#NO2X - JOIN THE WAR!

[Lauda]

Go away already.

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

Nope, a very small minority that thought big blocks were important, yet were proven wrong by their failed shitcoin called Bcash, are rooting for Segwit2x. Anyone sensible, educated, and non-greedy && malicious is staying with the one, true, Bitcoin. Keep drinking your kool-aid, paid baboon.

[DooMAD]

Bitcoin does not need a rushed, let alone contentious, and dangerous hard fork, which is coded by an amateur such as Garzik, anytime soon.

Here's what Bitcoin does not need (for the third time, no less, so I might try some extra emphasis).

Bitcoin doesn't want or need your pampered, mollycoddled, nanny-state, protectionist foolishness.  Bitcoin survives in the wild and grows stronger and more robust through adaptation and freedom of choice, selecting the best code available from the open market at any given time.  Bitcoin does not need you to defend it from would-be attackers.  It can do that all by itself and, whether you personally approve of the code being used or not, Bitcoin will come out stronger at the end of it

You can have your plush toy badger with all the health and safety warnings and no sharp edges.  I'll have the rabid honey badger that rips your damn face off if the inclination strikes.  Cry harder about your boogeymen, Bitcoin doesn't care.  

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.

Waaaagh!  Hijackers!  Waaaagh!  Hostile Takeovers!  Waaaagh!  Sacking Developers!

Could any of you protectionist fascists sound any more juvenile?  How many more times?  There can be no takeover unless you give these corporations your private keys or your preferred dev team give them control of the repo.  Assuming you and the devs aren't dumb enough to do that, you can't have any decisions made for you.  You are in total control of your respective funds and/or repositories.  But you don't have total control over what any of the other network participants do, so quit trying.

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.

Yes, they didn't listen and they're just including SegWit for shits and giggles.  If they weren't listening, they wouldn't have included SegWit at all.  What are you even on about?

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.

Again with the what?  The miners are forking away.  Doesn't mean they're gone for good.  The only way you're getting rid of them permanently is with the nuclear option of an algo change.  You're perfectly free to pursue that avenue if you want.

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.

This forum isn't capable of a peaceful Bitcoin.  

It's a 24/7/365 witch-hunt with the assclowns on this site.  They can't help themselves.

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.

And I commend the devs on maintaining a mostly neutral stance despite the slanging match encompassing them.  This is purely about the 24/7/365 witch-hunt assclowns vs the so-called BigBlockers idiocy.  It's all just posturing at the end of the day.  Only the numbers matter.  And again, Bitcoin will be fine.

[Lauda]

Alright, I used to give you the benefit of the doubt even though others were insisting that I do not in the past. I was mistaken about you. Please leave this thread in peace now, thanks. Even monkeys have managed to develop better methods and practices than libtards did.
If you are from the UK, then I'm less surprised by your behavior though. Disclaimer: You've posted no arguments other than "you're wrong, and "we" i.e. I think I'm right". Unless you're also on a payroll, wake up already.

Jihan has been paying for anti-Segwit propaganda in China a few months ago.

[squatter]

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'm partial to the idea that miners are part of the community, and I think that some of the major miners (like Bitfury, F2Pool) are fairly in touch with the userbase and are apparently concerned about what they want. I don't feel the same sense of community from miners like Bitmain. Jihan Wu spends his time/energy attacking Core and pumping Bitcoin Cash -- the next batch of miners is only payable in Bitcoin Cash. What's that about?

Buying mining equipment is supposed to be a way to invest in BTC while supporting the network; it shouldn't be an avenue to get people to prop up the BCH price for Bitmain.

[Lauda]

I'm partial to the idea that miners are part of the community, and I think that some of the major miners (like Bitfury, F2Pool) are fairly in touch with the userbase and are apparently concerned about what they want.

DooMAD is acting like a individual of justice, but he's just being an idiot with his fallacies. He made a very bad generalization about the miners when responding to me. Bitfury, F2Pool and Slush are some of the nice ones that I could list now. The F2Pool owner tends to troll for comedy, and Slush has very nice voting implements and very healthy views about Bitcoin.

I don't feel the same sense of community from miners like Bitmain. Jihan Wu spends his time/energy attacking Core and pumping Bitcoin Cash -- the next batch of miners is only payable in Bitcoin Cash. What's that about?

BTC.TOP, also known as Bitmain proxy, threatened to undercut the F2Pool owner unless he continues to support 2x. Then DooMAD comes in and claims they are "supposedly" evil, according to me. What a joke. Don't even get me started on the "Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin" propaganda from Roger and Jihan.

Buying mining equipment is supposed to be a way to invest in BTC while supporting the network; it shouldn't be an avenue to get people to prop up the BCH price for Bitmain.

Mining centralization is extremely dangerous, and we've observed this in 2017. I can't wait for the day that Russia and that Japan GMO obliterates Jihan.

If a select group of CEOs and investors, no matter how benevolent their intentions, can unilaterally make decisions about the consensus rules without public comment and force these changes upon the network regardless of overall consensus, then Bitcoin will have lost the properties that make it valuable in the first place.

https://medium.com/@seoulbitcoin/statement-on-segwit2x-161db1ad1976

[rifiuti]

Bitcoin does not need a rushed, let alone contentious, and dangerous hard fork, which is coded by an amateur such as Garzik, anytime soon.

Here's what Bitcoin does not need (for the third time, no less, so I might try some extra emphasis).

Bitcoin doesn't want or need your pampered, mollycoddled, nanny-state, protectionist foolishness.  Bitcoin survives in the wild and grows stronger and more robust through adaptation and freedom of choice, selecting the best code available from the open market at any given time.  Bitcoin does not need you to defend it from would-be attackers.  It can do that all by itself and, whether you personally approve of the code being used or not, Bitcoin will come out stronger at the end of it

You can have your plush toy badger with all the health and safety warnings and no sharp edges.  I'll have the rabid honey badger that rips your damn face off if the inclination strikes.  Cry harder about your boogeymen, Bitcoin doesn't care.  

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.

Waaaagh!  Hijackers!  Waaaagh!  Hostile Takeovers!  Waaaagh!  Sacking Developers!

Could any of you protectionist fascists sound any more juvenile?  How many more times?  There can be no takeover unless you give these corporations your private keys or your preferred dev team give them control of the repo.  Assuming you and the devs aren't dumb enough to do that, you can't have any decisions made for you.  You are in total control of your respective funds and/or repositories.  But you don't have total control over what any of the other network participants do, so quit trying.

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.

Yes, they didn't listen and they're just including SegWit for shits and giggles.  If they weren't listening, they wouldn't have included SegWit at all.  What are you even on about?

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.

Again with the what?  The miners are forking away.  Doesn't mean they're gone for good.  The only way you're getting rid of them permanently is with the nuclear option of an algo change.  You're perfectly free to pursue that avenue if you want.

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.

This forum isn't capable of a peaceful Bitcoin.  

It's a 24/7/365 witch-hunt with the assclowns on this site.  They can't help themselves.

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.

And I commend the devs on maintaining a mostly neutral stance despite the slanging match encompassing them.  This is purely about the 24/7/365 witch-hunt assclowns vs the so-called BigBlockers idiocy.  It's all just posturing at the end of the day.  Only the numbers matter.  And again, Bitcoin will be fine.

1.

"We want to bring Bitcoin to more users because it has unique features and qualities (namely permissionless-ness, resistance to tx censorship, resistance to inflation, pseudonymity) that the existing financial system doesn't offer. The presence of these features is contrary to the interests of many powerful entities (the legacy banking system, governments and their surveillance agencies) and only survive thanks to Bitcoin's decentralisation and absence of centralised points of failure. Being willing to sacrifice or endanger Bitcoin's decentralisation to achieve scaling isn't wise or forward thinking, and is completely self-defeating.

What's the point of on-boarding an ever greater number of users if you run the risk of weakening those features and give those users the same experience than current centralised paiement systems offer, e.g. tx censorship, vulnerability to inflation, and government surveillance? This would be a nonsensical and unproductive thing to do.

Doing this would be all the more absurd that we now know (as we have since 2015) that, before increasing base block size, we can greatly increase throughput through more efficient of block space (with Segwit and, in the near future, with MAST, Schnorr signatures and signatures aggregation) and more importantly, with second layer technologies such as the Lightning Network or sidechains. These technologies are under rapid development, and will soon alleviate scaling."

2.

Bitcoin is a formidable opportunity to bring greater monetary, economic and political freedom to all humans, and the single best hope of freedom-loving persons in this otherwise authoritarian and freedom-hating century. Regardless of whatever understanding or sympathy we may have for you and other NYA signatories, we who care about those things can not accept cooptation by companies who effectively are centralised points of failure at the mercy of governments.

If I could sum up my position (and the position of many users preoccupied with decentralisation), it would be: "let us scale wisely, without making short-term compromises that would weaken Bitcoin's unique features". Merely increasing base block size as soon as we lack space would be akin to kicking the can down the road to serfdom. And changing consensus rules at a whim - or worse, engaging in a 51% attack to coerce the community into following the new rules - would get us there in no time.

Source; https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-October/000372.html

[Rahar02]

They are getting nasty and nasty everyday. Today 2x devs just merged the ability for segwit2x to disguise itself to not get banned by 0.15 nodes; https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/commit/28ebbdb1f4ab632a1500b2c412a157839608fed0

lol
might be worth you researching and realising the term consensus

btc1 wants to use consensus so that the community choose..

its core that want to prevent community choice by CORE.. yes CORE banning nodes and avoiding consensus forming a honest decision on what the community want.

again i state it a different way. CORE are the ones creating the altcoin by preventing consensus from finding a single route based on bitcoins built in decentralised decision making process known as consensus(orphaning mechanism)/b]

please learn consensus and realise CORE are avoiding bitcoins built in mechanisms..
this means core are the nasty ones by becoming the centralised decision makers.

really people.. wake up

Marked this one, franky1 was right.
I'm a core developers fan, like 1Mb blocksize and segwit implementation even though most platforms/wallets still not support it.
But, it's true about core developers were the one who push the limit by reject btc1 nodes, taken some precautions steps to ensure 2x become another altcoin, it's against the rule of consensus, right?

[Lauda]

Marked this one, franky1 was right.

No, franky1 is wrong as usual.

I'm a core developers fan, like 1Mb blocksize and segwit implementation even though most platforms/wallets still not support it.

The 1 MB block size limit was put in place, and is in place for a reason. SegWit is a much better way of doing transactions, and if you have complains about "congestion" or "fees" blame those advertising a block size increasing but lacking SW support on their platform.

But, it's true about core developers were the one who push the limit by reject btc1 nodes, taken some precautions steps to ensure 2x become another altcoin, it's against the rule of consensus, right?

Wrong. Contentious attempt to alter existing rules -> you're an altcoin by default. Core does not dictate what is or isn't Bitcoin, and their client banning or not banning some bits does not determine anything either. BTC1 nodes are parasites that will create a very disruptive and damaging network. I've banned all known IPs, but now they've started to cover up that they are actually btc1 nodes by appearing to be the reference client. Garzik is a corrupt and shady individual that can't be trusted anymore.

[Rahar02]

Wrong. Contentious attempt to alter existing rules -> you're an altcoin by default. Core does not dictate what is or isn't Bitcoin, and their client banning or not banning some bits does not determine anything either. BTC1 nodes are parasites that will create a very disruptive and damaging network. I've banned all known IPs, but now they've started to cover up that they are actually btc1 nodes by appearing to be the reference client. Garzik is a corrupt and shady individual that can't be trusted anymore.

Thank you for answering, but
What kind of act to alter existing rules? Please be specific about they are breaking the rules. I would like to know more about that.
What kind of disruptive and damaging? As I know, btc1 nodes has been added to the main GitHub and everyone could test it.
Then, there will be testnet before it's launched. Look at their support: over 92% https://coin.dance/blocks
As long as core developers and 2x devs follow the consensus, it's fine I guess.

[Lauda]

First of, why are you making assumptions and statements when you clearly are not informed/educated about most of these issues? Signature spam?

What kind of act to alter existing rules?

1 MB block size limit, or 4 MB maximum with Segwit is a existing consensus rule. Any hard fork = change to the existing rules.

What kind of disruptive and damaging?

1) No viable replay protection.
2) Falsely labeling itself as Bitcoin, when 2x is an altcoin.
3) Damage caused by a combination of 1 and 2.

As I know, btc1 nodes has been added to the main GitHub and everyone could test it.

"Main GitHub"? No.

Look at their support: over 92% https://coin.dance/blocks

Wrong. Those are miners signalling support in their Coinbase. If you look at miners as community members, they and all the other support that 2x might have doesn't even come down to 5%.

As long as core developers and 2x devs follow the consensus, it's fine I guess.

The Core developers absolutely, unanimously (unless I've missed someone's statement), reject the cancer that is 2x.
"Consensus and support of 2x":
https://twitter.com/BitcoinErrorLog/status/918676222200102913

[care2yak]

.....snip......

Here is the companies who said "YES" to 2x;

1Hash (China)
Abra (United States)
ANX (Hong Kong)
Bitangel.com /Chandler Guo (China)
BitClub Network (Hong Kong)
Bitcoin.com (St. Kitts & Nevis)
Bitex (Argentina)
bitFlyer (Japan)
Bitfury (United States)
Bitmain (China)
BitPay (United States)
BitPesa (Kenya)
BitOasis (United Arab Emirates)
Bitso (Mexico)
Bitwala (Germany)
Bixin.com (China)
Blockchain (UK)
Bloq (United States)
btc.com (China)
BTC.TOP (China)
BTER.com (China)
Circle (United States)
Civic (United States)
Coinbase (United States)
Coins.ph (Phillipines)
Decentral (Canada)
Digital Currency Group (United States)
Filament (United States)
Genesis Global Trading (United States)
Genesis Mining (Hong Kong)
GoCoin (Isle of Man)
Grayscale Investments (United States)
Jaxx (Canada)
Korbit (South Korea)
Luno (Singapore)
MONI (Finland)
Netki (United States)
OB1 (United States)
Purse (United States)
Ripio (Argentina)
Safello (Sweden)
SFOX (United States)
ShapeShift (Switzerland)
surBTC (Chile)
Unocoin (India)
Veem (United States)
Xapo (United States)
Yours (United States)

....snip.....

I don't see the wallet Exodus on the list.... I wonder where their alignment lies -- segwit or 2x?

[rifiuti]

Wrong. Contentious attempt to alter existing rules -> you're an altcoin by default. Core does not dictate what is or isn't Bitcoin, and their client banning or not banning some bits does not determine anything either. BTC1 nodes are parasites that will create a very disruptive and damaging network. I've banned all known IPs, but now they've started to cover up that they are actually btc1 nodes by appearing to be the reference client. Garzik is a corrupt and shady individual that can't be trusted anymore.

Thank you for answering, but
What kind of act to alter existing rules? Please be specific about they are breaking the rules. I would like to know more about that.
What kind of disruptive and damaging? As I know, btc1 nodes has been added to the main GitHub and everyone could test it.
Then, there will be testnet before it's launched. Look at their support: over 92% https://coin.dance/blocks
As long as core developers and 2x devs follow the consensus, it's fine I guess.

Only if you could read...

“That’s not Bitcoin, this is Bitcoin.” > https://medium.com/@StopAndDecrypt/thats-not-bitcoin-this-is-bitcoin-95f05a6fd6c2

Don’t Be On The Wrong Side of Bitcoin History > https://medium.com/@Austerity_Sucks/open-letter-to-segwit2x-supporters-dont-be-on-the-wrong-side-of-bitcoin-history-acef69416422

Segwit2x the Broken Agreement > https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/segwit2x-the-broken-agreement-e9035a453c05

My Thoughts on Your Thoughts(Open Letter to Shapeshift's Founder) > https://medium.com/@thepiratewhocantbenamed/my-thoughts-on-your-thoughts-17474d800dda

[Lauda]

Bitmex:

It is our understanding that the SegWit2x proposal does not include two way transaction replay protection, enabled by default. Therefore BitMEX will not be able to support SegWit2x.

BitMEX considers any and all contentious hardfork tokens as altcoins. The .BXBT and .BXBTJPY indices will remain unchanged and will not include B2X.

https://blog.bitmex.com/policy-on-bitcoin-hard-forks-update/

[Paashaas]

Nope, a very small minority that thought big blocks were important, yet were proven wrong by their failed shitcoin called Bcash, are rooting for Segwit2x.

It's always the same with those rats..r/btc bigblockers are all rats. They jump from a sinking ship to another sinking ship.

They shit on Bitcoin while XT was the best thing ever..

They shit on Bitcoin while Classic was the best thing ever..

They shit on Bitcoin while BU was the best thing ever..

They shit on Bitcoin while NChain was the greatest thing ever..

Few months ago Bitcoin ABC was the greatest thing ever while shitting on Bitcoin..

Now those rats shitting on Bitcoin while Bcash is the greatest thing ever while it's bugged. Those noobs actually believes people will create financial assets on there bugged code.

And the mother of all rats is called Roger Ver, the biggest scumbag in the Bitcoin community.

Pathetic!

[Lauda]

Nope, a very small minority that thought big blocks were important, yet were proven wrong by their failed shitcoin called Bcash, are rooting for Segwit2x.

It's always the same with those rats..r/btc bigblockers are all rats. They jump from a sinking ship to another sinking ship.

I find it both funny, and as you put it, pathetic when they mention something like a "dev team" (a person did this a few posts back). There is no development team for Bcash, and there is no development team for Bitcoin2x. They are just copy/pasting Core's work, sometimes even stealing it by removing copyright. Of course /r/btc condones the latter behavior.

[hv_]

Nope, a very small minority that thought big blocks were important, yet were proven wrong by their failed shitcoin called Bcash, are rooting for Segwit2x.

It's always the same with those rats..r/btc bigblockers are all rats. They jump from a sinking ship to another sinking ship.

They shit on Bitcoin while XT was the best thing ever..

They shit on Bitcoin while Classic was the best thing ever..

They shit on Bitcoin while BU was the best thing ever..

They shit on Bitcoin while NChain was the greatest thing ever..

Few months ago Bitcoin ABC was the greatest thing ever while shitting on Bitcoin..

Now those rats shitting on Bitcoin while Bcash is the greatest thing ever while it's bugged. Those noobs actually believes people will create financial assets on there bugged code.

Pathetic!

With any section of your list core has lost more and more support - and pls add the NYA list. Could you see now where the issue might be?

I do not wonder that we see so much shouting of the self isolated here / twitter - but this is only a few .

Bitcointalk seems to be the last place to discuss this controversial but I guess we just better take our popcorn. 

[Lauda]

With any section of your list core has lost more and more support - and pls add the NYA list. Could you see now where the issue might be?

The actual users, and with this I mean excluding shills hired by Ver, Jihan, NSA and similar, are in a supermajority support of Bitcoin Core and they are not going anywhere. The baboon-like educated suits can piss off.  

[Paashaas]

With any section of your list core has lost more and more support - and pls add the NYA list. Could you see now where the issue might be?

I do not wonder that we see so much shouting of the self isolated here / twitter - but this is only a few .

Bitcointalk seems to be the last place to discuss this controversial but I guess we just better take our popcorn.  

Core didn't lost any support, if so the outcome would be much different as we see today. Youre pessimism is not a way to excuse youreself

NYA is just a smokescreen to save face for future agreements.. you just trapped it by youre own ignorance. It's already  falling apart bit by bit incl. future's on Finex.

Go take youre popcorn to r/btc then  

[rifiuti]

Seoul Bitcoin Meetup(1600 member) on Segwit2x;

https://medium.com/@seoulbitcoin/statement-on-segwit2x-161db1ad1976

Spoiler; #no2x

[Paashaas]

I find it both funny, and as you put it, pathetic when they mention something like a "dev team" (a person did this a few posts back). There is no development team for Bcash, and there is no development team for Bitcoin2x. They are just copy/pasting Core's work, sometimes even stealing it by removing copyright. Of course /r/btc condones the latter behavior.

You mean Jeff garzik? That guy copy/pasted all core's work and give it a twist on it. B..but that 'twist' was kinda bugged and Jeff coudn't fix it on his own so 2 Core devs stepped in order to fix it.

Jeff tryed to hide his 2x nodes and later one of his buds claimed that nodes are an attack on the network. WTF

I see so many fails from Jeff... it's irresponsible to let him control a 90B cryptocurrency by his own. No wonder why this NYA is falling apart 2x will trigger massive centralisation.

And Bcash...well that is only a short-term profit mechanism for the chinese mining cartel ore better said there is only 1 miner. In order to fix EDA they need a hard fork that brings a lot of other problems with it.

Those poor souls buying Bcash dont even realize how screwed they are, they should start asking question to Roger why he lied to them.