2X or not 2X. That is the question.

[ged00u]

I know many people in the community are misinformed, uninformed or simply do not care. That is a big mistake. If you care so much to buy and hold Bitcoin then you should also care to know what is really going on. Bitcoin's future depends on it.

I agree with you, OP. bitcoin is always the best coin here and many people do not have a good knowledge and they are misinformed by many stupid sources and news. Right now, we need to do something to prove to the people that bitcoin can still be used and determined as the number one cryptocurrency in the world. In the future, I believe that bitcoin will continue to grow and dominate the market for at least a decade

[1715435422]

1715435422

[1715435422]

1715435422

[1715435422]

1715435422

[1715435422]

1715435422

[1715435422]

1715435422

[thejaytiesto]

Everyone, please take some time and read this article before you decide to support Segwit2X/btc1 or not.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/2x-or-no2x-why-some-want-hard-fork-bitcoin-november-and-why-others-dont/

I know many people in the community are misinformed, uninformed or simply do not care. That is a big mistake. If you care so much to buy and hold Bitcoin then you should also care to know what is really going on. Bitcoin's future depends on it.

I haven't read the article yet, from what I have researched previously. I support 2X 100%. I think it is just what Bitcoin needs. I support 2x for two reasons, 1)the scaling solutions it brings. This is long overdue. 2) to stop these bullying tactics by core.

Now let me go read the article.

It's not needed. Look at the mempool, it's pretty empty:

https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/

Transactions are fast and cheap now that Roger Ver stopped the spam because he is running out of money. Also there's already 10% of segwit transactions, going for like 10 cents and pretty fast. Why do we need to risk a hardfork with stupid devs again? stop being emotional about Core. Hardfork is not needed from a technical perspective, period. Any other opinions are invalid and attack to Bitcoin. Look at Bitfinex futures, B2X is going for 0.21

https://www.bitfinex.com/order_book/bt2btc

Segwit2x is another dead on arrival hardfork sorry.

[liviux]

Man, this segwit 2x is so complicated. So many articles pro, so many against, people in Twitter pro and not, etc, etc.
This does very bad to the community and to beginners. Especially when there was a consensus (or so I understand from NYC). So it was OK some months ago and not ok now.
I hope this shit won't happen in the future

[achow101]

Especially when there was a consensus (or so I understand from NYC). So it was OK some months ago and not ok now.

Segwit2x never had consensus and it was not ok some months ago.

[JohnnyUranus]

Segwit is enough (for now), we do not need 2X. We do not need this fighting at all.

[Quantumplation]

NOTE: This message was originally not posted by me, but instead by someone who compromised my account.  I have deleted the content.

[Densitymax]

I would have taken any path that the developers from the Bitcoin core offer. If you need a 2-megabyte block, then this decision should be made by the main developers. We should not destroy the ecosystem of bitcoin, but should make it stronger.

[haroldtee]

Just FYI, I support 2X in my opinion, it is better!

It is funny most people clamouring for 2x do not even have any idea what they are requesting for. 2x will not have any support from users and it would be as dead as the previous 2 forked chains (past BCC and upcoming BCG) before it. Say NO to centralization. We are cool with our decentralized currency and I am dumping all the forked coins for core on arrival.

[Miracle_Man]

The commission in Bitcoin is too big and with this one needs to do something. If Segwit2X helps fix the problem then I say Yes X2

[miguelmorales85]

Who exactly support 2x?

I have seen names that support BCh, people that will support BTgold. But who are the persons, and not companies, that are supporting bitcoin 2x?

This is an extract from this official URL posted today in https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2017-10-09-segwit2x-safety

Wallets

Abra (United States)
Bitcoin.com (St. Kitts & Nevis)
BitPay (United States)
BitPesa (Kenya)
Blockchain.info (UK)
BTC.com (China)
Circle (United States)
Coinbase (United States)
Coins.ph (Phillipines)
GoCoin (Isle of Man)
Jaxx (Canada)
Luno (Singapore)
Ripio (Argentina)
Unocoin (India)
Xapo (United States)
Exchanges

ANX (Hong Kong)
Bitex (Argentina)
bitFlyer (Japan)
Bitso (Mexico)
BTCC (China)
BTER.com (China)
Coinbase (United States)
Coins.ph (Phillipines)
CryptoFacilities (UK)
Korbit (South Korea)
Safello (Sweden)
SFOX (United States)
ShapeShift (Switzerland)
Miners

1Hash (China)
Bitcoin.com (St. Kitts & Nevis)
Bitfury (United States)
Bitmain (China)
Bixin.com (China)
Genesis Mining (Hong Kong)
ViaBTC (China)
Other

Bitangel.com /Chandler Guo (China)
BitClub Network (Hong Kong)
Bloq (United States)
Civic (United States)
Decentral (Canada)
Digital Currency Group (United States)
Filament (United States)
Genesis Global Trading (United States)
Grayscale Investments (United States)
MONI (Finland)
OB1 (United States)
Netki (United States)
Purse (United States)
Veem (United States)

[OriginalBankster]

Hardware wallets is not the safest because they can become corrupted and there is nothing that you can do if the company that you got it from went out of business.

can you explain further?
I have ledger and if they go out of business it still works. Or do i need coninously updates?

[procesdad]

everyone is buying bitcoin with the money in hand and thinks you will make money. I do not think like this.
I think it's more logical to buy altcoin

[achow101]

Hardware wallets is not the safest because they can become corrupted and there is nothing that you can do if the company that you got it from went out of business.

can you explain further?
I have ledger and if they go out of business it still works. Or do i need coninously updates?

That statement is simply untrue.

The device and the wallet software that you connect it to (you don't need to use Ledger's software either) do not require Ledger to be in business for it to function. You just won't get any software updates and if a security vulnerability is found, it may not be fixed. Otherwise the device works fine without Ledger still existing.

The protection against device corruption is the 24 word seed that you wrote down when you first made the wallet. It follows the BIP 39 standard and private keys are derived using the BIP 32 and BIP 44 standards, so you can use that 24 word seed with any supporting wallet software or hardware wallet and be able to access your coins. There is no need for the company to be in business and you can still access your coins even if your device is corrupted, destroyed, damaged, or lost.

[OriginalBankster]

Hardware wallets is not the safest because they can become corrupted and there is nothing that you can do if the company that you got it from went out of business.

can you explain further?
I have ledger and if they go out of business it still works. Or do i need coninously updates?

That statement is simply untrue.

The device and the wallet software that you connect it to (you don't need to use Ledger's software either) do not require Ledger to be in business for it to function. You just won't get any software updates and if a security vulnerability is found, it may not be fixed. Otherwise the device works fine without Ledger still existing.

The protection against device corruption is the 24 word seed that you wrote down when you first made the wallet. It follows the BIP 39 standard and private keys are derived using the BIP 32 and BIP 44 standards, so you can use that 24 word seed with any supporting wallet software or hardware wallet and be able to access your coins. There is no need for the company to be in business and you can still access your coins even if your device is corrupted, destroyed, damaged, or lost.

thank you for clearing that up

[illyiller]

Man, this segwit 2x is so complicated. So many articles pro, so many against, people in Twitter pro and not, etc, etc.
This does very bad to the community and to beginners. Especially when there was a consensus (or so I understand from NYC). So it was OK some months ago and not ok now.
I hope this shit won't happen in the future

There's a big difference between an agreement between various parties, and consensus of the entire network. Technically, regarding incompatible (or potentially incompatible) forks, consensus is impossible. It's impossible to obtain the consent of every user. In the case of a backward compatible soft fork, it is possible to obtain consent from every user, because the new consensus rules are compatible with the old. However, such a fork is only compatible if backed by a majority of miners -- hence the high activation thresholds of BIP141 and BIP91.

So, hard forks can never have consensus -- that's impossible. And soft forks can never have consensus (consent of every user) without majority miner support. Some #NO2X folks will disagree with the latter point, but they are wrong. For example, BIP148 supporters did not obtain my consent to incompatibly split the chain, although they represented that consensus for BIP148 existed.

[Maveth13]

I think a discussion like these should be maintained. People don't really understand what SegWit2X is and why increasing the block size can be beneficial and can cause damage. Some people might not even know that we already did increase the blocksize. With an increase in block size, more transactions can be handled by the network, transactions will be faster and cheaper. But, with bigger block size, the cost to operate a full node would also increase and might lead to fewer users running full nodes. It's hard to decide but worth a healthy debate.

[Pab]

I see that with seagwit transactions are much faster,i ve been reading that 2x  in introduced to fast,not enough tests looks like somebody is in hurry,so wait and i will look how it is going

[The_Dark_Knight]

I do not see any problems with the introduction of SegWit2x
SegWit2x is needed primarily to reduce the commission. The reduction of commission is necessary for bitcoin to develop further as a means of payment in e-commerce

The issue is that is completely unneeded, maybe at some point in the future we will need to make the blocks bigger but at this time we do not need it especially since segwit was activated recently, I think we need to gave it an opportunity and see how it works with the lighting network in place then once an analysis has been made then the blocks could be made bigger if necessary, but at this time this is nothing but an attack against bitcoin and the devs.

[richkellj]

Everyone, please take some time and read this article before you decide to support Segwit2X/btc1 or not.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/2x-or-no2x-why-some-want-hard-fork-bitcoin-november-and-why-others-dont/

I know many people in the community are misinformed, uninformed or simply do not care. That is a big mistake. If you care so much to buy and hold Bitcoin then you should also care to know what is really going on. Bitcoin's future depends on it.

I hope you guys supporting 2x realize that you want to live the future of your valued assets in the hands of some greedy miners and companies who are looking for ways centralize bitcoin.

I would rather go for an increased fee than having that. I will stick with bitcoin core till the end and fu** all forks by dumping them for core once they step in. Let's shoot em dead on arrival. 2x is just another free looser coin as far as I am concerned.

[hv_]

Everyone, please take some time and read this article before you decide to support Segwit2X/btc1 or not.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/2x-or-no2x-why-some-want-hard-fork-bitcoin-november-and-why-others-dont/

I know many people in the community are misinformed, uninformed or simply do not care. That is a big mistake. If you care so much to buy and hold Bitcoin then you should also care to know what is really going on. Bitcoin's future depends on it.

I hope you guys supporting 2x realize that you want to live the future of your valued assets in the hands of some greedy miners and companies who are looking for ways centralize bitcoin.

I would rather go for an increased fee than having that. I will stick with bitcoin core till the end and fu** all forks by dumping them for core once they step in. Let's shoot em dead on arrival. 2x is just another free looser coin as far as I am concerned.

You could first work out about what 'centralize' really means and what degree is enough before you start making FUD.

You might learn this after the fork but who cares when this forum here turns over and 1x is a PoW changed alt 

I've got my popcorn ready and wait.