Only 58 days until the SegWit2x fork

[RGBKey]

SegWit2x is a hard fork of the Bitcoin protocol happening on September 30th as a result of the New York Agreement. The fork changes the max block size from 1MB to 2MB. Unlike Bitcoin Cash, SegWit2x has no replay protection, meaning that transactions on one network can be broadcast on the other, sending both your Bitcoin coins and your SegWit2x coins to the same address. This makes it very hard/impossible to only send one or the other coin.

These are the facts, what follows are the opinions of me and some other members of the community.

• SegWit2x is an attack on Bitcoin, designed to move control of the software design from the developers into the hands of the miners.
• The blocksize should not be increased until all other measures to make the network more efficient have been exhausted (Lightning Network, Schnorr Signatures, MAST,
  etc.)

Here's what you can do to oppose this:

• Run a full node (At least v0.15.0) to support standard network rules.
• Contact companies that support SegWit2x still and request they change their stance.

This is just what I think. I would like to know what the rest of the community's position on this is, as a lot of my opinion is admittedly from /r/Bitcoin, which can be an echo chamber at times. I encourage everyone to have a discussion on this so that everyone can make fully informed decisions.

Edit: It appears I was grossly mistaken in how many days are remaining. I have edited the title to reflect that.

[1715119108]

1715119108

[1715119108]

1715119108

[DooMAD]

My stance is a fairly liberal one.  I'm always inclined to take the position that everyone having complete and total freedom to run whatever code they choose is infinitely preferable to a scenario where one group dictates to all the other groups what they can or can't do.  I don't subscribe to the notion some people around here seem to endorse, that one single development team should make all the decisions for the rest of forever and everyone else should obey.  I'm happy to endure a little turbulence and open rebellion if it keeps the would-be authoritarians in this community in check.

The miners are perfectly entitled to secure a 2mb base and 6mb witness chain if that's what they want to do with their hashpower.  I don't know where anyone gets off thinking they can dictate to other people what chain they have to secure.  Similarly, the Core devs are perfectly entitled to change the mining algorithm on the 1mb base and 3mb witness chain making the miner's hardware all but useless on it.  In the end, everyone gets what they think they want.  At least until they change their mind when it doesn't work out as well as they thought it would.  Which could still happen after the fork.  The split might be permanent, but it might not.  We'll have to see how it plays out.

As for the poll, I support the right for SegWit2x to exist if people want it to.  I'm not sure if that's what you had in mind for an answer,  though.

[The One]

seggy2x is pointless because of BCH.

However the market will decide.

All this could have been a avoided long time ago.

[Lauda]

No, there's ~40 days left. You've got your numbers mixed up. Anyhow, SegWit2x has almost zero community support and is nothing other than an attack from Jihan, i.e. takeover attempt. Run Core and avoid those baboons.
N. Szabo on Jihan and Ver:

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/909916674970738688

[24core]

It wont be in 10 days. November 18  is around the date we can expect block 494784, which is when Segwit2x should hard fork to 2MB blocks.

[CrownPolly]

It wont be in 10 days. November 18  is around the date we can expect block 494784, which is when Segwit2x should hard fork to 2MB blocks.

I also heard that this will happen in November. And in the same month bitcoin will again become cheaper. I hope that due to the increase in the block, the Chinese major miners will not get a monopoly on this field

[patt0]

Well, although I think they are wrong, and there is not need for the increase of the block size, because everyone already has an option for bigger blocks, since they can just choose BCH if they want that, and second, there are may options on the table that will address the problems with high fees and slow transactions (like the lightning network). Of course that only means that I will stick to Bitcoin, and since there is no replay protection, I wont even touch that other coin.

Anyway I also think that we will have Bgold on October, which is a friendly fork, and that hard fork, if it ever takes place, will only happen on November.

[Xavofat]

As for the poll, I support the right for SegWit2x to exist if people want it to.  I'm not sure if that's what you had in mind for an answer,  though.

I see your point that people treat SegWit2x very strangely and that claiming that SegWit2x somehow shifts power from developers to miners, when in fact that doesn't happen at all, is a strange echo chamber which some people now find themselves in.

However, the poll is about your personal support for SegWit2x, not about its right to exist.

seggy2x is pointless because of BCH.

It's not.  SegWit2x is making a clear effort to work with the same merchants and payment processors that the current main chain already has, and in doing so is not like Bitcoin Cash, which is working similarly to a new altcoin.

since there is no replay protection, I wont even touch that other coin.

If the SegWit2x chain has a significant value, you'd be better off not touching Bitcoin during that period either.

[jamesdean35]

i think after segwit2 the bitcoin will be rise.if it s faster,it s more valuable.Also BCH affect to.i think bitcoin will survive unscathed.i dont even worry as soft fork which happens on august

[Razick]

I think we will see a similar thing happen after Segwit2x as the previous fork. The price is crashing/unstable now as there is uncertainty. However, after the fork (or no fork) at least there will not be any more drama involved in that respect and we will be able to see the price rise. I for one am in favor of Segwit2x as it makes the implementation of LN easier, which we desperately need.

[yoseph]

I really hope this doesn't cause any major problems in the near future and neither do we want anymore splits happening with the bitcoin network, We haven't fully recovered from the Chinese threatening to ban bitcoin mess yet so, I am bit skeptical about any further changes to bitcoin in any way.

[bettercrypto]

Well it is good to know that it will at least needs longer days than what OP had stated.  I always support anything that will push Bitcoin to another level even if it needs to leave all the obsolete codes behinds as long as it holds the fundamentals of why Bitcoin is created.    This is technology and it needs improvement and need to evolve, if it failed to evolve, it will be left out and eventually die due to some new competitor with advance technology and scalability out there.

[RGBKey]

No, there's ~40 days left. You've got your numbers mixed up. Anyhow, SegWit2x has almost zero community support and is nothing other than an attack from Jihan, i.e. takeover attempt. Run Core and avoid those baboons.

It wont be in 10 days. November 18  is around the date we can expect block 494784, which is when Segwit2x should hard fork to 2MB blocks.

Oops, you're right. I'm not sure where I got the September 30th date from.

I do agree with the other voices in this thread that SegWit2x has a right to exist, but as those people have already pointed out, this thread is about personal support.

seggy2x is pointless because of BCH.

I actually disagree with you here, because I would support SegWit2x before I supported BCH, simply because of the existence of SegWit and relatively smaller block sizes in 2x.

My stance is a fairly liberal one.  I'm always inclined to take the position that everyone having complete and total freedom to run whatever code they choose is infinitely preferable to a scenario where one group dictates to all the other groups what they can or can't do.  I don't subscribe to the notion some people around here seem to endorse, that one single development team should make all the decisions for the rest of forever and everyone else should obey.  I'm happy to endure a little turbulence and open rebellion if it keeps the would-be authoritarians in this community in check.

The miners are perfectly entitled to secure a 2mb base and 6mb witness chain if that's what they want to do with their hashpower.  I don't know where anyone gets off thinking they can dictate to other people what chain they have to secure.  Similarly, the Core devs are perfectly entitled to change the mining algorithm on the 1mb base and 3mb witness chain making the miner's hardware all but useless on it.  In the end, everyone gets what they think they want.  At least until they change their mind when it doesn't work out as well as they thought it would.  Which could still happen after the fork.  The split might be permanent, but it might not.  We'll have to see how it plays out.

As for the poll, I support the right for SegWit2x to exist if people want it to.  I'm not sure if that's what you had in mind for an answer,  though.

I agree with all of your points, even though I may prefer the one chain over the other, what you said is true in my mind.

[HeRetiK]

I initially thought of SegWit2x as a good approach to bring the community back together, but the more time I spent looking into the matter, the less convinced I was. The final nail in the coffin being the deliberate lack of replay protection.

I'm all for hardforks to let the market decide which currency prevails, but the lack of replay protection is just reckless. Say what you will about BCH, but at least they got that part right, albeit barely.

[Hydrogen]

I agree with everything OP said.

One question though, can they call it a fork if the network forces everyone to use bitcoin and its alt?

Also if it becomes impossible to move your bitcoin without also moving the bitcoin alt, could that be an additional layer of surveillance/monitoring/regulation via the altcoin network software?

PS - does anyone notice how the only ones who support forks are from china or brand new accounts with less than 100 activity?

[aleksej996]

We shouldn't hold an idea that someone is out to get us. Forks happen, their intent is impossible to know. Increasing the block size gives an obvious benefit, so we can't just claim that it is an attack. People can run whatever they want and no one should be attacked for it. No one can hurt you on the blockchain. It is a consensus. If people want a different consensus, then let them have it, it is their right.

That being said I think Bitcoin should avoid any hard forks unless it is necessary. I believe that stability of the technology is very important for it's success.
This is up to the users what they want to use, but I am just making points on why I believe people shouldn't support Segwit2x even tho there is nothing wrong with supporting it if you believe it is a right choice.

I believe that Segwit2x came too early and is putting way to much at stake and therefor puts the users on more pressure to make a choice on something that might not be necessary at all. We haven't seen if Lightning network and Segwit is enough for scaling the Bitcoin network and no replay protection means that you have to make a choice.

It just seems to rushed and to forced for no good reason. If people believe in Segwit2x then that is completely reasonable, but if they believe that they have to activate it in a month, I would say that that is unreasonable. Not wrong or evil, just unreasonable.

[eckmar]

• SegWit2x is an attack on Bitcoin, designed to move control of the software design from the developers into the hands of the miners.
• The blocksize should not be increased until all other measures to make the network more efficient have been exhausted (Lightning Network, Schnorr Signatures, MAST,
  etc.)

I don't understand that is wrong with both of these ? I mean it's okay for me that miners are the ones deciding how it should be since they are the one confirming transactions. About that second point, yeah Lightning network would be great byt blockchain size increase is the easiest fix  right now.

[gentlemand]

It got us Segwit which is a wonderful thing, though we'll never know how big a factor UASF was in that. The hard fork bit is reckless, rushed, put together by nobodies and the companies shouting loudest for it like Bitpay are starting to look like real penises.

I can't see how it's going to succeed in its present form. At the same time its failure would strengthen Core even more and perhaps it's time there was a reminder that it can't always be their way or the highway.

A lot could change between now and then. There might not be any of the Chinese miners or pools around by then to signal it.

[jaocoincrypto18]

I really hope this doesn't cause any major problems in the near future and neither do we want anymore splits happening with the bitcoin network, We haven't fully recovered from the Chinese threatening to ban bitcoin mess yet so, I am bit skeptical about any further changes to bitcoin in any way.

If this  another coming event is true and i have had some experiences already went though still i always keep the faith that bitcoin will survived this because lot of investors especially in popular names will help to protect the investment. I just thinking other people may panic again i hope they already learned from tha past.

[romani245]

I initially thought of SegWit2x as a good approach to bring the community back together, but the more time I spent looking into the matter, the less convinced I was. The final nail in the coffin being the deliberate lack of replay protection.

I'm all for hardforks to let the market decide which currency prevails, but the lack of replay protection is just reckless. Say what you will about BCH, but at least they got that part right, albeit barely.

The BCH developers waited until the last few days before the fork (i.e. the 11th hour) to add replay protection. Just like the Segwit2x guys, they didn't want to add replay protection because 1) it would make BCH not Bitcoin and 2) there wouldn't be working HD wallets out the box. Those two aspects make a hard fork much less attractive, so naturally, the forkers want to maintain the position that "consensus has been reached, so replay protection is not necessary."

Of course, hard forks basically guarantee network splits, so replay protection should always be necessary. I hope that this becomes the normal etiquette. Everyone should be free to fork, but lack of replay protection means many people will lose money -- guaranteed.