#NO2X - JOIN THE WAR!

[rifiuti]

What is this?

Segwit2x is going to happen. Why sit here and say it won't? It has so much support for miners and the companies. Making some post on a forum showing how Core doesn't want it is just making you look bad.

Everything is going to be ok.... Calm down lol. Everyone is always so on edge about hard forks, meanwhile bitcoin goes even higher each time...

You came here to write this non-sense comment to fill up your monthly post quota so you can get paid from sig campaign, huh?

Pity.

[rifiuti]

Well basically that means there will be a hard fork with a replay protection or something, for sure. Coinbase, Xapo and all the NYA signers not going to move S2X chain but wait and see if S2X going to survive or not.

If the majority hash power moves to S2X and Legacy Bitcoin blockchain gets weak due low hashrate, NYA companies will have a good reason to convince their users about why they will move to S2X "to protect users money".

Unfortunately, that gives Bitmain a lot of power here. People are under the impression that Bitmain doesn't care about Segwit2x because of Bitcoin Cash. I disagree. The BCH fork was largely about pushing the ecosystem away from Core. This represents another opportunity for Bitmain to do that, by making the legacy chain the weaker chain.

It's already widely believed that most of the Chinese pools (as well as BTC.com) are just Bitmain proxies. And in private, according to Greg Maxwell, Jihan Wu has bragged that Bitmain controls a majority of the hash rate outright.

That is the first option. Second option is, let's say %50 of the hashrate is moved to S2X. So, Original Bitcoin blocks will be created more slowly, UTXO will grow up and yes network congestion will happen but I think the gap will be replaced quickly.

This may happen but in the long term, it won't sustain. The market will eventually tip one direction or the other, and miners will follow. The question is: how much effect can miners have on the market? If most miners leave the network, that may have a big psychological effect on holders/traders.

I can support the idea of other pools being Bitmain Proxies.

Antpool, btc.top, viabtc, btc.com, bixin, bitcoin.com > %60 of the hashrate.

[Lauda]

What is this?

Segwit2x is going to happen. Why sit here and say it won't? It has so much support for miners and the companies. Making some post on a forum showing how Core doesn't want it is just making you look bad.
Everything is going to be ok.... Calm down lol. Everyone is always so on edge about hard forks, meanwhile bitcoin goes even higher each time...

You came here to write this non-sense comment to fill up your monthly post quota so you can get paid from sig campaign, huh?
Pity.

He obviously did. Such a loser with shallow knowledge and understanding.

I can support the idea of other pools being Bitmain Proxies.

Antpool, btc.top, viabtc, btc.com, bixin, bitcoin.com > %60 of the hashrate.

I am not so sure about Bixin and bitcoin.com, but the others are definitely Bitmain proxies and there was *evidence* of this in the past. BITMAIN is evil.

[rifiuti]

What is this?

Segwit2x is going to happen. Why sit here and say it won't? It has so much support for miners and the companies. Making some post on a forum showing how Core doesn't want it is just making you look bad.
Everything is going to be ok.... Calm down lol. Everyone is always so on edge about hard forks, meanwhile bitcoin goes even higher each time...

You came here to write this non-sense comment to fill up your monthly post quota so you can get paid from sig campaign, huh?
Pity.

He obviously did. Such a loser with shallow knowledge and understanding.

I can support the idea of other pools being Bitmain Proxies.

Antpool, btc.top, viabtc, btc.com, bixin, bitcoin.com > %60 of the hashrate.

I am not so sure about Bixin and bitcoin.com, but the others are definitely Bitmain proxies and there was *evidence* of this in the past. BITMAIN is evil.

Indeed, they are. Well, Bitcoin.com belongs to Roger so Roger = Jihan = Bitmain.

Not just that. Bitcoin.com announced that they will use 2x chain as a main chain, they will literally ignore the legacy chain.

Bixin also supports Segwit2x from the beginning.

[Lauda]

Indeed, they are. Well, Bitcoin.com belongs to Roger so Roger = Jihan = Bitmain.

Not just that. Bitcoin.com announced that they will use 2x chain as a main chain, they will literally ignore the legacy chain.

You shouldn't listen to nor take anything that Roger Ver says seriously. He's a spoiled manchild. He recently said that Bitcoin Cash is the true Bitcoin, then change his statement to 2x a few days after. His statements are worthless, nor is he or this band of suits able to define Bitcoin.

Bixin also supports Segwit2x from the beginning.

That does not necessarily have to imply that they are a Bitmain proxy (and I sure hope that they are not). There's still time for them to pull out of the agreement.

[rifiuti]

Indeed, they are. Well, Bitcoin.com belongs to Roger so Roger = Jihan = Bitmain.

Not just that. Bitcoin.com announced that they will use 2x chain as a main chain, they will literally ignore the legacy chain.

You shouldn't listen to nor take anything that Roger Ver says seriously. He's a spoiled manchild. He recently said that Bitcoin Cash is the true Bitcoin, then change his statement to 2x a few days after. His statements are worthless, nor is he or this band of suits able to define Bitcoin.

Bixin also supports Segwit2x from the beginning.

That does not necessarily have to imply that they are a Bitmain proxy (and I sure hope that they are not). There's still time for them to pull out of the agreement.

Doubt it.



Very important post from core; https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2017-10-09-segwit2x-safety

[exstasie]

as for lauda's account of the 2x part.. either lauda is dumb or he is part of it..
2x was always a bait and switch.. bait the community with a chance of 2x by getting the community to naively accept segwit first using the bait of segwit2x.. then switch back to trying to get people to hate the 2x part.. even though the community only accepted segwit recently due to the agreement of the 2x being part of the deal

But the Segwit2x agreement didn't involve users/the community. It just involved a bunch of VC-backed companies, many who have business models that are threatened by transaction fees replacing block subsidy. They'd prefer to increase the costs to run nodes and enter the mining sector -- due to propagation/bandwidth costs -- in order to reduce transactions costs. That way, transaction fees won't eat up all of their revenue.

Now, I'm sympathetic to that from their business perspective, but not to the point where it should affect my money. They should adapt to Bitcoin, not the other way around.

if the community was so strongly desiring just segwit it would have activated by christmas2016.. rather than lingering at 25-30%

That wasn't up to the community. Only miners had any say at that point.

[marky89]

Indeed, they are. Well, Bitcoin.com belongs to Roger so Roger = Jihan = Bitmain.

Not just that. Bitcoin.com announced that they will use 2x chain as a main chain, they will literally ignore the legacy chain.

You shouldn't listen to nor take anything that Roger Ver says seriously. He's a spoiled manchild. He recently said that Bitcoin Cash is the true Bitcoin, then change his statement to 2x a few days after. His statements are worthless, nor is he or this band of suits able to define Bitcoin.

I also think that Roger's manchild nature is probably keeping him from listening to good legal counsel on this. If Bitcoin.com really ignores the legacy chain, changes the "BTC" ticker to an altcoin, and pawns these off on buyers / wallet users, Roger is in for a world of hurt when the lawsuits start rolling in. Bitcoin.com is brokering the exchange of goods and as a custodian, there are certain duties of care that must be taken from a legal perspective.

Bixin also supports Segwit2x from the beginning.

That does not necessarily have to imply that they are a Bitmain proxy (and I sure hope that they are not). There's still time for them to pull out of the agreement.

Bixin's policy towards Bitcoin Cash suggests that they are not a Bitmain proxy. But I suppose that could be a red herring.

[Lauda]

Doubt it.

There is nothing to doubt. There is time to pull out, and that's a fact.

I also think that Roger's manchild nature is probably keeping him from listening to good legal counsel on this. If Bitcoin.com really ignores the legacy chain, changes the "BTC" ticker to an altcoin, and pawns these off on buyers / wallet users, Roger is in for a world of hurt when the lawsuits start rolling in. Bitcoin.com is brokering the exchange of goods and as a custodian, there are certain duties of care that must be taken from a legal perspective.

His fall would be very beneficial to Bitcoin, just FYI. Without someone like him, we wouldn't even be here. He's stupid enough to realize that agencies such as NSA have infiltrated both sides (especially his) and are manipulating him, as his technical knowledge is very shallow.

Bixin's policy towards Bitcoin Cash suggests that they are not a Bitmain proxy. But I suppose that could be a red herring.

It's hard to tell at this time, but I am slightly convinced that they are not.

[hv_]

What is this?

Segwit2x is going to happen. Why sit here and say it won't? It has so much support for miners and the companies. Making some post on a forum showing how Core doesn't want it is just making you look bad.
Everything is going to be ok.... Calm down lol. Everyone is always so on edge about hard forks, meanwhile bitcoin goes even higher each time...

You came here to write this non-sense comment to fill up your monthly post quota so you can get paid from sig campaign, huh?
Pity.

He obviously did. Such a loser with shallow knowledge and understanding.

I can support the idea of other pools being Bitmain Proxies.

Antpool, btc.top, viabtc, btc.com, bixin, bitcoin.com > %60 of the hashrate.

I am not so sure about Bixin and bitcoin.com, but the others are definitely Bitmain proxies and there was *evidence* of this in the past. BITMAIN is evil.

When you go to logic, what does this tell you of your bitcoin than ?  You cannot trust any TX any more since it's done by 'the evil' all over ?

So pls stop supporting this yours evil bitcoin any more and give up.

[Lauda]

When you go to logic, what does this tell you of your bitcoin than ?

"Your Bitcoin"? You're showing signs of shill delusion again.

 You cannot trust any TX any more since it's done by 'the evil' all over ?

Anyone knowledgeable enough would simply see the stupidity of that question. Then again, big blockists aren't famous for their intellect nor knowledge.

So pls stop supporting this yours evil bitcoin any more and give up.

No. I shall publicly scrutinize both Bitmain, Jihan, Ver & co. for the cartel like behavior. They are the true scum of Bitcoin.

[DooMAD]

2x was always a bait and switch.. bait the community with a chance of 2x by getting the community to naively accept segwit first using the bait of segwit2x.. then switch back to trying to get people to hate the 2x part.. even though the community only accepted segwit recently due to the agreement of the 2x being part of the deal

But the Segwit2x agreement didn't involve users/the community. It just involved a bunch of VC-backed companies, many who have business models that are threatened by transaction fees replacing block subsidy. They'd prefer to increase the costs to run nodes and enter the mining sector -- due to propagation/bandwidth costs -- in order to reduce transactions costs. That way, transaction fees won't eat up all of their revenue.

Now, I'm sympathetic to that from their business perspective, but not to the point where it should affect my money. They should adapt to Bitcoin, not the other way around.

if the community was so strongly desiring just segwit it would have activated by christmas2016.. rather than lingering at 25-30%

That wasn't up to the community. Only miners had any say at that point.

What might help is if people stopped putting this bizarre invisible barrier between miners and "the community".  Why aren't miners part of the community?  Why are they always this separate entity who supposedly has to follow obediently and silently?  It's baffling that most of the people here simultaneously bitch about miners having too much power, whilst in the same breath trying to relegate them to slave status.  Everyone wants to rely on their hashpower, but no one wants them to have any freedom.  It's unrealistic.

I think, if we're genuinely going to be a community, we need to drop this ridiculous "us and them" mentality.  Whatever happens after the November fork, there has to be more cohesion and cooperation between the various network participants, because the silly games we're playing at the moment (where every single disagreement is automatically the fault of miners despite it taking two to sides to have a disagreement), clearly don't work.  If we don't find some sort of equilibrium, it's just going to be fork after fork for the foreseeable future.

If you don't want the miners to be your enemy, it might be an idea to stop treating them like one.

[hv_]

When you go to logic, what does this tell you of your bitcoin than ?

"Your Bitcoin"? You're showing signs of shill delusion again.

 You cannot trust any TX any more since it's done by 'the evil' all over ?

Anyone knowledgeable enough would simply see the stupidity of that question. Then again, big blockists aren't famous for their intellect nor knowledge.

So pls stop supporting this yours evil bitcoin any more and give up.

No. I shall publicly scrutinize both Bitmain, Jihan, Ver & co. for the cartel like behavior. They are the true scum of Bitcoin.

You just cannot admit that you've not the same strong position than others with more skin in the game than littly you. So it is very easy to rant against these but not very clever to do in public and let many show how rotten your charachter is deep inside. You do not provide / support any good solution for keeping the community together for many years now. Now we can all see what issues we got with that splitting.

[Lauda]

What might help is if people stopped putting this bizarre invisible barrier between miners and "the community".  Why aren't miners part of the community?  

There's nothing wrong with pointing on the current situation, which is that most miners don't represent the community. However, the problem is mainly due to most miners = Jihad Wu.

Why are they always this separate entity who supposedly has to follow obediently and silently?  

Because the most *power* in Bitcoin have the users, otherwise the system has failed.

It's baffling that most of the people here simultaneously bitch about miners having too much power, whilst in the same breath trying to relegate them to slave status.

Listening to the community and developers has nothing to do with being a slave.

Everyone wants to rely on their hashpower, but no one wants them to have any freedom.  It's unrealistic.

Wrong. Quite a lot of people would be extremely satisfied if Jihan completely left.

I think, if we're genuinely going to be a community, we need to drop this ridiculous "us and them" mentality.  

You haven't been reading the other "side" lately, have you? Stop preaching bs.

You just cannot admit that you've not the same strong position than others with more skin in the game than littly you. So it is very easy to rant against these but not very clever to do in public and let many show how rotten your charachter is deep inside. You do not provide / support any good solution for keeping the community together for many years now. Now we can all see what issues we got with that splitting.

How much "skin" someone has in the game has absolutely nothing to do with whether they're evil or not. With the case of Roger Ver and Jihan, both have become so malicious that is it ridiculous. Bitcoin does not need a rushed, let alone contentious, and dangerous hard fork, which is coded by an amateur such as Garzik, anytime soon.

[pat4cryptoreal]

This is exactly what happen when bitcoin was about to be fork. So many threatening information from people that claim to know about segwit with blockchain terminologies that got an ordinary person that do not have indept knowledge about blockchain confused. Those information causes panic but I think no matter what some people that sounds like expertise say the masses will not be afraid this time. I do not see any cause for war.

[Lauda]

This is exactly what happen when bitcoin was about to be fork. So many threatening information from people that claim to know about segwit with blockchain terminologies that got an ordinary person that do not have indept knowledge about blockchain confused. Those information causes panic but I think no matter what some people that sounds like expertise say the masses will not be afraid this time. I do not see any cause for war.

Classic signature spam with zero value. Go spam in some other place.

[DooMAD]

Why are they always this separate entity who supposedly has to follow obediently and silently?  

Because the most *power* in Bitcoin have the users, otherwise the system has failed.

Why should this "power" include telling other people what software they can or can't run?  If users could do that (and I'm glad they can't) THEN the system has failed.  Users will always have the freedom to decide which chain they wish to transact on.  Why isn't that enough for you?  Why do you want to dictate terms to people who don't owe you a damn thing?

It's baffling that most of the people here simultaneously bitch about miners having too much power, whilst in the same breath trying to relegate them to slave status.

Listening to the community and developers has nothing to do with being a slave.

Your use of the word "listening" here distinctly implies not just "hearing" what the community and developers are saying, but also "obeying".  Hence slave.  They listened.  They just didn't agree.  That's allowed.  Deal with it.  Either the alignment of incentives will prove them wrong to disagree, or it won't.  Whichever it turns out to be, most of those miners you currently disagree with will, most likely, eventually be back on the same chain as the majority of users, because the most profitable chain to mine will be the one most people transact on.  And you'll still, most likely, be complaining about how terrible they all supposedly are, despite the fact there's nothing you can do to prevent their involvement.  And even if you could prevent their involvement, you'd have to sacrifice one of Bitcoin's primary tenets of permisionlessness in order to do so.  It's far simpler just to let them get on with whatever the hell they want to do.  You can still run whatever code you want.  Beyond that, you're as impotent as everyone else.

Everyone wants to rely on their hashpower, but no one wants them to have any freedom.  It's unrealistic.

Wrong. Quite a lot of people would be extremely satisfied if Jihan completely left.

Until 5 minutes pass and they find another boogeyman to plead for someone in authority to "save" us from.  Quite a lot of people are morons in that regard.  It's all getting a bit too overprotective and interfering lately.  Like people who whine about forks having the name "Bitcoin" in them because it might confuse people, or those who would gladly prefer to restrict freedom in the name of supposed security.  Hardly the cypherpunk values Bitcoin was founded upon.



This is most of the people in the thread.  You are all Helen Lovejoy.  Stop it.

I think, if we're genuinely going to be a community, we need to drop this ridiculous "us and them" mentality.  

You haven't been reading the other "side" lately, have you? Stop preaching bs.

I'm not here saying any "side" has any kind of moral high ground.  Both have done stupid, petty crap.  Neither comes out of this looking good.  Again, it takes two to tango, stop pretending any "side" is innocent here.  So going forward, we need to stop having "sides".  We need to stop the polarising fragmentation, the tribalism, the pointless bickering and the incessant baseless character assassinations.

I'm confident Bitcoin will emerge stronger after all this drama blows over and will set a precedent that all the cypherpussies on this board and elsewhere were utterly wasting their time and blood pressure fretting over issues of "control" and "power" in vain.  People will run the code they want to run and the network will move forward accordingly.

[hv_]

Why are they always this separate entity who supposedly has to follow obediently and silently?  

Because the most *power* in Bitcoin have the users, otherwise the system has failed.

Why should this "power" include telling other people what software they can or can't run?  If users could do that (and I'm glad they can't) THEN the system has failed.  Users will always have the freedom to decide which chain they wish to transact on.  Why isn't that enough for you?  Why do you want to dictate terms to people who don't owe you a damn thing?

It's baffling that most of the people here simultaneously bitch about miners having too much power, whilst in the same breath trying to relegate them to slave status.

Listening to the community and developers has nothing to do with being a slave.

Your use of the word "listening" here distinctly implies not just "hearing" what the community and developers are saying, but also "obeying".  Hence slave.  They listened.  They just didn't agree.  That's allowed.  Deal with it.  Either the alignment of incentives will prove them wrong to disagree, or it won't.  Whichever it turns out to be, most of those miners you currently disagree with will, most likely, eventually be back on the same chain as the majority of users, because the most profitable chain to mine will be the one most people transact on.  And you'll still, most likely, be complaining about how terrible they all supposedly are, despite the fact there's nothing you can do to prevent their involvement.  And even if you could prevent their involvement, you'd have to sacrifice one of Bitcoin's primary tenets of permisionlessness in order to do so.  It's far simpler just to let them get on with whatever the hell they want to do.  You can still run whatever code you want.  Beyond that, you're as impotent as everyone else.

Everyone wants to rely on their hashpower, but no one wants them to have any freedom.  It's unrealistic.

Wrong. Quite a lot of people would be extremely satisfied if Jihan completely left.

Until 5 minutes pass and they find another boogeyman to plead for someone in authority to "save" us from.  Quite a lot of people are morons in that regard.  It's all getting a bit too overprotective and interfering lately.  Like people who whine about forks having the name "Bitcoin" in them because it might confuse people, or those who would gladly prefer to restrict freedom in the name of supposed security.  Hardly the cypherpunk values Bitcoin was founded upon.



This is most of the people in the thread.  You are all Helen Lovejoy.  Stop it.

I think, if we're genuinely going to be a community, we need to drop this ridiculous "us and them" mentality.  

You haven't been reading the other "side" lately, have you? Stop preaching bs.

I'm not here saying any "side" has any kind of moral high ground.  Both have done stupid, petty crap.  Neither comes out of this looking good.  Again, it takes two to tango, stop pretending any "side" is innocent here.  So going forward, we need to stop having "sides".  We need to stop the polarising fragmentation, the tribalism, the pointless bickering and the incessant baseless character assassinations.

I'm confident Bitcoin will emerge stronger after all this drama blows over and will set a precedent that all the cypherpussies on this board and elsewhere were utterly wasting their time and blood pressure fretting over issues of "control" and "power" in vain.  People will run the code they want to run and the network will move forward accordingly.

++  this

Freedom of choice

[Lauda]

Why should this "power" include telling other people what software they can or can't run?  If users could do that (and I'm glad they can't) THEN the system has failed.  Users will always have the freedom to decide which chain they wish to transact on.  Why isn't that enough for you?  Why do you want to dictate terms to people who don't owe you a damn thing?

The same reason for which the corporate baboons, i.e. attackers attempt to hijack the name Bitcoin for their own terms. Users with actual knowledge about the system, should educate and spread the use of Bitcoin clients not "cancer altcoin disguised as Bitcoin" clients.

Your use of the word "listening" here distinctly implies not just "hearing" what the community and developers are saying, but also "obeying".  Hence slave.  They listened.  They just didn't agree.  

The latter is a lie and you are being fed kool-aid. Pretty much anyone who understands Segwit, which does not include Ver, Jihan, Wright, Oliver, Thomas, etc., embraces Segwit. Jihan has been paying for anti-Segwit propaganda in China a few months ago. Wake up.

And you'll still, most likely, be complaining about how terrible they all supposedly are, despite the fact there's nothing you can do to prevent their involvement.  

"Supposedly" is the wrong wording unless you're delusional. Bonus: That's a false generalization fallacy right there.

And even if you could prevent their involvement, you'd have to sacrifice one of Bitcoin's primary tenets of permisionlessness in order to do so.  It's far simpler just to let them get on with whatever the hell they want to do.  You can still run whatever code you want.  Beyond that, you're as impotent as everyone else.

False. You can fork away the current miners.

Until 5 minutes pass and they find another boogeyman to plead for someone in authority to "save" us from.  

It was fine until we got Anderesen'd, Hearnia'd. Now only two people are left in the way of a peaceful Bitcoin.

Quite a lot of people are morons in that regard.  It's all getting a bit too overprotective and interfering lately.  Like people who whine about forks having the name "Bitcoin" in them because it might confuse people, or those who would gladly prefer to restrict freedom in the name of supposed security.  Hardly the cypherpunk values Bitcoin was founded upon.

Alright; you need to be an idiot to stand by (or even condone) while malicious actors deceive individuals, cause damage to said individuals, and then proceed label people who fights against such malevolent action non cypherpunk. Then again, Ver has an army of shills in his company. You never know who you're talking to.

I'm not here saying any "side" has any kind of moral high ground.  Both have done stupid, petty crap.

No. Bitcoin Core, as a group of independent individuals has done nothing wrong. Yet Garzik, Ver, Jihan keep attacking them and condoning attacks on them.

So going forward, we need to stop having "sides".  

Wrong. We need the idiots out of the way. They can fork into an altcoin, without stealing the name Bitcoin and we'd be much better off.

Freedom of choice

Go away already.

[hv_]

Go away already.

Yawn - this I accept and seems all big ones and many others have followed this lonesome advice much earlier.