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

[gentlemand]

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.

The Segwit bit was the easy part. The 2MB bit will prove to be anything but. The entire network has to switch across to it in one go.

[1713561798]

1713561798

[1713561798]

1713561798

[1713561798]

1713561798

[1713561798]

1713561798

[1713561798]

1713561798

[1713561798]

1713561798

[DooMAD]

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.

The Segwit bit was the easy part. The 2MB bit will prove to be anything but. The entire network has to switch across to it in one go.

Does it, though?  I mean, to avoid a messy split, sure, the entire network has to switch across to it in one go.  But considering the entrenched views involved, a contentious split seems the far more likely outcome right now, unless someone proposes a compromise in the very near future.  It all rides on numbers now.  The hashrate each chain can attract, the number of nodes supporting each chain, the economic activity being transacted across each chain and the number of businesses, vendors and other third party services supporting each chain.  Essentially 4 main categories in which to contest.

My initial impression (as things currently stand at the time of writing) is that first blood may go to 2x on the hashrate (unless miners start dropping support soon), whereas SegWit-Only will probably smash the node count out of the park, so that's a 1-all draw in the first two categories (purely IMHO in case that wasn't obvious).  But the second two are somewhat more tricky to predict.  Could go either way.  The hashrate may grant an advantage to 2x in terms of economic activity, since they would likely gain all the SPV wallet users that simply follow the longest chain, but conversely, it's difficult to tell in advance whether lack of non-mining nodes would potentially mean issues for relaying peoples' transactions, which could deter users from 2x.  But equally, if there is a lack of hashrate on SegWit-Only, that could also cause short-term issues and delays transacting due to mining difficulty.  I can't even begin to forecast what businesses, vendors and third party services might be doing, though.  I think most of them will just play it by ear and not make any snap judgements.  I suspect they'll be watching it all unfold as keenly as the rest of us.

[nibor]

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.

Is this the commit?
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/1de73f4e19fe789abb636afdb48a165a6fd31009

Bit odd no mention of SEGWIT2X in the commit comment. Also trivial for BitcoinCash to just stop publishing those bits and then will stay connected...
Or run a fronting BitcoinCore node with this commit removed.


And I am still confused why everyone is so scared of HardForks. If the developers, user-base and miners are all in agreement they just happen. Only issue with this one is the split in opinions. But if the developers started backing it (say supporting in 0.15) then the userbase would follow I expect and the whole issue would be solved.

Feels like the main objection is from the developers is saying it is risky - but is only risky because they are not supporting it!

[Nicolas Tesla]

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....

BCH showed nothing since there is no transactions on that chain at all, they can't fill up even an 1 MB space...

[nibor]

BCH showed nothing since there is no transactions on that chain at all, they can't fill up even an 1 MB space...

Here is a 4Meg one:
http://blockdozer.com/insight/block/0000000000000000012401ef17c6eefc28a25ebc98ac5c085174d5f418ebc3db

Agree - generally low tx volumes though.

Don't think objection from devs is that there are fundamental technical issues with 2Mb. Think it is more they want people to use off-chain (Lighting) solutions.

And if the BTC blocks are big there will be less incentive for people to use these solutions.

[Nicolas Tesla]

No, its people who want to use off-chain solutions not devs ! On-chain won't scale to VISA levels sorry...

L2 solutions are the best technical proposal since it preserve decentralization and can scale far more than raw block increase. LN increase privacy as a side effect too.

Also, S2X and BCH are nothing more than big businesses and cartels imposing their will on their users, it set a very bad precedent in the development governance where closed doors meeting and centralized actors decide what should be implemented or not...

In term of price BCH and S2X may have a future but in term of financial sovereignty and paradigm shift they don't have anything, notice that all companies that are against L2 solutions are middlemen type companies ! LN can make them redundant !

[nibor]

I don't think people do - they just want low transaction costs and fast confirmation times - which Lighting does help deliver.

But I don't think we can get to visa tx levels even with Segwit, LN whilst only having 1 meg bitcoin blocks.

As every time you open/close a LN channel you need a tx on the bitcoin blockchain. And unless people are prepared to open their channels with USD1000's at a time there will be a lot of channel creation. 99% of people do not have 1000's that they can leave tied up in a bitcoin / Lightning channel till they need to spend it. Most people lead a surprisingly salary cheque -> landlord/mortgage/bill/supermarket type existence each month.

In fact the whole economics of Lighting does not make sense to me - you end up with so much capital tied up in the channels - although guess this would be great for the Bitcoin price!! But that is a topic for a different thread!

With Segwit about to lock-in then the whole LN infrastructure is enabled and people can start building/marketing it - and if I am wrong will take off.

So why not make the block bigger too? Needing 288 meg instead of 144 meg a day of bandwidth is hardly going to make the network more centralised - is a few cents a day more cost to run the node - maybe if we were talking about a 1 Tb a day increase you would have a point.

And anyway centralisation is all relative. The FX market is decentralised - but you need a USD 100m+ a year IT budget to run a FX Spot desk at an Investment Bank!

[SilentNightElf]

I really hope segwit2x comes out this year. I know it will sort of "hurt" bitcoin, and not really give any benefits, but I am a greedy man and I would love to dump some more fork coins. Especially after how much free money I made of bitcoin cash!

[madu]

I observed this segwit,segwit2x,2mb,4mb,8mb discussion for several months. Im really disappointed in bitcoin core. When everyone was signaling for segwit2x it seemed that everyone is ok with that and we finally got a consensus. And suddenly bitcoin core says they dont want to stick with segwit2x.
Even tough there are 5k core nodes, this does not has to mean that the community want to follow bitcoin cores path.
For me it more seems like there is a company which tries to force the whole community to follow their path.
Im going to install and run segwit2x node.
Hopefully everyone else who is the same opinion is going to do that.
Kind of sad to see how a single company is killing Bitcoin.

[AlexGR]

And suddenly bitcoin core says they dont want to stick with segwit2x.

What are you talking about? They were never in favor of 2x.

[madu]

And suddenly bitcoin core says they dont want to stick with segwit2x.

What are you talking about? They were never in favor of 2x.

But they began to be quite when they saw everyone is "ok" with segwit2x. Till now, when segwit will be implemented next week.
It was like "ahh they are signaling segwit2x.. well segwit is ok, they can signal it.. lets tell them when segwit is implemented, that we wont support the 2x part".
That they are strictly against segwit2x - even when the miners are signaling segwit - they should have given out weeks ago.

[gentlemand]

But they began to be quite when they saw everyone is "ok" with segwit2x. Till now, when segwit will be implemented next week.
It was like "ahh they are signaling segwit2x.. well segwit is ok, they can signal it.. lets tell them when segwit is implemented, that we wont support the 2x part".

They didn't endorse any of it at any moment.

[AlexGR]

And suddenly bitcoin core says they dont want to stick with segwit2x.

What are you talking about? They were never in favor of 2x.

But they began to be quite when they saw everyone is "ok" with segwit2x. Till now, when segwit will be implemented next week.
It was like "ahh they are signaling segwit2x.. well segwit is ok, they can signal it.. lets tell them when segwit is implemented, that we wont support the 2x part".
That they are strictly against segwit2x - even when the miners are signaling segwit - they should have given out weeks ago.

Anyone reading the dev's mailing list, know that Segwit 2x has been rejected for months: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-June/014633.html

They even had a list of devs on the wiki that explained, transparently, where each one stood regarding the various BIPs and forks (segwit, uasf, segwit2x, etc)

I don't think the rejection of segwit2x from Bitcoin's developers
could be any more resolute than what we've already seen:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support

[realhobo669]

There is not only Segwit factor which effect the price.Lots of ICO's and Alt coin buying is also effecting the price..

[tomkat]

No, its people who want to use off-chain solutions not devs ! On-chain won't scale to VISA levels sorry...

L2 solutions are the best technical proposal since it preserve decentralization and can scale far more than raw block increase. LN increase privacy as a side effect too.

Also, S2X and BCH are nothing more than big businesses and cartels imposing their will on their users, it set a very bad precedent in the development governance where closed doors meeting and centralized actors decide what should be implemented or not...

In term of price BCH and S2X may have a future but in term of financial sovereignty and paradigm shift they don't have anything, notice that all companies that are against L2 solutions are middlemen type companies ! LN can make them redundant !

Care to elaborate how do they impose their will on the users?
How exactly is anyone forced to do anything they would like users to do?

[Argon2]

SegWit2x is going ahead as planned, yes (source segwit2x working group and coin.dance intent). The 1 MB legacy-only chain is being mined by approximately 9-10% of the current Bitcoin hashrate (source: bitcoinwisdom.com). The 1 MB legacy chain will become an AltCoin if anyone continues to mine it after the 2x code becomes active otherwise the 1 MB chain will be the 2x chain.

[gentlemand]

https://www.bitwala.com/bitwala-statement-segwit2x/

Here is the first NYA signee to state they're not going to support it without some contribution from Core. I fully expect the majority of them on the signee's list to do the same before November arrives.

[aliashraf]

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!

....

The truth about bitcoin and any pow based crypto-currency is that there is one and only one source of power, mining, and it can not be changed by some propaganda or civil activity, thus, I do not agree with your last statement about the split, there will be no split, core chain will die and market will adopt.

[Mamboman]

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.

Oh yes. I have to concur there. The timing changes everything. I think they wil backpedal when push comes to shove.

[jubalix]

No, its people who want to use off-chain solutions not devs ! On-chain won't scale to VISA levels sorry...

L2 solutions are the best technical proposal since it preserve decentralization and can scale far more than raw block increase. LN increase privacy as a side effect too.

Also, S2X and BCH are nothing more than big businesses and cartels imposing their will on their users, it set a very bad precedent in the development governance where closed doors meeting and centralized actors decide what should be implemented or not...

In term of price BCH and S2X may have a future but in term of financial sovereignty and paradigm shift they don't have anything, notice that all companies that are against L2 solutions are middlemen type companies ! LN can make them redundant !

sock puppet? You need some scaleing of the on chain capacity to keep fees low, saying non visa levels is a orthogonal issue.

block space should accessible at a relatively low fee.