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

[hatshepsut93]

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?

Social media polls aren't very representative and can just easily be manipulated. Like, there's a poll on CoinDesk with nearly even results for all 3 options - support, oppose, not decided, but lets not forget that CoinDesk belongs to the same DCG that is behind the fork. Users who frequently engage in Bitcoin discussions usually have pretty strong opinion on the fork - just check /r/Bitcoin or this forum, you'll rarely see anyone undecided. Those who don't have their opinion yet are probably newbies or people who threat Bitcoin very casually, because both don't have enough knowledge to understand what's happening. But they would quickly learn if someone from the forkers would tell them to install btc1 client and import their private keys - because that sounds really suspicious even for unexperienced users.

[Maveth13]

Of course users should care, not just that, they should understand what segwit2x is. These two previous forks, especially the august one, gave a wrong idea that this will just be another altcoin. People should know the positive and negative side of implementing segwit2x. This confusion and ignorance of the matter will be more destructive than the downside of the proposal itself.

[n4poleon]

Fork all they want. I'll stay with the original, core's roadmap makes much more sense, increasing blocksize is the easiest way to scale but trade-offs are inefficiency, security and much more prone to censorship. Anyone who thinks increasing blocksize is the only way to scale is uncreative, like tax easiest way for government revenue. #NO2X

[ethereumhunter]

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

yes people like me only want to use bitcoin to make another money but if there is any free of coins that people could get then we are waiting for the free one. i think with the segwit2x, people can know and learn the process of bitcoin, the journey of bitcoin itself is still a long way to go and we need to know what is happen in bitcoin itself.

[BelieveInBitcoin]

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

I don't agree - we want a faster Bitcoin for example. You can only use it in shops, for example, once it gets a lot faster.

[gentlemand]

I don't agree - we want a faster Bitcoin for example. You can only use it in shops, for example, once it gets a lot faster.

It's never going to be faster. 10 minutes is the sweet spot. It may be faster with layers on top, but I don't think the core ways in which the original chain operates are going to change now.

[Spendulus]

I don't agree - we want a faster Bitcoin for example. You can only use it in shops, for example, once it gets a lot faster.

It's never going to be faster. 10 minutes is the sweet spot. It may be faster with layers on top, but I don't think the core ways in which the original chain operates are going to change now.

The solution is slow the shops down, make them serve beer. Ring a bell every block solved.

All the world's shops must bow before Satoshi.

[talkbitcoin]

i think a better question would be "how many users understand which side is correct and by how much?"

that in my opinion is the most important question that should concern everyone. are people just blindly following, investing, dreaming about the future? or are they actually knowledgeable enough to at least understand why things like bitcoin cash are bad or maybe even good?

that is one of the things that occupies my thoughts these days. and i try to educate myself enough so that whey i say i am against BCH fork (or Segwit2x or others in the future) i say it because i understand what i am saying (even if i am wrong) not just following what others say emotionally.

[BIG Tyrese]

I don't have the technical knowledge to choose really and am relying on the people who do to make the correct decision.

[ivomm]

I am also afraid that the segwit2x can harm the bitcoin. Before the HF on 18-19 Nov the price may have some drops and dips, but the 'free money' hope will hold it comparetively high. Many noob traders don't understand the risks this HF brings (unlike Bcash HF in 1 Aug). The truth is that after the HF there will be much FUD and this is never good for the price. I can only imagine what may happen to the price if such uncertainty is in the air for days and weeks. If the bad news from China lead on several occasions to 30-ish% drop in price for a day, imagine what will do the fear of 2x chain killing the legacy chain. The stupid and greedy pool owners don't understand that if the investors are dissapointed by a too heavy blow on the price, they will never go to the 2x chain. There is a possibility that both coins combined will have much less value in the long run. Now, I am a hodler and don't want this to happen, but if the price goes above 6K once again, I may be tempted to sell and wait better times to invest again.

[An0nyMoose]

Users should absolutely NOT care about which side wins because it is not about sides. The Bitcoin network is decentralized and votes and agrees on the state of the network every 10 minutes. People vote with their full nodes with has the complete history of the Blockchain.

[CryptosapienZA]

***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.

Unfortunately I doubt you will get an answer. Everytime I hear someone say,'B2X is corporation takeover bitcoin", I have yet to hear that person back it up with facts when challenged. Now, personally I am terrified of the consequence of fork. What I know for sure we need a solution to these high transaction fees. And we were deceived into thinking 2X will be implemented after segwit. We all know LN is not ready, to me increasing the block size does buy us sometime while we look for more permanent scaling solutions.

[bitfools]

Users should absolutely NOT care about which side wins because it is not about sides. The Bitcoin network is decentralized and votes and agrees on the state of the network every 10 minutes. People vote with their full nodes with has the complete history of the Blockchain.

PTB cares about TWO THINGS

1.) Who controls BTC-CORE, e.g. who writes the CODE, the CODE is what makes the block-chain, already the new BTG ( Bitcoin-Gold  ) doesn't import the classic block-chain, they have their own blockchain, and their own addresses. SEGWIT will also create their own block chain data-structures. The entire "FORK" program BCC,BTG, BSEG are all designed to fragment and create FUD ( read the Chinese plan to take over BTC )

"He that controls the BTC SOURCE control's BTC in the future"

2.) They "PTB" ( Kosher Nostra ) they want the BITCOIN-BRAND, the name, the $200+ Billion USD market-cap and good will.

It's clear here on this forum that the little people only care about "FREE SHIT COINS", but this is only dilution of BTC, and violates Satoshi's original limit of BTC to 21 Million.

The full nodes run SOURCE CODE, which they download from "BITCOIN CORE", or who ever has the MOST POLITICAL muscle to convince +51% of the MINERS to run that source code. The Block-Chain/Merkel Tree don't mean fuck, every time a new source is installed they can easily automate a -reindex and reformat the entire blockchain/database as the wish.



HE WHO CONTROLS the SOURCE CONTROLS BTC

Eventually IMHO the plan of NYA is to go closed source, once they take over BTC with SEGWIT-2, then they will say that the block-chain needs to be encrypted, and that the source needs to be closed to prevent hacking, and the BTC will be just like the "FEDERAL RESERVE BANK", with the exact same ppl running BTC.