Segwit2X:Users care which side wins? Or do they?

[CryptosapienZA]

I have been observing social media polls and saw how high the number of people who haven't picked a side in this debate or who just don't think its important. I am interested if finding out whether it is important to have a position or not? Please note I am not saying they should pick a side but I am just interested in why they claim to not care. Is it because they are ignorant of what the debate is really about  or they really dont care because they dont think their opinion matters

[illinest]

I have been observing social media polls and saw how high the number of people who haven't picked a side in this debate or who just don't think its important. I am interested if finding out whether it is important to have a position or not?

Users should care, but the fact of the matter is, most don't even understand Bitcoin. This is the nature of the adoption S-curve. Most users don't even understand the technology, let alone do they have an opinion about the block size debate.

I think that more users support #No2x than support the Segwit2x fork. However, I think the majority of users don't have a strong opinion at all. The fact is that consensus rule changes should be viewed on a scale of multiple years. Both sides think they can ram through forks in a couple months, though. It's pretty destructive, and basically puts incompatible forks at extreme disadvantage because most of the ecosystem opts for the status quo by default.

[fanbeila]

Most users just think it as another hard fork and they would get free air drop and get some coins free.But people who have some knowledge about bitcoin expect no2x to succeed as they find no problems in the existing bitcoin.So,they think that there is no need of segwit 2x activation.

[squatter]

Most users just think it as another hard fork and they would get free air drop and get some coins free.But people who have some knowledge about bitcoin expect no2x to succeed as they find no problems in the existing bitcoin.So,they think that there is no need of segwit 2x activation.

Indeed, I think the experience of Bitcoin Cash has given people unrealistic expectations for this fork. Many think it's just a free airdrop of a new altcoin. They don't seem to realize that if companies like Coinbase, Blockchain.info and Xapo follow the 2X chain and refer to it as "Bitcoin" that they will be migrating to a new network -- and bringing all their customers with them.

For example, Blockchain.info is one of the most widely used wallets in the ecosystem. Someone using this wallet to accept transactions will accept B2X as valid payment, even though they may have thought they were receiving BTC. When they go to pay someone in BTC, all they will have is B2X. This could lead to major confusion, network disruption, and financial losses for users. I wish Segwit2x were just an airdrop, but really, it's much more dangerous.

[XbladeX]

***When they go to pay someone in BTC, all they will have is B2X. This could lead to major confusion, network disruption, and financial losses for users.***

If that will happen you will have EPIC dump on bitcoin . But not only bitcoins this will be nuke for all coins at end becouse all coins can be chalenged same way.
X country will tell you that is X coin and another country will say you "no this is X coin with KYC only true coin".

B2X is corporation takeover bitcoin.

[RGBKey]

Honestly I'm kind of terrified. This could be the month where Bitcoin fails completely. A complete split in the network would not be good at all.

[Squidoogeek]

I'd prefer that this get settled in a more-or-less amicable fashion. More importantly, both sides should start listening to one another about what they want to get out of this. Ordinary users will likely just care that Bitcoin keep its promise of being a cheap, fast, secure, relatively anonymous alternative to banks that can't shut down on them just because some bean counter at a bank got nervous.

[gentlemand]

You bet your arse they should care.

Most people don't know at all. Most people don't understand.

The people who do may feel they have no influence over this debate so there's no point in picking a side. I don't think that's valid but it's understandable.

[Spendulus]

I have been observing social media polls and saw how high the number of people who haven't picked a side in this debate or who just don't think its important. I am interested if finding out whether it is important to have a position or not?

USERS do not have a say in this.

MINERS have a say.

Now, is it important to have a position on a matter (as a user) that you do not have a say in?

I think the answer is yes......

[RGBKey]

I have been observing social media polls and saw how high the number of people who haven't picked a side in this debate or who just don't think its important. I am interested if finding out whether it is important to have a position or not?

USERS do not have a say in this.

MINERS have a say.

Now, is it important to have a position on a matter (as a user) that you do not have a say in?

I think the answer is yes......

Users absolutely have a say in it. If nobody changes their client, current bitcoin nodes won't accept the new blocks.

[jseverson]

It's important to have a say for sure. S2X is a power grab, nothing more and nothing less. It is an attempt by an influential minority to fracture the community and gain control. Divide and conquer.

The majority should resist it. If no one perceives it as valuable, then it will have no value. S2X winning over the original Bitcoin creates a dangerous precedent, in which anyone can usurp Bitcoin's throne, creating further instability. Bitcoin is decentralized, and the community as a whole should decide whether a hard fork is necessary. It's basically our responsibility to take a stand, no matter which side you're on.

[illinest]

Users absolutely have a say in it. If nobody changes their client, current bitcoin nodes won't accept the new blocks.

That's true for full nodes. It's not true for wallets that use traditional SPV architecture. Electrum recently released a fork detection mode with Segwit2x in mind, so that's the exception there. People using Blockchain.info or Breadwallet won't be changing anything they do, but the chain they're using might change depending on what miners do.

Some exchanges (like Coinbase) may also change the BTC symbol to follow the 2X chain. That could have a significant effect as well, given that it's the largest volume US exchange and that many people use it for a web wallet. One thing is for sure: have plenty of popcorn ready for next month.

[Spendulus]

I have been observing social media polls and saw how high the number of people who haven't picked a side in this debate or who just don't think its important. I am interested if finding out whether it is important to have a position or not?

USERS do not have a say in this.

MINERS have a say.

Now, is it important to have a position on a matter (as a user) that you do not have a say in?

I think the answer is yes......

Users absolutely have a say in it. If nobody changes their client, current bitcoin nodes won't accept the new blocks.

Huh?

Coinbase, for example, has said they (their program) will support both, and if after a while one dominates, then they will drop the weak one.

But miners still gotta mine or there's nothing.

[jaocoincrypto18]

Honestly I'm kind of terrified. This could be the month where Bitcoin fails completely. A complete split in the network would not be good at all.

And if most of the people will terrified no wonder the bitcoin value will fall down because they easily panic and sell their bitcoins  without knowing and understanding what is the true objective of SegWit2X event, but im waiting to this opportunity to happen because i will have the opportunity to purchase bitcoin in cheapest price once again.

[Entropy-uc]

***When they go to pay someone in BTC, all they will have is B2X. This could lead to major confusion, network disruption, and financial losses for users.***

If that will happen you will have EPIC dump on bitcoin . But not only bitcoins this will be nuke for all coins at end becouse all coins can be chalenged same way.
X country will tell you that is X coin and another country will say you "no this is X coin with KYC only true coin".

B2X is corporation takeover bitcoin.

How do you justify this story?

SegWit was the corporate takeover.  It was pushed by Core developers working for Silicon Valley startups that want to push the transaction fees into their payment channels.  It definitely favors corporate interests.

The 2x upgrade will increase the blocksize, which should lower transaction fees, and improve confirmation times.

Tell me exactly how a larger block size will favor a corporate takeover of Bitcoin.  Keep in mind increasing the block size was promised by the lead developer of bitcoin EVERY TIME scaling issues were raised.

We were promised a fix to the scaling problems.  Segwit hasn't fixed anything.  Increasing the block size will fix the problem. 

As far as I can see, not implementing 2 Mb blocks will favor the corporate takeover of bitcoin, assuming bitcoin doesn't just fail entirely over the issue.

[cpfreeplz]

I have been observing social media polls and saw how high the number of people who haven't picked a side in this debate or who just don't think its important. I am interested if finding out whether it is important to have a position or not?

USERS do not have a say in this.

MINERS have a say.

Now, is it important to have a position on a matter (as a user) that you do not have a say in?

I think the answer is yes......

Users absolutely have a say in it. If nobody changes their client, current bitcoin nodes won't accept the new blocks.

Lol okay sure. But honestly how would that ever be measured? Number if downloads? It doesn't seem realistic to gdt an accurate number of people using any wallet.

[aoloili]

Most users just think it as another hard fork and they would get free air drop and get some coins free.But people who have some knowledge about bitcoin expect no2x to succeed as they find no problems in the existing bitcoin.So,they think that there is no need of segwit 2x activation.

I think so. Segwit2X may not need to do this because I find it just a trick to create new coin to get more profit for them.

[pawanjain]

Most users just think it as another hard fork and they would get free air drop and get some coins free.But people who have some knowledge about bitcoin expect no2x to succeed as they find no problems in the existing bitcoin.So,they think that there is no need of segwit 2x activation.

Indeed, I think the experience of Bitcoin Cash has given people unrealistic expectations for this fork. Many think it's just a free airdrop of a new altcoin. They don't seem to realize that if companies like Coinbase, Blockchain.info and Xapo follow the 2X chain and refer to it as "Bitcoin" that they will be migrating to a new network -- and bringing all their customers with them.

For example, Blockchain.info is one of the most widely used wallets in the ecosystem. Someone using this wallet to accept transactions will accept B2X as valid payment, even though they may have thought they were receiving BTC. When they go to pay someone in BTC, all they will have is B2X. This could lead to major confusion, network disruption, and financial losses for users. I wish Segwit2x were just an airdrop, but really, it's much more dangerous.

That surely is a confusion among people who don't know much about Bitcoin and the fork. According to me the name "Bitcoin" should not be given to anybody as it reminds of everyone that it's the king of cryptocurrencies. Whichever fork happens for whatever reason should use any other name other than Bitcoin. It will surely lead to a confusion among people as to which side they are in and which coins they are using.

The upgrade should be done as it improves the overall capability of Bitcoin but it has to tackle some major problems like the change in name itself, letting the customers choose what they want, protection from hackers and other issues in splitting the chain.The split will enhance the networks capability and it must be done at some point of time when the network will be overloaded. So if the split provides security and enhances the network at the same time then there should not be any problems in people supporting it.

[RGBKey]

I have been observing social media polls and saw how high the number of people who haven't picked a side in this debate or who just don't think its important. I am interested if finding out whether it is important to have a position or not?

USERS do not have a say in this.

MINERS have a say.

Now, is it important to have a position on a matter (as a user) that you do not have a say in?

I think the answer is yes......

Users absolutely have a say in it. If nobody changes their client, current bitcoin nodes won't accept the new blocks.

Lol okay sure. But honestly how would that ever be measured? Number if downloads? It doesn't seem realistic to gdt an accurate number of people using any wallet.

There's no "lol okay sure" about it. Simply put, 2MB segwit blocks are against the consensus rules built into the vast majority of bitcoin nodes out there. When the fork hits, those blocks will not be propagated by the nodes running now, only new btc1/2x nodes.

[hiVe]

I think bitcoin user just want use normal bitcoin. it is good enough for us. only trader need something new to fud, rumor and get money