1. BCH and SegWit2x have strange relations, since BCH was created by Bitmain which also support SegWit2x. This shows that there's no unity or strong political beliefs in SegWit2x camp - they are simply guided by greed.

2. They did it on purpose to be as contentious and disruptive as possible, it's all about trying to force Core to submit to their demands instead of having their own vision. It's not a secret that eventually Core will start preparing for their own block size increase, but only when they will feel like the network is ready - they don't want to risk security for some short term gain in capacity. So, SegWit2x people want to actually control Core or replace it, simply increasing blocksize is not their main goal.

3. There would be a huge legal shitstorm if a company like Coinbase tried to name SegWit2x coin as "BTC". They are not completely suicidal.

I like segwit2x because they will be much more faster than bitcoin at the moment, but i have read a lot of things regarding to them and their team and it is very suspicious, i would not support this fork because they are the most greedy developers that i have ever seen since i am in the bitcoin community.
They are harming bitcoin a lot, and i am sure that they will try to spread a huge fud about bitcoin once that the fork is done. It is a garbage, once that i get my coins i will dump them.

I quite agree with everything you said in 1 and 2 above, greed and plans to seize the BTC brand was the main motive behind the idea to split Bitcoin and we can be sure that they would, like black mailers keep asking for more or coming up with things intentionally meant to derail Bitcoin, but disappointment is and will always remain their lot!

As for Coinbase trying to name Segwit2x coin as BTC, I guess they had to think again and came up with this:

https://blog.coinbase.com/timeline-and-support-bitcoin-segwit2x-and-bitcoin-gold-eda72525efd

I recently read a news where the developers of segwit2x explained how they choosed to implement bitcoin gold hard fork before segwit2x because they aimed at making it Completely decentralized and both hard forks were in support of each other, but they failed to mention the fact that , this fork is not supported by 90% of the miners
.. and now we can see that few influential People are controlling this and making this decision.
It makes it centralized when only 10% People are in the favour of it !!!
Also the heavier a transaction get , more and more it will be difficult to keep it secure.
The founder of bitcoins made the limit 1 MB because the first priority they had was security!!! With millions of People investing in it... They need to be secure !!! First them only will the consider investing in the future.
Getting the blockchain size to exceed that limit makes it vulnerable to attacks , to cyber crimes.
I don't think I really hate this segwit2x but yes I do hate that they are playing with the security of their investors.

BCH was a hardfork to settle the "civil war" between the block minimalists and maximalists and therefore it should end there and then. Any other hardfork are pointless and achieves nothing, except create new coins and hopefully new money. (bonus for the scammers like bitcoin Gold)

Having Bitcoin under the control of segwit2x, especially from New York with their Bitlicence, set my mental alarm bells ringing. It is obvious that the majority of users have no interest, both BTC and BCH, in segwit2x. Users will simply have to wait and ride the out the storm and reject the miners/centralised companies attempt to control Bitcoin for their own agenda.

Has anyone thought through various scenarios and how the price of BTC, BCH, etc will be affected?

You guys are so naive. You still think it's about blocksize/scaling.

It is not.

It's about controling the beast.

Right now a big dev team is responsible of bitcoin but they are not alone. A whole big user community supports that dev team.

What really happening is, bitmain, the biggest mining corporation wants to replace the dev team with some puppets they can control. They want the dev team to be their employees.

That's an attack. An hostile takeover.

Have you ever stepped in r/btc lately?

These people are (mostly) paid trolls. You can't convince paidtrolls with common logic. They've made up their minds and chosen to be supporters of scammers like Craig Wright or Roger Ver.

How can anybody support a freak like Craig Wright? What common logic do expect from a person like this?

Good luck with talking sense to them.

No, I'm not talking about these "extremists".

There are, however, a lot of Bitcoiners that have supported a 2MB+Segwit solution in the past. This poll shows that the solution had "some" acceptance within the Bitcointalk forum. Since then, unfortunately, the "dust" has increased in this forum and it's harder to tell which opinions are real and which one are simply "pseudo-opinions" by spammers that want to increase their post count.

This thread is directed to the moderate people that have some sympathy for the 2MB solution, not to die-hard big blockers.

You vision seems somehow blurred D5000, those guys only care to covert the BTC brand and have been working hard at it and the only way to make that obvious is by unmasking their treacherous plans for all to see. You moderate big blockers have to at least know the truth and reach their own well informed decisions. It's the future of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency that's being subtly negotiated and am afraid gentle manly approach or being civil is a sell out and water on the back of a dock at most!

100% in agreement with Mindrust's suggestion that you step out of you closet quite often to see what's going on in the neighborhood, that's how your closet can ever remain safe. Also whenever you happen to dine with the devil, be sure to use a very long spoon, because they're ever unrelenting and uncompromising in their pursuits. Here, you may want to read this again without bias:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2328044.0

They can't, at least not only "winning the fork war", as I already explained above (see here). Having the most popular Bitcoin website (bitcoin.org) is a BIG asset if you want to be in control of the code that will be used by the majority of the users.

What "they" can do - and only that - is to pursue a common agenda with miners and Bitcoin companies, trying to force the developers to include certain changes like the 2x weight/blocksize increase.

I think, however, that an "extended NYA" or a "new NYA for a 4x blocksize" (for example) will be very hard to achieve, because the NYA was an exceptional compromise in a pretty critical situation, and some or even most of the companies that signed it were more interested in Segwit than in the 2MB fork. Segwit would very likely still not be "live" if it wasn't because of Segwit2x, as the BIP148 folks never got the majority of the nodes and hadn't much hashrate support.


No. It's a single (protocol-relevant) variable in the code that would be changed. That's all

Other cryptocurrencies are not affected at all. It isn't even the first time a contentious hard fork happens in the crypto-sphere (see Crypti/Lisk, Eth/Etc ...).

I already commented on that. That's a single opinion of a big blocker and Bitcoin Cash fan in a Chinese forum.


There were some pools - mainly ViaBTC - that greatly helped BCash getting some hashrate and becoming a major altcoin. We don't know what exactly was Bitmain's stance, and that's also why I wrote "or tolerated". OK, maybe I should have written "some Segwit2x supporters".


In my opinion, this is a slow "domino effect". If they perceive Sw2x to have low support, and thus do things (assign "BTC" to the 1MB chain) that will result in even less support, then it will be increasingly harder for Segwit2x to become "the Bitcoin". Not impossible, but I consider it unlikely, and the last ViaBTC statement (that they, for now, do not support 2x) has strengthened my belief in that the 2x chain won't "win" the "fork battle".

That seems like a good decision I'll do the same.