[2017-08-18] Segwit2x and Bitcoin Core Drama Flares Up ‘Community’ Tension

[Slow death]

Segwit2x and Bitcoin Core Drama Flares Up ‘Community’ Tension

On August 17 the bitcoin payment processing company Bitpay published a blog post about Segwit2x that stirred quite a bit of controversy with the bitcoin ‘community.’

Bitpay Sparks Controversy for Promoting the BTC1 Codebase as a Reference Client to Bitcore Nodes

The post called “What Bitcore Users Need to Know To Be Ready for Segwit Activation” gives a detailed explanation to its Bitcore user base about the upcoming consensus process with Segwit2x. However, the post also leaves btc1 software (Segwit2x) as a form of upgrade for Bitcore full nodes.

Immediately a few bitcoin proponents and developers such as Peter Todd, Tuur Demeester, Francis Pouliot‏, John Carvalho‏, Rodolfo Novak‏ and others got angry with Bitpay for recommending an alternative to the Core reference code. Developer Peter Todd called Bitpay’s statement “fraudulent” and talked of litigation. Programmer Eric Lombrozo has asked his Twitter followers to openly ban any company that supports Segwit2x. Across forums and social media, the blog post caused relentless debate throughout the entire day of August 17.

Bitcoin.org Operator Theymos Seeks to Remove Copay Wallet and All Bitpay Services from the Website

Then later on into the day the owners of Bitcoin.org decided to create a pull request to remove Bitpay’s services and the Copay wallet from the site’s recommended wallet section. One of the operators of Bitcoin.org and the lead administrator of r/bitcoin, Theymos, explains that Bitpay is pushing “fraudulent” software.

“Bitpay is fraudulently passing off btc1 as Bitcoin software to which people are required to upgrade,” explains Theymos. “This is highly unethical and a violation of the bitcoin.org hard fork policy.”

"  Therefore, this pull request removes from bitcoin.org any references to Bitpay and their software/services Copay and Bitcore. "

Bitcoin developers like David Harding detailed that Bitcoin.org should “proceed slowly and try to get Bitpay to clarify their position before we delist them.” Other developers agreed with Harding’s opinion, but others agreed with the proposal set forth by Theymos. Then btc1 developer Jeff Garzik explains his view stating, “NAK. It is reasonable and practical to follow the blockchain with the most hashpower (thus most secure).” Bitcoin.org operator Theymos didn’t like this statement and replied back to Garzik by saying, “Bitcoin is not and must not be ruled by miners,” and leaves a link to a Bitcoin Wiki site he controls.

Segwit2x Developer Jeff Garzik Removed From Github Repo

Just when you thought the drama would end, it didn’t, as later on that day Jeff Garzik was removed from the Core bitcoin repository as a contributor. This also created quite a stir on Twitter as people who are angry about Segwit2x stated things like, “you brought it upon yourself Jeff, enjoy working on btc1 alone.” While others defended Garzik and called the action “ludicrous.”

According to bitcoin Core contributor, Matt Corrallo, Garzik’s statements in the past would agree with the decision. “As Jeff himself advocated for several times, this is just the removal of people who haven’t been active in the project for years. No need to read too much into such things.” Software developers Peter Todd and Greg Maxwell also confirm the reason why Garzik was removed was due to inactivity. However, there are some speculators who believe the move was far more political, and coincidently done before the second half of the compromise.

It doesn’t seem like Segwit2x is off to a good start for the second half of the New York Agreement. Already bitcoiners are talking about the birth of a third bitcoin called “B2X.” Meanwhile, bitcoin cash supporters are telling Segwit2x proponents to join them, as most believe the compromise is a failed attempt. It’s safe to say the quarreling will be very intense over the next couple months in bitcoin-land, and another blockchain split is looking more probable as the days continue.

The Segwit2x Working group (btc1) plans to hard fork the network to increase the block size to 2MB on block 494,784 on the Bitcoin blockchain.


https://news.bitcoin.com/segwit2x-and-bitcoin-core-drama-flares-up-community-tension/

[1714871415]

1714871415

[1714871415]

1714871415

[DooMAD]

Seems like it's all getting increasingly petty.  I don't know why it always has to boil down to this totalitarian do-what-we-say-or-we'll-ban-you mentality.  BitPay have made their intent quite clear on this matter, so it shouldn't be any surprise they're recommending the /btc1 branch.  If bitcoin.org reserve the right to tell people they should use Core (and evidently feel the need to completely deny the existence of any alternative to SegWit-Only), why don't BitPay have the exact same right to suggest whatever branch they like best?  Just run what you want and let consensus sort it out.  You're more than welcome to remove BitPay from bitcoin.org if you want, on the proviso that you understand the potential consequences, in that it might cause people to think you look like intolerant, freedom-hating, tantrum-throwing, infantile drama queens.  Way to guarantee that split you still like to pretend you're trying to avoid.

BitPay have hit back and updated their post with a rather strongly worded addendum:

ADDENDUM, 8/17/17, 5:20 PM ET: Note that btc1 includes support for the Segwit2x scaling proposal. You may choose to use any full node supporting Segwit, but our instructions follow this version of Bitcoin because over 95% of Bitcoin miners have adopted Segwit2x. If you are not running Segwit2x, your node will be on a dysfunctional minority chain when the base block size increases to 2MB.

Ouch.  There's a fine line between confidence and hubris, I suppose we'll find out in a few months if they've inadvertently crossed it.

[Carlton Banks]

If bitcoin.org reserve the right to tell people they should use Core (and evidently feel the need to completely deny the existence of any alternative to SegWit-Only), why don't BitPay have the exact same right to suggest whatever branch they like best?  Just run what you want and let consensus sort it out. 

This is consensus sorting it out (for the umpteenth time.... zzzz)

How come people are bad when they do something that promotes unity, and good when they promote something that promotes disarray?

How come you, DooMAD, are always using the latest argument in favour of the latest hard fork that promotes disarray or chaos? Because you want Bitcoin to be so great, right? 

ADDENDUM, 8/17/17, 5:20 PM ET: Note that btc1 includes support for the Segwit2x scaling proposal. You may choose to use any full node supporting Segwit, but our instructions follow this version of Bitcoin because over 95% of Bitcoin miners have adopted Segwit2x. If you are not running Segwit2x, your node will be on a dysfunctional minority chain when the base block size increases to 2MB.

Yeah, and they forgot to mention:

• Segwit2x head developer (Garzik) is a known authoritarian
• The Segwit2x new fork actually needs to be worth something like the same price as Bitcoin for actual people to be interested in using the new chain
• Segwit2x are refusing to change important parts of the code that will make the split technically super disruptive

This is basically an attack against the Bitcoin blockchain, it's highly likely that if miners continue to push for absolute control like this, they will force the Bitcoin developers to ditch the mining hash function, as it will be the only way to stop their intentionally reckless & destructive behaviour. Cue the 21st century gold rush (yes ladies and gents, you will be able to mine BTC with your regular PC again, thank Bitpay and Jeff Garzik, lol)

[hatshepsut93]

Seems like it's all getting increasingly petty.  I don't know why it always has to boil down to this totalitarian do-what-we-say-or-we'll-ban-you mentality.  BitPay have made their intent quite clear on this matter, so it shouldn't be any surprise they're recommending the /btc1 branch.  If bitcoin.org reserve the right to tell people they should use Core (and evidently feel the need to completely deny the existence of any alternative to SegWit-Only), why don't BitPay have the exact same right to suggest whatever branch they like best?  Just run what you want and let consensus sort it out.  You're more than welcome to remove BitPay from bitcoin.org if you want, on the proviso that you understand the potential consequences, in that it might cause people to think you look like intolerant, freedom-hating, tantrum-throwing, infantile drama queens.  

Bitcoin.org is an informational resource about Bitcoin, altcoins don't belong there, and BitPay just turned into altcoin service. Also, BitPay are dishonest with their customers, they are not telling them that using this new software will lead to a loss of coins on previous version.

ADDENDUM, 8/17/17, 5:20 PM ET: Note that btc1 includes support for the Segwit2x scaling proposal. You may choose to use any full node supporting Segwit, but our instructions follow this version of Bitcoin because over 95% of Bitcoin miners have adopted Segwit2x. If you are not running Segwit2x, your node will be on a dysfunctional minority chain when the base block size increases to 2MB.

Ouch.  There's a fine line between confidence and hubris, I suppose we'll find out in a few months if they've inadvertently crossed it.

There is very few btc1 nodes, if 2x fork happened today, 90% of miners would be mining invalid blocks that would be rejected by Bitcoin's network. It would be a disaster for everyone - transactions will stop, miners will waste electricity on useless blocks. The price will crash, making mining less profitable even after miners return to the main chain. Right now 2x looks more like a bluff than some realistic improvement proposal.

[DooMAD]

If bitcoin.org reserve the right to tell people they should use Core (and evidently feel the need to completely deny the existence of any alternative to SegWit-Only), why don't BitPay have the exact same right to suggest whatever branch they like best?  Just run what you want and let consensus sort it out. 

This is consensus sorting it out (for the umpteenth time.... zzzz)

How come people are bad when they do something that promotes unity, and good when they promote something that promotes disarray?

How come you, DooMAD, are always using the latest argument in favour of the latest hard fork that promotes disarray or chaos? Because you want Bitcoin to be so great, right? 

There are means and ways of promoting unity that don't involve suppression, restriction, concealment or interdiction.  I just wish some of you were capable of demonstrating that and not keep trying to coerce unity at gunpoint like the loathsome fascists you are.  Some people are uniting behind the 2x idea and you simply can't tolerate it.  If you're so certain their idea is destined to fail, just let them get the fuck on with it already.  Why fight an unwinnable fight in attempting to stop them if you are so adamant they're wasting their time?  Is it possibly because you rely on their hashpower but you're too ashamed to admit it?

This is basically an attack against the Bitcoin blockchain, it's highly likely that if miners continue to push for absolute control like this, they will force the Bitcoin developers to ditch the mining hash function, as it will be the only way to stop their intentionally reckless & destructive behaviour.

Yay, then developers can make all the decisions and we can use the equivalent of Ripple while you fap yourself stupid over your centralised idol developer overlords dictating without question.   

No fucking thank you.

[The One]

This is getting beyond ridiculous. The responses by Core developers demonstrated just how far they have become dictatorial. Bitpay is a centralised private company operating in a free-market by satisfying their customers. If the customers don't agree then they can go elsewhere and Bitpay will collapse, and vice versa. Users of bitcoin core can make their own decision, without reprisals. Banning and threatening by virtue of throwing one's toys out of the pram, merely showed immature understanding of basic liberty and economics.

However, segwit2x is pointless. There i've said it.

The "civil war" was based on 2 main group. One group wanting seggy weggy and 1mb block v another group wanting bigger block and no seggy weggy (whitepaper). Segwit2x is a compromise and compromising with bitcoin codes doesn't work. You either follow the whitepaper or not, simple as that.

Bitcoin cash, forked off the bitcoin main chain, has no seggy weggy and bigger blocks. One group are satisfied and looking to the future. The other group are not satisfied, but they should be since Aug 1st. The 2x part is pointless with bitcoin cash in existence.

Pride and egos simply caused the "civil war" to continue when it should have ended after Aug 1st hard fork.