[2017-09-20] Segwit2X: the broken agreement

[TheBitcoinBadger]

Segwit2X: the broken agreement

Bitcoin has Segwit now! Woohoo! Whether you believe this is thanks to UASF (it is) or because of some closed, backdoor meeting with 12 participants (which ended up with 50 who subsequently signed after being led to assume there was wider support) doesn’t really matter now, we have Segwit, awesome!

https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/segwit2x-the-broken-agreement-e9035a453c05

[error08]

Many people have predicted that segwit will be activated but without 2Mb hard fork.
Hard fork is necessary if segwit can not solve scale problem, we may need another hard fork if more adopters join in bitcoin environment, but for now segwit seems could afford current transactions, we pay low fees even though still have to wait for an hour to be confirmed.

[bbc.reporter]

@TheBitcoinBadger. Nice blog, thank you for sharing. I also share his thoughts on Segwit2x. We do not need another hardfork and the risk it produces. The bad part about Segwit2x is that there is no replay protection. What is their development team trying to do? What if I do not want to send Segwit2x coins in case of a blockchain split?

[d5000]

If what the blog insinuates - that the Segwit2x fork won't happen at the end because of low support and big blockers are happy with Bitcoin Cash - is true, that would be indeed good news.

But I don't really believe it. I just looked into the btc1 Github and Jeff Garzik seems pretty active there, although there is defintively less activity than back in July. Until Bitpay and Coinbase do not change their stance publicly, I think we will have to prepare for a troubled November - not only price-wise. I have nothing against the "Segwit2x" proposal as such (for me, 4-5 MB blocks, like it can be estimated if the proposal becomes true, would still be OK in a big network like Bitcoin) but don't like the hurry, I would have preferred a fork in 2018 or 2019.

[hv_]

If what the blog insinuates - that the Segwit2x fork won't happen at the end because of low support and big blockers are happy with Bitcoin Cash - is true, that would be indeed good news.

But I don't really believe it. I just looked into the btc1 Github and Jeff Garzik seems pretty active there, although there is defintively less activity than back in July. Until Bitpay and Coinbase do not change their stance publicly, I think we will have to prepare for a troubled November - not only price-wise. I have nothing against the "Segwit2x" proposal as such (for me, 4-5 MB blocks, like it can be estimated if the proposal becomes true, would still be OK in a big network like Bitcoin) but don't like the hurry, I would have preferred a fork in 2018 or 2019.

Thx d5000 for you last sentence here, because I - speaking for big blockers - would be happy if there will be a better consensus for HF if it could be shifted a bit into early 2018 - but core needs to signal this first - or Novembers NYA will come.

Generally, I don't think that we can achieve this better consensus in such forums any more also due to 'moderation' (most big blockers left here as well)  and adopted bigger business use other channels.

In the end we all want bitcoin be the winner for poor and rich.

[Carlton Banks]

I have nothing against the "Segwit2x" proposal as such (for me, 4-5 MB blocks, like it can be estimated if the proposal becomes true, would still be OK in a big network like Bitcoin

Thx d5000 for you last sentence here, because I - speaking for big blockers - would be happy if there will be a better consensus for HF if it could be shifted a bit into early 2018 - but core needs to signal this first - or Novembers NYA will come.

You two are only highlighting how disingenuous the "big blocks" position really is.


You've got your big blocks Bitcoin, it's called Bitcoin Cash, but you don't want it for..... some reason?


So, why don't you tell the world, honestly, what it is you really want, because if it was big blocks, you shouldn't actually be on the forum of the conservative blocks coin. At all.

So why are you still here?

[BitHodler]

You've got your big blocks Bitcoin, it's called Bitcoin Cash, but you don't want it for..... some reason?

It's because these people like to hammer down on something for no apparent reason. At some point when they have got what they want, they will start digging holes elsewhere to start wishing for this or that.

It's impossible to please big blockers. It's all big talk, but when it comes to actually contributing to utilizing their ideas and ideology, no actions will follow ~ that's how it always goes.

People are free to fork off and do everything exactly in their own way, but it's still Bitcoin they are after, and that while they are well aware of the conservative (in a good way) nature of the core developers.

[hv_]

I have nothing against the "Segwit2x" proposal as such (for me, 4-5 MB blocks, like it can be estimated if the proposal becomes true, would still be OK in a big network like Bitcoin

Thx d5000 for you last sentence here, because I - speaking for big blockers - would be happy if there will be a better consensus for HF if it could be shifted a bit into early 2018 - but core needs to signal this first - or Novembers NYA will come.

You two are only highlighting how disingenuous the "big blocks" position really is.


You've got your big blocks Bitcoin, it's called Bitcoin Cash, but you don't want it for..... some reason?


So, why don't you tell the world, honestly, what it is you really want, because if it was big blocks, you shouldn't actually be on the forum of the conservative blocks coin. At all.

So why are you still here?

Mainly to ignore you 

You should think of: There is no black or white.

Does your LN work?

[Variogam]

The agreement is SegWit immediately and 2M months later. It is childish to cheer you have your part of deal so you can ignore other aspects of the deal without any consequence. Broken agreement would mean no SegWit anymore, which is not what is happening.

SegWit2x is integral part of Bitcoin already, and for my older BU node it is just soft fork - no upgrade required becuse Im not a miner. The only problem is: for some Bitcoin software it is hard fork, but I dont doubt the economical important participants fix this bug in their software, Bitcoin means responsibility, not protectionism, thats why I dont care about every Bitcoin incompatible node out there - its only the owner responsibility what software he is running, so in November some might see no new blocks anymore and only the owners of this outdated software can fix it if they want continue following Bitcoin chain.

[d5000]

So, why don't you tell the world, honestly, what it is you really want, because if it was big blocks, you shouldn't actually be on the forum of the conservative blocks coin. At all.

So you want to be this forum a Communist authoritarian Prawda-like propaganda medium where only one opinion is permitted?

You seem still not have understood my stance. I like experiments with crazy parameters like Bitcoin Cash, but on alt-chains.  But in the case of Bitcoin, I prefer a chain with the "less [contentious] splits possible" because splits harm the ecosystem and make adoption of BTC "as a currency" more difficult (although speculators may like the price swings). That's also why I, in the case of a hard fork, would follow the chain with the most hashrate - if miners are not trying to impose to me something totally unacceptable. But Segwit2x would be still OK.

I don't like big blocks particularly, and I often disagreed with _hv because of that reason. But for me there is a difference between an "acceptable bigger block size", like in the Segwit2x case, and an "unacceptable" one - like Unlimited.

But if Segwit2x is doomed to fail like the blog post here predicts (although for me it's hard to believe) - then for me it's everything OK. Maybe we'll be so lucky if big blockers stay with Bitcoin Cash. We already got Segwit, that's what I wanted and that's why I have also shilled for Segwit+2MB

[ChromaticStar]

I'm having a hard time understanding why Core doesn't want 2x. Does a somewhat larger block size really matter than much? What I really wanted was Segwit, I don't care about Jihan's worthless BCH scam coin. Once we have the Lightning Network, it can increase scalability for mass adoption. But if the blocks are currently full, then why do we have to wait for LN? Why not settle for 2x as a short term solution at the moment?

[Samarkand]

I'm having a hard time understanding why Core doesn't want 2x. Does a somewhat larger block size really matter than much? What I really wanted was Segwit, I don't care about Jihan's worthless BCH scam coin. Once we have the Lightning Network, it can increase scalability for mass adoption. But if the blocks are currently full, then why do we have to wait for LN? Why not settle for 2x as a short term solution at the moment?

It is unclear how many users would use a 2nd layer solution like the Lightning network.
Some people are actually not interested in LN transactions, because they are forced
to trust a 3rd party when they use a payment channel. This is diametrically opposed
to the reason why many people got into Bitcoin in the first place.

However, this is probably only a minority of Bitcoin fundamentalists and the average
user will be completely fine with 2nd layer solutions if they are cheaper and faster -
which they will probably be.

[Carlton Banks]

So, why don't you tell the world, honestly, what it is you really want, because if it was big blocks, you shouldn't actually be on the forum of the conservative blocks coin. At all.

So you want to be this forum a Communist authoritarian Prawda-like propaganda medium where only one opinion is permitted?

You seem still not have understood my stance. I like experiments with crazy parameters like Bitcoin Cash, but on alt-chains.  But in the case of Bitcoin, I prefer a chain with the "less [contentious] splits possible" because splits harm the ecosystem and make adoption of BTC "as a currency" more difficult (although speculators may like the price swings). That's also why I, in the case of a hard fork, would follow the chain with the most hashrate - if miners are not trying to impose to me something totally unacceptable. But Segwit2x would be still OK.

I don't like big blocks particularly, and I often disagreed with _hv because of that reason. But for me there is a difference between an "acceptable bigger block size", like in the Segwit2x case, and an "unacceptable" one - like Unlimited.

But if Segwit2x is doomed to fail like the blog post here predicts (although for me it's hard to believe) - then for me it's everything OK. Maybe we'll be so lucky if big blockers stay with Bitcoin Cash. We already got Segwit, that's what I wanted and that's why I have also shilled for Segwit+2MB

So, you skillfully avoided the question.

If 8MB blocks (identical to the Segwit2x limit) are an "acceptable bigger block size", you can choose Bitcoin Cash.

Why. Not. Do. That.


And why no discussion of the actual pertinent point: what's the real reason for the Segwit2x hardfork? It's pretty interesting that you're using the same presentation that all previous shills supporting alt-dev hard forks have ever done: you only ever talk about the technical parameter used to promote a hard fork attempt, instead of about the future of Bitcoin after the hard fork. What a strange coincidence.

So, see if you can avoid answering this question too: why do you keep avoiding discussion about who the alt-dev team are or represent, and what their intentions are likely to be post-fork, and instead concentrate on talking about the issue the fork is being promoted with?

[hv_]

So, why don't you tell the world, honestly, what it is you really want, because if it was big blocks, you shouldn't actually be on the forum of the conservative blocks coin. At all.

So you want to be this forum a Communist authoritarian Prawda-like propaganda medium where only one opinion is permitted?

You seem still not have understood my stance. I like experiments with crazy parameters like Bitcoin Cash, but on alt-chains.  But in the case of Bitcoin, I prefer a chain with the "less [contentious] splits possible" because splits harm the ecosystem and make adoption of BTC "as a currency" more difficult (although speculators may like the price swings). That's also why I, in the case of a hard fork, would follow the chain with the most hashrate - if miners are not trying to impose to me something totally unacceptable. But Segwit2x would be still OK.

I don't like big blocks particularly, and I often disagreed with _hv because of that reason. But for me there is a difference between an "acceptable bigger block size", like in the Segwit2x case, and an "unacceptable" one - like Unlimited.

But if Segwit2x is doomed to fail like the blog post here predicts (although for me it's hard to believe) - then for me it's everything OK. Maybe we'll be so lucky if big blockers stay with Bitcoin Cash. We already got Segwit, that's what I wanted and that's why I have also shilled for Segwit+2MB

Thx again for you open post here.

I consider myself as moderate and I can follow the majority for sake of freedom - esp if things are not relevant in terms of live and die.

In the end our planet is too small to fight things to the end and fighting is net negative to all.

I can also fully follow small blockers arguments for 'keepin the state of decentralization' - even LukeJr: 'do not use SW' and more of his believes - all understandable from a very local point - agreed.

Since we can not grasp ALL of the complex nature of bitcoin including all dynamics of exp growth, economy, tech, black swan events, game theory, risks (of market, code, change process...)  ... you name it - we need to see all things we decide under 'experimental' character - even all alt coins out there.

Given all that - I want bitcoin not much different from bitcoin 1 year ago.

Best: just with about 2-4?MB - But no SW.

So my compromise is the SW2X - broadly in line with many other relevant (= can afford costly risk management and order specific software to run on their expensive hardware) players.

[ChromaticStar]

I'm having a hard time understanding why Core doesn't want 2x. Does a somewhat larger block size really matter than much? What I really wanted was Segwit, I don't care about Jihan's worthless BCH scam coin. Once we have the Lightning Network, it can increase scalability for mass adoption. But if the blocks are currently full, then why do we have to wait for LN? Why not settle for 2x as a short term solution at the moment?

It is unclear how many users would use a 2nd layer solution like the Lightning network.
Some people are actually not interested in LN transactions, because they are forced
to trust a 3rd party when they use a payment channel. This is diametrically opposed
to the reason why many people got into Bitcoin in the first place.

However, this is probably only a minority of Bitcoin fundamentalists and the average
user will be completely fine with 2nd layer solutions if they are cheaper and faster -
which they will probably be.

I understand some people don't want LN, but those people are on the BCH chain now, which is not scalable for mass adoption. 2x isn't for fundamentalist, it's for users right now who want to transact quickly until LN arrives. Unless LN comes out before 2x, I don't see why it's such a big deal to increase blocksize?

[Carlton Banks]

I'm having a hard time understanding why Core doesn't want 2x. Does a somewhat larger block size really matter than much?

Buy Bitcoin Cash if you want a larger blocksize.

What I really wanted was Segwit, I don't care about Jihan's worthless BCH scam coin.

Segwit is already activated. So Segwit2x is not the same thing as getting Segwit, it's a separate, different fork.

Once we have the Lightning Network, it can increase scalability for mass adoption. But if the blocks are currently full, then why do we have to wait for LN? Why not settle for 2x as a short term solution at the moment?

Blocks aren't full right now. And that's not a good argument anyway, setting the blocksize so that full blocks are relieved by Lightning like a pressure valve is probably the best compromise.

And the reasons why not to opt for 2x are:

• The blocksize is now 2-4MB (depending on usage patterns) Segwit2x makes that 4-8MB, and 2-4MB is not being used right now (current daily average is between 0.8MB and 1.0 MB
• Because of the above, Core aren't going to double blocksize again, and so it means a Bitcoin Cash style hardfork
• Because of the above, the businesses that want Segwit2x are pushing ahead using devs who've demonstrated in the past that permission-less sound money is not their vision for Bitcoin

People aren't seeing the wood because of all those pesky trees. This hasn't got anything to do with the blocksize, and never did.

Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Unlimited, and Segwit2x have all been pushed at Bitcoin users with the blocksize as the (simple) issue to push with. And Bitcoin users were always too smart to not see these campaign for what they were: attempts by big business to capture Bitcoin development, so they can change it into a permissioned system, no different to using banks (strange coincidence, I wonder if the banks are in favour of these forks )



So, watch out for these people that are all like "hey, blocksize x is not so bad, so let's change the development team tomorrow!". It's got nothing to do with blocksize x, and everything to do with changing the development team.

[ChromaticStar]

I'm having a hard time understanding why Core doesn't want 2x. Does a somewhat larger block size really matter than much?

Buy Bitcoin Cash if you want a larger blocksize.

What I really wanted was Segwit, I don't care about Jihan's worthless BCH scam coin.

Segwit is already activated. So Segwit2x is not the same thing as getting Segwit, it's a separate, different fork.

Once we have the Lightning Network, it can increase scalability for mass adoption. But if the blocks are currently full, then why do we have to wait for LN? Why not settle for 2x as a short term solution at the moment?

Blocks aren't full right now. And that's not a good argument anyway, setting the blocksize so that full blocks are relieved by Lightning like a pressure valve is probably the best compromise.

And the reasons why not to opt for 2x are:

• The blocksize is now 2-4MB (depending on usage patterns) Segwit2x makes that 4-8MB, and 2-4MB is not being used right now (current daily average is between 0.8MB and 1.0 MB
• Because of the above, Core aren't going to double blocksize again, and so it means a Bitcoin Cash style hardfork
• Because of the above, the businesses that want Segwit2x are pushing ahead using devs who've demonstrated in the past that permission-less sound money is not their vision for Bitcoin

People aren't seeing the wood because of all those pesky trees. This hasn't got anything to do with the blocksize, and never did.

Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Unlimited, and Segwit2x have all been pushed at Bitcoin users with the blocksize as the (simple) issue to push with. And Bitcoin users were always too smart to not see these campaign for what they were: attempts by big business to capture Bitcoin development, so they can change it into a permissioned system, no different to using banks (strange coincidence, I wonder if the banks are in favour of these forks )



So, watch out for these people that are all like "hey, blocksize x is not so bad, so let's change the development team tomorrow!". It's got nothing to do with blocksize x, and everything to do with changing the development team.

I'm not a developer, so some of it is beyond my technical skill level, but I have heard some developer teams want BTC more centralized. Although some say LN is somewhat centralized, it is the only solution.

I have a feeling this upcoming fork is going to be hurtful to BTC more than the last. I believe Coinbase and Bitpay have stated they will support the 2x fork, which may leave Core to develop a chain that has few users on it.

I hate all this bickering.

[Carlton Banks]

I believe Coinbase and Bitpay have stated they will support the 2x fork, which may leave Core to develop a chain that has few users on it.

Well, Coinbase isn't the only exchange, and Bitpay aren't the only processor. It's more likely that the users stick with the known and proven Core team, and that Segwit2x is the chain with no users, just as Bitcoin Cash has ended up.

Even if users choose 2xCoin in sufficient numbers to keep it alive, Bitcoin is as likely to crash against the 2xCoin as Bitcoin is to crash against the dollar, i.e. not that likely. Bitcoin is about enabling people to do what they want with their money, and safeguarding the value of everyone's money. That's why it's risen in exchange value against regular currencies, because it was designed well to do that, and that design is being continually improved by the Bitcoin developers at Core.

[ChromaticStar]

I believe Coinbase and Bitpay have stated they will support the 2x fork, which may leave Core to develop a chain that has few users on it.

Well, Coinbase isn't the only exchange, and Bitpay aren't the only processor. It's more likely that the users stick with the known and proven Core team, and that Segwit2x is the chain with no users, just as Bitcoin Cash has ended up.

Even if users choose 2xCoin in sufficient numbers to keep it alive, Bitcoin is as likely to crash against the 2xCoin as Bitcoin is to crash against the dollar, i.e. not that likely. Bitcoin is about enabling people to do what they want with their money, and safeguarding the value of everyone's money. That's why it's risen in exchange value against regular currencies, because it was designed well to do that, and that design is being continually improved by the Bitcoin developers at Core.

Thanks for the input. I will probably do the same this I did after the last fork: Nothing.