum?

because bitcoin is incomplete, and ETH also had many fork, like ETH classic, and ETH it self is based on bitcoin, everything is based on bitcoin, alla the altcoin are born from bitcoin, but for me it's bitcoin ith segwit, standard bitcoin do not scale and the high fee is stupid

[hatshepsut93]

When people invest in some cryptocurrency, they are essentially investing in developer team behind that coin. This is the reason why no altcoin has ever flipped Bitcoin's marketcap - Bitcoin Core is the biggest and the best dev team in all crypto space, while most alts have some few amateur devs, who can only copy Core code and tweak it on very basic levels. This is why alts like Viacoin, Vertcoin, Syscoin, Groestlcoin, and Digibyte implement SegWit in attempt to get attention. Now, if you think about SegWit2x coin and Bcash coins as alts, it becomes clear that they are no different from Dogecoin, because they lack something that makes Bitcoin valuable - strong developer team.

[JorisK]

Too much forking. Why can't we just focus with Bitcoin vs Ethereum?

because bitcoin is incomplete, and ETH also had many fork, like ETH classic, and ETH it self is based on bitcoin, everything is based on bitcoin, alla the altcoin are born from bitcoin, but for me it's bitcoin ith segwit, standard bitcoin do not scale and the high fee is stupid

Imho the "fee" excuse is no excuse.

99.99% of all Bitcoin users are either traders or hodlers. I'm almost 99% sure that today no one on this planet ordered a cup of coffee with bitcoin. You also don't buy coffee with a bag of gold powder.

Fee's will be addressed, but that will take time.

[buwaytress]

There is no point in trusting the Core. If they have their say, then the block size will be reduced to 100KB, and the fee will be like $100 per transaction. Their model will not survive in the long term future. So I will stick with BTC2X and I'll dump BTC Core.

Wait, when did "Core" ever say they want a block size reduction? In fact, core's apprehension isn't just about block size, but a caution against delivering something they feel will open the network to vulnerabilities. It's not so much an anti-block increase but a "wait til we know more" approach. Of course they want to continue scaling for the long-term, but again, there is no urgent need that justifies recklessness.

I think you missunderstand the situation, core isn't against a block size increase they are just against doing it right now. Segwit increases the number of transactions that can be handled by a block something like 2x on average (depending on the transfers in the block), makes block scaling more viable and makes side chains like lightning network feasable (moving a lot of transactions off the blockchain and enabling fast, cheap, microtransactions). Core is against segwit2x because not only is it being rushed, they believe (and rightly so IMO) forking should only be used as an "emergency" measure, it would be far better to put off a fork untill it is nessisary and include as many fixes and longer term improvements to the code in a single fork as possable with proper, thorough testing and peer review.

From what I understand the segwit2x node blocking is being implemented to help avoid bogging down the network by preventing incompatable nodes from connecting to each other.

Yeah! I know it can be a simplistic view, but keeping the legacy chain should be the most natural thing to want - for Bitcoin anyway. There's just absolutely no emergency, no crisis, little justification for forking off right now.
@Mahesh

[Bitcoin_trader2016]

So theres another split again coming on november just like what happen today in bitcoin and bitcoin cash? Why so many spliting in bitcoins why dont they just stick together and join forces to make bitcoins more promising.

[figmentofmyass]

Hmm.. So there are going to be three different coins: BTC, BTC2X and BCH? I think I will hold all three, at least for another 6-7 months. Even after that period, at the most I am going to dump 25% of each.

seems sensible after seeing the ETH/ETC and BTC/BCC debacles play out. i'm only really interested in BTC, and i think that's what will take the throne in the long term, but there's no point insta-dumping the other coins just to double down on my BTC holdings. better to let the market figure it out for me, and make a decision months (or even years) later.

[BTCLovingDude]

Hmm.. So there are going to be three different coins: BTC, BTC2X and BCH? I think I will hold all three, at least for another 6-7 months. Even after that period, at the most I am going to dump 25% of each.

seems sensible after seeing the ETH/ETC and BTC/BCC debacles play out. i'm only really interested in BTC, and i think that's what will take the throne in the long term, but there's no point insta-dumping the other coins just to double down on my BTC holdings. better to let the market figure it out for me, and make a decision months (or even years) later.

comparing bitcoin and ethereum has never been a good idea. they have nothing in common.
the split of ethereum was because it was rushed and nobody agreed to it but the wealthy foundation wanted it and also it was a roll back to reverse the losses they have sustained. the support for each chain was big enough

the bitcoin split was a small group of people with small hashrate who went though with it and created an altcoin which nobody wants.

for example if support for ETH/ETC was 60/40% the support for BTC/BCC was 95-5%

[figmentofmyass]

Hmm.. So there are going to be three different coins: BTC, BTC2X and BCH? I think I will hold all three, at least for another 6-7 months. Even after that period, at the most I am going to dump 25% of each.

seems sensible after seeing the ETH/ETC and BTC/BCC debacles play out. i'm only really interested in BTC, and i think that's what will take the throne in the long term, but there's no point insta-dumping the other coins just to double down on my BTC holdings. better to let the market figure it out for me, and make a decision months (or even years) later.

comparing bitcoin and ethereum has never been a good idea. they have nothing in common.

the point is that they are both blockchain networks with native coins. thus, the incentives around contentious forks are exactly the same. some users will choose to leave the consensus, some will not, and some will use both incompatible chains.

the split of ethereum was because it was rushed and nobody agreed to it but the wealthy foundation wanted it and also it was a roll back to reverse the losses they have sustained. the support for each chain was big enough

arguably, the BCC and segwit2x forks are very rushed. clearly many do not agree with either of them. bitmain (very powerful miner) is backing BCC and we have not necessarily seen the end of it. segwit2x has much more support (from businesses and miners), even if bitcoin core developers and the user base opposes. so, it is very contentious.

the bitcoin split was a small group of people with small hashrate who went though with it and created an altcoin which nobody wants.

for example if support for ETH/ETC was 60/40% the support for BTC/BCC was 95-5%

ethereum classic had extremely low hash rate and network activity after the split. hash rate was something like 99:1 in favor of ETH, and out the door, no services supported ETC.

due to quick difficulty readjustment, though, and the timing of the poloniex coin split, ETC was profitable to mine very quickly. the rest is the story of any altcoin.

BCC's difficulty readjustment was not fast enough. it was not profitable to mine for days, and still may not be.

[marky89]

So theres another split again coming on november just like what happen today in bitcoin and bitcoin cash? Why so many spliting in bitcoins why dont they just stick together and join forces to make bitcoins more promising.

That seems ideal, and I think most Bitcoin users are incentivized to work towards that. Unfortunately, what's happening is that entrenched business and mining interests are pushing for their own profits, rather than for user interests. As these interests diverge further and further, a split becomes more likely.

The Bitcoin Cash split was a relative non-event. Not much hash power or wallet support, and very little support from Bitcoin businesses. The November fork has a lot more support (not from developers or users, per se, but from business and mining interests), so it should be more interesting to see what happens then.

[bitcoinvestor]

It is still a lot of time before this can happen and everything can change, so it is difficult to predict how things are gona be.
I think that it will fail, as BCH failed also

Yeah, the war not ends, there will new rival 2x. OK let's be ready to dump. BTC is BTC not other names. Everyone , every country who has super power want to control bitcoin. Can they control the decentralized community with no government , bitcoin community not relying on government policy but relying on the market.

[Janation]

It is still a lot of time before this can happen and everything can change, so it is difficult to predict how things are gona be.
I think that it will fail, as BCH failed also

Yeah, the war not ends, there will new rival 2x. OK let's be ready to dump. BTC is BTC not other names. Everyone , every country who has super power want to control bitcoin. Can they control the decentralized community with no government , bitcoin community not relying on government policy but relying on the market.

We don't need to dump, let's HODL! As you can see last week, even there are a bitcoin fork that happened, the price is still stable, that means the users and investors are still holding their bitcoin even if it dumps. Also, there are no such thing as super power but you may call that controlling power.

[michellee]

It is still a lot of time before this can happen and everything can change, so it is difficult to predict how things are gona be.
I think that it will fail, as BCH failed also

Yeah, the war not ends, there will new rival 2x. OK let's be ready to dump. BTC is BTC not other names. Everyone , every country who has super power want to control bitcoin. Can they control the decentralized community with no government , bitcoin community not relying on government policy but relying on the market.

We don't need to dump, let's HODL! As you can see last week, even there are a bitcoin fork that happened, the price is still stable, that means the users and investors are still holding their bitcoin even if it dumps. Also, there are no such thing as super power but you may call that controlling power.

I think I will hodl both bitcoin and bcash no matter if the price is down and, I believe that if the price is down, the price will be recover soon. i don't think that if there is any fork happened the price can not rise more high because every fork happen, the price will be affected too and will reach new level of the price.