Just confriming, segwit or segwit2x is going ahead on BTC?

[jubalix]

Just want to confirm this

I thought is was 2x, but hear now its not.....

we are staying at 1MB.....? or will we get 2MB later?

[1714157365]

1714157365

[1714157365]

1714157365

[1714157365]

1714157365

[pinkflower]

Segwit is locked in and it will activate on August 23 or thereabouts. Then according to the proponents of Segwit2x there will be a hard fork to 2mb blocks. They say it will happen on November but some are saying that its an optimistic time line.

If it could happen, maybe next year.

[jubalix]

Segwit is locked in and it will activate on August 23 or thereabouts. Then according to the proponents of Segwit2x there will be a hard fork to 2mb blocks. They say it will happen on November but some are saying that its an optimistic time line.

If it could happen, maybe next year.

ok...I see....I gotta admit I kinda feel that we need 2MB blocks as a mix of on chain and off chain solutions, BCH has shown that a 8MB block is feasible....if nothing else....

[achow101]

we are staying at 1MB.....? or will we get 2MB later?

None of the above.

Segwit will give us a maximum of 4 MB blocks (the maximum amount of data transferred or stored on disk for a block). Non-witness parts of the block will be limited to at most 1 MB. On the average case, we get about double the number of transactions per block.

Segwit2x is a proposal to hard fork after segwit activates, so we will still be getting segwit anyways. Segwit will activate in ~1 week. The 2x part of Segwit2x is supposed to occur 12960 blocks after segwit activates, and that will make the maximum block weight 8 million units, double what segwit makes it at 4 million units. This means that the non-witness data in the block can be at most 2 MB, and blocks at most 8 MB. However given that segwit2x has failed to produce a proper specification and even specify exactly what is supposed to happen, all of this could change. IMO it is unlikely that segwit2x will be Bitcoin; rather it will probably just become another altcoin like BCH did.

BCH has shown that a 8MB block is feasible....if nothing else....

No, it really hasn't.

[italianMiner72]

Segwit is locked in and it will activate on August 23 or thereabouts. Then according to the proponents of Segwit2x there will be a hard fork to 2mb blocks. They say it will happen on November but some are saying that its an optimistic time line.

If it could happen, maybe next year.

ok if so then wil lhave Bitcoin, bitcoin cash and the latest chain??
i mean the new one with 2MB for each block??
but this will fork from bitcoin chain or bitcoin cash chain?

[thejaytiesto]

Segwit is locked in and it will activate on August 23 or thereabouts. Then according to the proponents of Segwit2x there will be a hard fork to 2mb blocks. They say it will happen on November but some are saying that its an optimistic time line.

If it could happen, maybe next year.

ok...I see....I gotta admit I kinda feel that we need 2MB blocks as a mix of on chain and off chain solutions, BCH has shown that a 8MB block is feasible....if nothing else....

BCash, aka Bitcoin Cash, aka Bitcoin ABC, has only shown the irony of how the market is not supporting big blocks, while their blockchain is mining blocks smaller than the 1MB blockchain. How dumb was that? Clearly nobody is supporting big blocks with real money.

It would suck that the NYC goons go thought with the hardfork again on November. Thats 3 fucking Bitcoins listed on coinmarketcap, and they will cause a price crash. They will have to run for cover because the hate will be real. The people that want big blocks already has BCash, what's the point of a rushed hardfork in 3 months?
They got a ton of hashrate (in theory) so we'll see what's up.

[jubalix]

Segwit is locked in and it will activate on August 23 or thereabouts. Then according to the proponents of Segwit2x there will be a hard fork to 2mb blocks. They say it will happen on November but some are saying that its an optimistic time line.

If it could happen, maybe next year.

ok...I see....I gotta admit I kinda feel that we need 2MB blocks as a mix of on chain and off chain solutions, BCH has shown that a 8MB block is feasible....if nothing else....

BCash, aka Bitcoin Cash, aka Bitcoin ABC, has only shown the irony of how the market is not supporting big blocks, while their blockchain is mining blocks smaller than the 1MB blockchain. How dumb was that? Clearly nobody is supporting big blocks with real money.

It would suck that the NYC goons go thought with the hardfork again on November. Thats 3 fucking Bitcoins listed on coinmarketcap, and they will cause a price crash. They will have to run for cover because the hate will be real. The people that want big blocks already has BCash, what's the point of a rushed hardfork in 3 months?
They got a ton of hashrate (in theory) so we'll see what's up.

well, yes, to an extent, but BCH does have some value x billion market cap ..... a smaller block change would indicate some value available to BTC, and I think utility. The BCH network has not collapsed due to code or block size problems. Not sure about centralization though.

A small increase would take the wind out of the sales of BCH, silence some of  Blockstream pet DEV theorists and make seg wit 2x independant fork moot.

[nibor]

99.99999% segwit will lock in in a few days. There is no controversy over this - miners, users, bitcoincore devs all agree they want this!

But the 1m->2m base blocksize increase is still very split. (I know segwit in effect enables 2-4 times more Tx in this 1/2Meg - but only as the wallets/users upgrade).

According to https://www.xbt.eu/ 90-95% of the miners are supporting the 2Mb blocksize increase that will occur at block 494,784 (edit: correcting as advised below based on https://segwit2x.github.io/segwit2x-announce.html).

So we will get an extra chain in about 90 days time. And the chain with 90% of the hash power will be the chain with the 2Mb block size - so NOT compatible with BitcoinCore!

As I have said before this causes huge issues for the BitcoinCore chain - as blocks will take 10 times longer, and also it will take 20 weeks till the difficulty resets (rather than the normal 2 weeks). And even after the reset blocks will still be taking 2.5 times longer for another 5 weeks.

So the big question is whether the "Economy" will move to the BitcoinSegWit2x code or not - i.e. payment processors, shops, wallets etc... According to https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/ they have not even started to - only about a few % have moved.

If we have a split where the "Economy" goes one way and the miners go the other will be mess!


Obviously 1000 things could change in the next 90 days...
1) BitcoinCore could release a patch to support 2Mb blocks!
2) Miners could stop supporting NYA (SegWit2x) - if this dropped below 50% I think the new chain would die very quickly.
3) Someone else could release a patch ontop of BitcoinCore that supports 2meg block - is trival to code now as can just hardcode a block to switch on.
4) BitcoinCore could release a patch that speeds up the difficulty reduction (like BitcoinCash did) to avoid issue of slow block issue. But obviously massively reduce security of blockchain!

[bifle]

Obviously 1000 things could change in the next 90 days...
1) BitcoinCore could release a patch to support 2Mb blocks!
2) Miners could stop supporting NYA (SegWit2x) - if this dropped below 50% I think the new chain would die very quickly.
3) Someone else could release a patch ontop of BitcoinCore that supports 2meg block - is trival to code now as can just hardcode a block to switch on.
4) BitcoinCore could release a patch that speeds up the difficulty reduction (like BitcoinCash did) to avoid issue of slow block issue. But obviously massively reduce security of blockchain!

Thank you for this partial explanation.
I am still wondering why this upcoming mess is not much discussed...
There is currently so much uncertainty about bitcoin future for me.

[Netnox]

Obviously 1000 things could change in the next 90 days...
1) BitcoinCore could release a patch to support 2Mb blocks!
2) Miners could stop supporting NYA (SegWit2x) - if this dropped below 50% I think the new chain would die very quickly.
3) Someone else could release a patch ontop of BitcoinCore that supports 2meg block - is trival to code now as can just hardcode a block to switch on.
4) BitcoinCore could release a patch that speeds up the difficulty reduction (like BitcoinCash did) to avoid issue of slow block issue. But obviously massively reduce security of blockchain!

I just hope that #1 will happen before November and a split could be avoided. Not that I am afraid of any splits. For example, the Bitcoin Cash split did more good than harm in my opinion. But I am tired of moving my coins and exporting my private keys every time.

[MetaVerde]

Obviously 1000 things could change in the next 90 days...
1) BitcoinCore could release a patch to support 2Mb blocks!
2) Miners could stop supporting NYA (SegWit2x) - if this dropped below 50% I think the new chain would die very quickly.
3) Someone else could release a patch ontop of BitcoinCore that supports 2meg block - is trival to code now as can just hardcode a block to switch on.
4) BitcoinCore could release a patch that speeds up the difficulty reduction (like BitcoinCash did) to avoid issue of slow block issue. But obviously massively reduce security of blockchain!

I just hope that #1 will happen before November and a split could be avoided. Not that I am afraid of any splits. For example, the Bitcoin Cash split did more good than harm in my opinion. But I am tired of moving my coins and exporting my private keys every time.

Hmmm.

Do I need to split out my Bitcoin Cash from my Bitcoin into new wallets before the next fork?



Then we shouldn't ever throw away old wallets.
I can see where this would get old fast.

[DooMAD]

99.99999% segwit will lock in in a few days. There is no controversy over this - miners, users, bitcoincore devs all agree they want this!

But the 1m->2m base blocksize increase is still very split. (I know segwit in effect enables 2-4 times more Tx in this 1/2Meg - but only as the wallets/users upgrade).

According to https://www.xbt.eu/ 90-95% of the miners are supporting the 2Mb blocksize increase that will occur at block 494504 (sorry could be out by 1 on this number as would have to reread the source code to be sure).

So we will get an extra chain in about 90 days time. And the chain with 90% of the hash power will be the chain with the 2Mb block size - so NOT compatible with BitcoinCore!

As I have said before this causes huge issues for the BitcoinCore chain - as blocks will take 10 times longer, and also it will take 20 weeks till the difficulty resets (rather than the normal 2 weeks). And even after the reset blocks will still be taking 2.5 times longer for another 5 weeks.

So the big question is whether the "Economy" will move to the BitcoinSegWit2x code or not - i.e. payment processors, shops, wallets etc... According to https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/ they have not even started to - only about a few % have moved.

If we have a split where the "Economy" goes one way and the miners go the other will be mess!


Obviously 1000 things could change in the next 90 days...
1) BitcoinCore could release a patch to support 2Mb blocks!
2) Miners could stop supporting NYA (SegWit2x) - if this dropped below 50% I think the new chain would die very quickly.
3) Someone else could release a patch ontop of BitcoinCore that supports 2meg block - is trival to code now as can just hardcode a block to switch on.
4) BitcoinCore could release a patch that speeds up the difficulty reduction (like BitcoinCash did) to avoid issue of slow block issue. But obviously massively reduce security of blockchain!

The latest news is block 494784.

I'm a little surprised it's as high as 90% still flagging intention for NYA/Segwit2x, but yeah, it's currently 930 out of the last 1000 blocks.  There were some claims that miners using Bitcoin Core were only using the BIP91 patch to avoid a split, but if that were true, surely they would have stopped signalling intention for larger blocks by now?  SegWit is locked in and definitely happening, so they can easily back out of the NYA if they genuinely weren't keen on it and just have SegWit by itself.  At the risk of repeating "intention" too much, that's all it currently is.  There's nothing stopping them from changing their minds any time between now and November.  Are some of the miners possibly playing mind games and making it look like 2x has more support than it really does?  Are some of them maybe waiting until the last minute to drop the 2x intent?  And will some of them start changing their minds a little faster if the next Core release goes through with the proposal to disconnect nodes signalling 2x?

So many questions, heh.  The plot continues to thicken.  

Hmmm.

Do I need to split out my Bitcoin Cash from my Bitcoin into new wallets before the next fork?



Then we shouldn't ever throw away old wallets.
I can see where this would get old fast.

If you hold a bitcoin (BTC) balance on any address before the November fork, you'll have the same amount on the newly forked 2x chain.  

You don't have to worry about moving any BCC/BCH because that's already on its own separate chain, completely unrelated to the SegWit2x one.  You can keep those funds on any address you want.  

The SegWit2x fork will have literally zero impact on your BitcoinCash holdings (with the possible exception of maybe stealing some of the hashpower from that chain, making it potentially slower to transact in BitcoinCash)

[nibor]

So the big question is whether the "Economy" will move to the BitcoinSegWit2x code or not - i.e. payment processors, shops, wallets etc... According to https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/ they have not even started to - only about a few % have moved.

actually "few %" should be "about 10%". I did not realise that Bitcoin Unlimited and Classic are both compatible with the change. Not sure about XT - but only 27 nodes.

https://coin.dance/nodes is a bit clearer..

There are 8124 nodes (I excluded the Bitcoin-ABC as they are now an alt-coin!)

And if I sum BitcoinUnlimited, btc1 and Bitcoin Classic I get 977 - so 12%.

Still a lot less than 100%!! Will be interesting to see how this changes over the next 100 days...

[BitchicksHusband]

99.99999% segwit will lock in in a few days. There is no controversy over this - miners, users, bitcoincore devs all agree they want this!

But the 1m->2m base blocksize increase is still very split. (I know segwit in effect enables 2-4 times more Tx in this 1/2Meg - but only as the wallets/users upgrade).

According to https://www.xbt.eu/ 90-95% of the miners are supporting the 2Mb blocksize increase that will occur at block 494504 (sorry could be out by 1 on this number as would have to reread the source code to be sure).

So we will get an extra chain in about 90 days time. And the chain with 90% of the hash power will be the chain with the 2Mb block size - so NOT compatible with BitcoinCore!

As I have said before this causes huge issues for the BitcoinCore chain - as blocks will take 10 times longer, and also it will take 20 weeks till the difficulty resets (rather than the normal 2 weeks). And even after the reset blocks will still be taking 2.5 times longer for another 5 weeks.

So the big question is whether the "Economy" will move to the BitcoinSegWit2x code or not - i.e. payment processors, shops, wallets etc... According to https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/ they have not even started to - only about a few % have moved.

If we have a split where the "Economy" goes one way and the miners go the other will be mess!


Obviously 1000 things could change in the next 90 days...
1) BitcoinCore could release a patch to support 2Mb blocks!
2) Miners could stop supporting NYA (SegWit2x) - if this dropped below 50% I think the new chain would die very quickly.
3) Someone else could release a patch ontop of BitcoinCore that supports 2meg block - is trival to code now as can just hardcode a block to switch on.
4) BitcoinCore could release a patch that speeds up the difficulty reduction (like BitcoinCash did) to avoid issue of slow block issue. But obviously massively reduce security of blockchain!

The latest news is block 494784.

I'm a little surprised it's as high as 90% still flagging intention for NYA/Segwit2x, but yeah, it's currently 930 out of the last 1000 blocks.  There were some claims that miners using Bitcoin Core were only using the BIP91 patch to avoid a split, but if that were true, surely they would have stopped signalling intention for larger blocks by now?  SegWit is locked in and definitely happening, so they can easily back out of the NYA if they genuinely weren't keen on it and just have SegWit by itself.  At the risk of repeating "intention" too much, that's all it currently is.  There's nothing stopping them from changing their minds any time between now and November.  Are some of the miners possibly playing mind games and making it look like 2x has more support than it really does?  Are some of them maybe waiting until the last minute to drop the 2x intent?  And will some of them start changing their minds a little faster if the next Core release goes through with the proposal to disconnect nodes signalling 2x?

So many questions, heh.  The plot continues to thicken.  

Hmmm.

Do I need to split out my Bitcoin Cash from my Bitcoin into new wallets before the next fork?



Then we shouldn't ever throw away old wallets.
I can see where this would get old fast.

If you hold a bitcoin (BTC) balance on any address before the November fork, you'll have the same amount on the newly forked 2x chain.  

You don't have to worry about moving any BCC/BCH because that's already on its own separate chain, completely unrelated to the SegWit2x one.  You can keep those funds on any address you want.  

The SegWit2x fork will have literally zero impact on your BitcoinCash holdings (with the possible exception of maybe stealing some of the hashpower from that chain, making it potentially slower to transact in BitcoinCash)

You're surprised that companies that can be sued are standing by their commitments that keep them from being sued?  I'm more surprised bitcoiners don't have the faintest understanding of keeping business commitments.  Of COURSE they are all going to 2X.  They agreed and signed that they would.  Any loss of value to others for going back on that commitment would lose them a court case.

[gentlemand]

You're surprised that companies that can be sued are standing by their commitments that keep them from being sued?  I'm more surprised bitcoiners don't have the faintest understanding of keeping business commitments.  Of COURSE they are all going to 2X.  They agreed and signed that they would.  Any loss of value to others for going back on that commitment would lose them a court case.

Who's going to be suing who? What court would take the slightest interest in this? It's a loose conglomerate of miners who are free to wander off whenever they like. On the very day it was signed there were people who 'signed' it who didn't know the actual details.

If it does happen the only lawsuits flying will be against any exchange that lists 2X as it won't have repay protection, so no exchange will list it.

I'll be amazed if this fork happens. People don't bet tens of billions of value on something put together by a handful of nobodies behind closed doors forcing a fundamental change in a few weeks that no one outside the room it was created in agrees with.

Segwit was established and thoroughly tested and it was a soft fork. 2X is none of these things.

The players will gradually bail on it as November approaches.  

[d5000]

I'll be amazed if this fork happens. People don't bet tens of billions of value on something put together by a handful of nobodies behind closed doors forcing a fundamental change in a few weeks that no one outside the room it was created in agrees with.

No one? In this forum, at least, there was a poll with a majority approving Segwit + 2MB. You now can say that there was low participation in my poll, but I have really discussed this topic many times at BCT and there are many people here approving  a conservative block size increase.

The aspect of the agreement I personally object is timing. November (or any date in 2017) is, in my opinion, too early for a hard fork. So I had a slight (delusional) hope that there could be an agreement to postpone the 2MB part to mid-to-end 2018, with the approval of at least some of the Core developers. But it seems that won't become true.

The NYA was not only signed by miners, but also by "big fishes" of the "economy" like BitPay and Coinbase, and there seem to be only a few companies completely opposing the 2x part (see support). If these big companies keep supporting it then I think the Segwit2x chain will be the stronger one.

[achow101]

And will some of them start changing their minds a little faster if the next Core release goes through with the proposal to disconnect nodes signalling 2x?

That pull request has already been merged into Bitcoin Core. It will be part of the 0.15.0 release. This means that if you run Bitcoin Core 0.15.0, you will be disconnecting all segwit2x nodes.

No one? In this forum, at least, there was a poll with a majority approving Segwit + 2MB. You now can say that there was low participation in my poll, but I have really discussed this topic many times at BCT and there are many people here approving  a conservative block size increase.

A large part of the technical community opposes segwit2x for a variety of technical reasons. Furthermore, Bitcoin Core will not be supporting Segwit2x. The hard fork will likely still happen, just not very cleanly. If segwit2x continues to refuse to implement replay protection, refuses to set the hard fork bit, refuses to change their network magic, etc, then their hard fork will cause a lot of problems. This could result in network partitioning and replayed transactions (and thus potentially fraud). Since it is basically guaranteed to be a messy chain split, they should be working to make it as clean as possible, after all, they are the ones diverging from the status quo.

[DooMAD]

And will some of them start changing their minds a little faster if the next Core release goes through with the proposal to disconnect nodes signalling 2x?

That pull request has already been merged into Bitcoin Core. It will be part of the 0.15.0 release. This means that if you run Bitcoin Core 0.15.0, you will be disconnecting all segwit2x nodes.

Considering the diversity of node software out there, I'd assume there probably won't be enough 0.15.0 clients to cause sufficient grief to the 2x miners.  I'm guessing they would still be receiving enough transactions from other nodes to "keep up".  Will be an interesting exercise in network topology and propagation to find out for certain, though.  How few compatible nodes is enough to stay current until the fork?  Will there be gaps in coverage in certain regions?  It's going to be educational if nothing else, heh.

[gentlemand]

The aspect of the agreement I personally object is timing. November (or any date in 2017) is, in my opinion, too early for a hard fork. So I had a slight (delusional) hope that there could be an agreement to postpone the 2MB part to mid-to-end 2018, with the approval of at least some of the Core developers. But it seems that won't become true.

I think it's a fine and necessary idea in principle but as you say it's the timing. It's ridiculously short and all parties involved, Core and the 2X crew, have now guaranteed another alt. Which one will be the alt is another matter.

[genesis.vision]

Well, the price soar I think is due to SegWit2x and we can see that people reached consensus segwit2x was a right thing to do.