Which will be the real Bitcoin after november?

[thecodebear]

So most people agreed to segwit2x, though core never did and now some people who agreed are dropping out. But still the vast majority as far as I'm aware are still supporting the 2x upgrade. And I can't understand why people are so against it, as obviously more scaling is needed and a 2x of block size if just simply a good thing. Unless people think there needs to be more time to test it, though I can't imagine why so much testing and development would be needed since it is simply changes one very small thing. The contention of this issue baffles me, seems to be a very straightforward good second step in scaling bitcoin, the negativity towards it shows the unreasonable toxicity of the bitcoin community and the refusal to prepare the technology for mass market acceptance.

Anyways, which do you guys think will be considered Bitcoin after the hard fork, the original chain or the 2x chain? I'm hoping 2x takes over since it can do twice the transactions with no downside so that is obviously better for bitcoin. Either way I will just be holding my bitcoin and won't move any bitcoin until this whole mess is over and we have a clear winner. But what do you all think?

[Almat]

It looks to me like segwit2x has some heavyweight supporters, so it might be unwise to bet against it. I don't really know though. If you put it that way, I'd rather back segwit2x as well. I'm going to be on wait and see mode for a while.

[Silberman]

So most people agreed to segwit2x, though core never did and now some people who agreed are dropping out. But still the vast majority as far as I'm aware are still supporting the 2x upgrade. And I can't understand why people are so against it, as obviously more scaling is needed and a 2x of block size if just simply a good thing. Unless people think there needs to be more time to test it, though I can't imagine why so much testing and development would be needed since it is simply changes one very small thing. The contention of this issue baffles me, seems to be a very straightforward good second step in scaling bitcoin, the negativity towards it shows the unreasonable toxicity of the bitcoin community and the refusal to prepare the technology for mass market acceptance.

Anyways, which do you guys think will be considered Bitcoin after the hard fork, the original chain or the 2x chain? I'm hoping 2x takes over since it can do twice the transactions with no downside so that is obviously better for bitcoin. Either way I will just be holding my bitcoin and won't move any bitcoin until this whole mess is over and we have a clear winner. But what do you all think?

Mistake, most miners agreed to that fork, people are still supporting overwhelmingly bitcoin core and no other coin, there is no question which is the real bitcoin, segwit2x is just another altcoin that has nothing new to offer, the 2MB fork is not necessary at all and I see as a good sign that support is slowly diminishing for such a useless coin.

[rogerwilco]

The market wants Core. Today the futures market moved Segwit2x UP to 15% of the value of the original chain: https://www.bitfinex.com/order_book/bt2btc

For completeness, you can see the non-2x fork is getting the other 85%: https://www.bitfinex.com/order_book/bt1btc

[BUK2016]

Your speculation has been surpassed in the month of October before the real event of segwit2x of November. It seems panic selling will not be like that of August Fork that led to massive decline in the market value of bitcoin and other altcoins few days to August 1st event. Bitcoin will ever remain bitcoin no matter what happen during and after the segwit2x of November and there is no course for alarm.

[Wind_FURY]

So most people agreed to segwit2x, though core never did and now some people who agreed are dropping out. But still the vast majority as far as I'm aware are still supporting the 2x upgrade. And I can't understand why people are so against it, as obviously more scaling is needed and a 2x of block size if just simply a good thing. Unless people think there needs to be more time to test it, though I can't imagine why so much testing and development would be needed since it is simply changes one very small thing. The contention of this issue baffles me, seems to be a very straightforward good second step in scaling bitcoin, the negativity towards it shows the unreasonable toxicity of the bitcoin community and the refusal to prepare the technology for mass market acceptance.

Anyways, which do you guys think will be considered Bitcoin after the hard fork, the original chain or the 2x chain? I'm hoping 2x takes over since it can do twice the transactions with no downside so that is obviously better for bitcoin. Either way I will just be holding my bitcoin and won't move any bitcoin until this whole mess is over and we have a clear winner. But what do you all think?

Mistake, most miners agreed to that fork, people are still supporting overwhelmingly bitcoin core and no other coin, there is no question which is the real bitcoin, segwit2x is just another altcoin that has nothing new to offer, the 2MB fork is not necessary at all and I see as a good sign that support is slowly diminishing for such a useless coin.

This. Newbies make the mistake of thinking that the miners have the power to direct Bitcoin's development. They do have a "say" but they are not the real power behind where should Bitcoin's development go.

To answer OP, the real Bitcoin after November is the one before November.

[Juggy777]

It's actually difficult to say, as we are in October and Bitcoin gold is to come, post that in mid November we see segwit2x being activated, so as far as previous comprises segwit2x was leading with the support, and currently there not much news which shows they have lost the support, however in crypto world, anything can happen, we may see core make a comeback. However if core doesn't, then segwit2x is the Bitcoin whether we like it or not, I am just hoping there no mass selling like what we witnessed earlier.

[TheQuin]

So most people agreed to segwit2x, though core never did and now some people who agreed are dropping out. But still the vast majority as far as I'm aware are still supporting the 2x upgrade.

I really don't think that is the case. If it was then Segwit2x would indeed be the real Bitcoin as that is only defined by the one most people choose to use. After the fork, all sites and businesses that accept Bitcoin will continue to use the original chain as the vast majority run Bitcoin Core nodes. Some are planning to distribute the Segwit2x coin as a dividend but none will actually switch to using it.
That's the thing here, it doesn't matter what we individually think of the merits of Segwit2x. It's was the Bitcoin community as a whole choose to adopt that matters.

[Seansky]

I really don't think that is the case. If it was then Segwit2x would indeed be the real Bitcoin as that is only defined by the one most people choose to use. After the fork, all sites and businesses that accept Bitcoin will continue to use the original chain as the vast majority run Bitcoin Core nodes. Some are planning to distribute the Segwit2x coin as a dividend but none will actually switch to using it.
That's the thing here, it doesn't matter what we individually think of the merits of Segwit2x. It's was the Bitcoin community as a whole choose to adopt that matters.

People tend to switch to which is better and more efficient to use so the one which is the most efficient among the bitcoin version by novemeber will be the one most used. For now I can say that the original bitcoin is the one that will be most used since for me it is the one that looks better to use among the versions bitcoin has. The only problem with it is slow transaction.

[thecodebear]

So most people agreed to segwit2x, though core never did and now some people who agreed are dropping out. But still the vast majority as far as I'm aware are still supporting the 2x upgrade. And I can't understand why people are so against it, as obviously more scaling is needed and a 2x of block size if just simply a good thing. Unless people think there needs to be more time to test it, though I can't imagine why so much testing and development would be needed since it is simply changes one very small thing. The contention of this issue baffles me, seems to be a very straightforward good second step in scaling bitcoin, the negativity towards it shows the unreasonable toxicity of the bitcoin community and the refusal to prepare the technology for mass market acceptance.

Anyways, which do you guys think will be considered Bitcoin after the hard fork, the original chain or the 2x chain? I'm hoping 2x takes over since it can do twice the transactions with no downside so that is obviously better for bitcoin. Either way I will just be holding my bitcoin and won't move any bitcoin until this whole mess is over and we have a clear winner. But what do you all think?

Mistake, most miners agreed to that fork, people are still supporting overwhelmingly bitcoin core and no other coin, there is no question which is the real bitcoin, segwit2x is just another altcoin that has nothing new to offer, the 2MB fork is not necessary at all and I see as a good sign that support is slowly diminishing for such a useless coin.

Well thats not true at all. Bitcoin is going to need A LOT MORE SCALING in the future, so an increase to 2MB is just the second step on what will no doubt be a lot of steps toward scaling to meet a global mass market demand. Sure it doesn't need the 2MB fork in November, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if segwit blocks are full within a year, at which point it will need larger blocks, so why are you people against it so much when it is obviously needed for the future?

And my first sentence wasn't a mistake. Not only miners but many many bitcoin companies agreed to segwit2x. Only after that did miners jump on board leading up to the segwit upgrade.

So why do some of you people refuse to want bitcoin to be able to scale?? Are you intentionally hoping for its demise and wanting to sabotage it? Or are you just very shortsighted and refuse to look into the future to see that more solutions are needed to scaling. When segwit blocks are full and transaction fees have skyrocketing again and wait times have skyrocketed again will you only then start to think oh maybe we do need 2MB blocks or more!?

The poster directly above this post even said he would want the fork that is better to win, and he claimed it is the original chain hahaha. That is straight up delusion. Current chain can do half the transactions as 2x can, thats the only difference. It's black and white, 2x is twice as good as current chain. I'm sure there will need to be additional hard forks in the coming years to increase the block size further, why are you people making this very obvious upgrade so contentious? The question is do you want bitcoin do be able to do the current amount of transactions, or double the amount of transactions?

It's pretty simple: if you want bitcoin to eventually fail to meet demand then obviously you want to hinder its progress and keep the current chain, if you want bitcoin to handle more transactions and scale better and its price to rise then you support 2x as well as other scaling solutions.

Seems to me this irrational denial of needed scaling is some misguided attempt to pay homage to Satoshi and not hard fork away from his code. You'd rather see Satoshi's dream for bitcoin fail than fork from his code.

[malikusama]

No doubt Segwit2X is the updated version with increased block size and some other advantages but there are some disadvantages too. The increase in block size will also increase the risk of attack, however everything has pros and cons. It is true i have also seen a massive support for the SegWit2X but i believe that it would be more better if after November Bitcoin will remain on the same chain instead of 2x chain.

[AjithBtc]

Whether it's November fork or something else, surely the main chain will continue to be the bitcoin. Even if several other forks happen further there will be no change. For the same xapo got a big criticism from experts all around because of its plan to name bitcoin with some other name after the upcoming fork.

[thejaytiesto]

The market wants Core. Today the futures market moved Segwit2x UP to 15% of the value of the original chain: https://www.bitfinex.com/order_book/bt2btc

For completeness, you can see the non-2x fork is getting the other 85%: https://www.bitfinex.com/order_book/bt1btc

What pump? BT2 still trading for even lower than the last time I looked at it. Highest buy order is around 0.14 BTC. We will see how relevant this is when it's all said and done, but it doesn't look good for B2X in the market.

I just wish to get through this already. If segwit2x wins then bitcoin is dead, since corporations would have shown to be stronger than holders.
I hope work is being done right now to stop the NYA scammers.

So most people agreed to segwit2x, though core never did and now some people who agreed are dropping out. But still the vast majority as far as I'm aware are still supporting the 2x upgrade. And I can't understand why people are so against it, as obviously more scaling is needed and a 2x of block size if just simply a good thing. Unless people think there needs to be more time to test it, though I can't imagine why so much testing and development would be needed since it is simply changes one very small thing. The contention of this issue baffles me, seems to be a very straightforward good second step in scaling bitcoin, the negativity towards it shows the unreasonable toxicity of the bitcoin community and the refusal to prepare the technology for mass market acceptance.

Anyways, which do you guys think will be considered Bitcoin after the hard fork, the original chain or the 2x chain? I'm hoping 2x takes over since it can do twice the transactions with no downside so that is obviously better for bitcoin. Either way I will just be holding my bitcoin and won't move any bitcoin until this whole mess is over and we have a clear winner. But what do you all think?

Mistake, most miners agreed to that fork, people are still supporting overwhelmingly bitcoin core and no other coin, there is no question which is the real bitcoin, segwit2x is just another altcoin that has nothing new to offer, the 2MB fork is not necessary at all and I see as a good sign that support is slowly diminishing for such a useless coin.

Well thats not true at all. Bitcoin is going to need A LOT MORE SCALING in the future, so an increase to 2MB is just the second step on what will no doubt be a lot of steps toward scaling to meet a global mass market demand. Sure it doesn't need the 2MB fork in November, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if segwit blocks are full within a year, at which point it will need larger blocks, so why are you people against it so much when it is obviously needed for the future?

And my first sentence wasn't a mistake. Not only miners but many many bitcoin companies agreed to segwit2x. Only after that did miners jump on board leading up to the segwit upgrade.

So why do some of you people refuse to want bitcoin to be able to scale?? Are you intentionally hoping for its demise and wanting to sabotage it? Or are you just very shortsighted and refuse to look into the future to see that more solutions are needed to scaling. When segwit blocks are full and transaction fees have skyrocketing again and wait times have skyrocketed again will you only then start to think oh maybe we do need 2MB blocks or more!?

The poster directly above this post even said he would want the fork that is better to win, and he claimed it is the original chain hahaha. That is straight up delusion. Current chain can do half the transactions as 2x can, thats the only difference. It's black and white, 2x is twice as good as current chain. I'm sure there will need to be additional hard forks in the coming years to increase the block size further, why are you people making this very obvious upgrade so contentious? The question is do you want bitcoin do be able to do the current amount of transactions, or double the amount of transactions?

It's pretty simple: if you want bitcoin to eventually fail to meet demand then obviously you want to hinder its progress and keep the current chain, if you want bitcoin to handle more transactions and scale better and its price to rise then you support 2x as well as other scaling solutions.

Seems to me this irrational denial of needed scaling is some misguided attempt to pay homage to Satoshi and not hard fork away from his code. You'd rather see Satoshi's dream for bitcoin fail than fork from his code.

Transactions are cheap. Being able to run a node is worth more money than doubling blocksize with a rushed hardfork. You can't just say "2x is twice as good as current chain", that's just dumb, there are tradeoffs to this. There's no point in this hardfork, other than Jeff Garzik's 5 minutes of fame and everyone involved in the takeover getting a paycheck.

[Reid]

I got really confused here.
It seems like there is much of misunderstanding.
One guy is at the bulls eye. Bitcoin will remain bitcoin.
Take out segwit and take out everything what will be left? Still it is bitcoin.
The support is what you are trying to imply. Will they support segwit 2x which coulf lead to a drastic drop since it will half the investors.
If something is created it will be an altcoin. Period.

[HeRetiK]

Miners will follow the money. Which ever fork gets higher valuations will receive more hashrate, as everything else would be mining at a loss. Whichever fork gets more hashrate is more likely to survive. Whichever fork survives, will be the new Bitcoin.

[...]

I'm hoping 2x takes over since it can do twice the transactions with no downside so that is obviously better for bitcoin.

[...]

The downside is fewer nodes and subsequently increased centralization, making it easier for governments to practically shut-down Bitcoin. Additionally mining could further consolidate, making it even harder for small to mid-sized miners to join the fun.

[...]

Well thats not true at all. Bitcoin is going to need A LOT MORE SCALING in the future, so an increase to 2MB is just the second step on what will no doubt be a lot of steps toward scaling to meet a global mass market demand. Sure it doesn't need the 2MB fork in November, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if segwit blocks are full within a year, at which point it will need larger blocks, so why are you people against it so much when it is obviously needed for the future?

[...]

Here is the meat of the problem. Bitcoin is indeed going to need a lot more scaling. Which is exactly why a linear scaling solution such as simply increasing block size is not going to cut it. Which is exactly why 2nd layer solution such as Lightning Network that have far better scaling properties are so important.

No one is against increasing Bitcoin's transaction throughout. It's just the how that is debatable. And unfortunately the solution is not quite as simple as a block size increase, since a change like that might come with a lot of side-effects that may not be all that obvious at a first glance.

[SirLancelot]

It looks to me like segwit2x has some heavyweight supporters, so it might be unwise to bet against it. I don't really know though. If you put it that way, I'd rather back segwit2x as well. I'm going to be on wait and see mode for a while.

Heavyweight supporters ? Really ? Segwit2x is as dead as it sounds. The only set of people supporting 2x now are the miners because it favors them which to me apparently leads to centralization, totally against why we are here in the first place.

Still, the community decides and once they discover the 2x is as dead as it is, they won't have any choice falling back to core. Most users who do not understand this yet are beginning to, and the support is dropping drastically fast. Better spread the news now, if you do not want to leave your future in the hands of the miners to decide.

[thejaytiesto]

It looks to me like segwit2x has some heavyweight supporters, so it might be unwise to bet against it. I don't really know though. If you put it that way, I'd rather back segwit2x as well. I'm going to be on wait and see mode for a while.

Heavyweight supporters ? Really ? Segwit2x is as dead as it sounds. The only set of people supporting 2x now are the miners because it favors them which to me apparently leads to centralization, totally against why we are here in the first place.

Still, the community decides and once they discover the 2x is as dead as it is, they won't have any choice falling back to core. Most users who do not understand this yet are beginning to, and the support is dropping drastically fast. Better spread the news now, if you do not want to leave your future in the hands of the miners to decide.

Yeah but you NEED the miners in order for whales and us common folk to dump the forked coins in order to force miners to keep mining the legacy. If you don't have a certain amount of hashrate, then how are these transactions that would price in the fork be processed? You need enough hashrate to keep the legacy chain alive in order to dump, it's pretty simple.

So this is the dilemma... will we have enough hashrate? will miners that are signaling "intention" really support the segwit2x chain? that is the only thing that matters now, and I think they are bullshitting and we will have enough hashrate to get this done.

[pooya87]

The market wants Core. Today the futures market moved Segwit2x UP to 15% of the value of the original chain: https://www.bitfinex.com/order_book/bt2btc

For completeness, you can see the non-2x fork is getting the other 85%: https://www.bitfinex.com/order_book/bt1btc

this is utter bullshit! and bitfinex does this kind of stuff all the time. they still had a BTU (bitcoin unlimited) market last time i checked. how can you even sell something that doesn't still exist?!! which means the price is 100% virtual and meaningless. the only purpose of these markets is so that bitfinex can make money from the additional volume it gets (trading fees) and be the first to have that coin listed in case there were such coins.

[d5000]

I believe there's a 70% probability that Core will be "the Bitcoin".

So most people agreed to segwit2x,

Mistake, most miners agreed to that fork, people are still supporting overwhelmingly bitcoin core and no other coin,

I am pretty sure that you both wrong. Most Bitcoin users ("people") do absolutely not care about the scaling debate. They want a working Bitcoin, and they want to be rich quickly  (Really, I was surprised that many "non-techies" when first told about the debate were supporting Bitcoin Unlimited!)

So everything depends on the "economic" nodes/services like exchanges, wallets and payment processors. The next weeks will be exciting for people that like popcorn! Every minimal move into Core territory could be the one that kills Segwit2x, but if there isn't such a move and the big fishes of the NYA agreement keep supporting it, then it has some chance to win. Together, they have power.

I don't mind ... for me, neither the small-blocker Core proposal nor the "moderate-big-blocker" Segwit2x proposal are bad options, although I'm sympathizing a bit more with Core because the 2x hardfork comes too early.

[romero121]

There is nothing to think about, because after November nothing is gonna happen, just bitcoin gold gets added to the list of altcoins same as that bitcoin cash got added. This doesn't gonna make bitcoin core down and take the lead. Past two days bitcoin cash have been growing and today the growth has started to decline.