[2017-10-7]Bitcoin.org Threatens to Publicly Denounce SegWit2x-Supporters

[Enzo 666]

itcoin.org has threatened to publicly denounce companies that support SegWit2x and have not committed to treating the competing blockchains as separate cryptocurrencies in the event of a chain split.

On Thursday, Bitcoin.org published a blog post revealing that it will publicly denounce supporters of the controversial SegWit2x hard fork on October 11. The website, which was originally founded by Satoshi Nakamoto, serves as an open-source repository for bitcoin resources and information. As the top Google search result for “Bitcoin”, the website serves as the gateway for many people into the cryptocurrency community.

The current domain owners of Bitcoin.org have been vocally opposed to the SegWit2x proposal and the corresponding New York Agreement (NYA), even going so far as to remove links to SegWit2x supporters from the resources section. Now, just a month out from the scheduled date for the hard fork, Bitcoin.org is threatening to place banners on every page of the website denouncing companies that support SegWit2x.


source :  https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-org-threatens-to-publicly-denounce-segwit2x-supporting-companies/

[veleten]

that will show them  
Bitcoin.org is one of the oldest and most trusted sources of info about bitcoin
and the core "nest
but I highly doubt they are as influencial as they think they are:

“On 2017-10-11 at noon (UTC), Bitcoin.org is planning to publish a banner on every page of the site warning users about the risks of using services that will default to the so-called Segwit2x (S2X) contentious hard fork. S2X companies will be called out by name. To ensure that we only warn users against companies that will actually put user deposits at risk, we urge all companies to publicly clarify their stance before the above date, either by a highly-visible public statement or by commenting on Bitcoin.org issue #1835 (or by doing both).”


this banner looks like an ultimatum more than anything-come and pledge your allegiance
or we will denounce ya,this would create another rift in the community more than anything
strangely enough,they haven't been so fussy about Bitcoin Cash fork

[d5000]

The Bitcoin.org move shows us that websites (and information sources in general) are also an important element in the Bitcoin power game. Above all, because websites are the gateway for "apolitical" users (that don't care about the blocksize war) to the Bitcoin software. Bitcoin.org plays with their "power" as "the original Bitcoin information source".

I have predicted a "SEO war" between "big-blocker" and "small-blocker" Bitcoin websites some months ago, in the case of a contentious hard fork. I can imagine Bitcoin.com (controlled by big-blocker Roger Ver) trying hard to get the #1 spot at Google in these times (They are currently at #3 on my machine, behind Bitcoin.org and the Wikipedia article, so it may actually be too late.)

It has to be seen now if Bitcoin.org is more influential than "service websites" (exchange and wallet providers, for example), above all the Coinbase case is interesting because they are probably the biggest fish under the NYA supporters. The advantage these service websites have is that users probably do visit them more often than they visit bitcoin.org and other purely "informational websites", that may "counter" Bitcoin.org's power a bit. However, I think this is not enough; in my opinion, only if S2x attracts so much hashrate that the original (Bitcoin Core) chain becomes practically unusable, the S2x fork will have a chance.

[Iranus]

strangely enough,they haven't been so fussy about Bitcoin Cash fork

It's not strange - the distinction is that NYA's intention is to call the new fork "Bitcoin", and a not-insignificant number of merchants and services are likely to be calling it "Bitcoin" as well.  Bitcoin.org only had to distinguish between Bitcoin and the new fork Bitcoin Cash before, but this time they have to distinguish between Bitcoin and Bitcoin, which is significantly harder.

However, their points on the page should be as neutral as possible.  When (correctly) pointing out that "miner actions cannot be used as a justification to redefine Bitcoin", they are essentially using a strawman, because BIP 141 itself required 95% consensus from miners, but that doesn't mean that Bitcoin Core think it's the only step to SegWit on the current BTC chain having widespread adoption.  Similarly, not all SegWit2x supporters assume that miner actions are the only factor in consensus.

Currently bitcoin.com is going to be referring to SegWit2x as "BTC" it seems, so there may be some conflict between the two sites.  Since bitcoin.org is supposed to be an informational site while bitcoin.com is more of a general news site which shows a lot of different information, it's possible that bitcoin.org will stay fairly mellow about their opposition to SegWit2x and Bitcoin.com, while Bitcoin.com's actions are somewhat harder to predict.

[vit05]

I think this discussion is useful

https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/1836#issuecomment-335028210

Exchange and other companies need to be more vocal about how they will handle.