Bitcoin Cash versus Segwit2x

[K33plE4rn1Ng]

There is something I am puzzled with and I would like your point of view.
 
I understood that Bitcoin Core devs suggested segwit years ago and Bitcoin Cash increased the block size.
 
a) Could you tell me why segwit2x does have a so much negative press as I understand it is a combination both? Is the thief of the technology by a consortium of companies the only (but important) reason?
 
b) Segwit2x detractors promote Bitcoin Cash instead claiming that - but not limited to that - this cryptocurrency benefits from a much faster confirmation time and lower transaction fees. If my understanding is correct in case Bitcoin Segwit2x is activated and both currencies treat the same number of transaction and both are supported by the same Hashpower - would the transaction fees be more or less equals? What about the confirmation time (at equal transaction fees)?
 
Thank you in advance for your help.

[fiulpro]

Segwit2x was aimed at making the bitcoins completely decentralized with the help of bitcoin Gold, they are supporting bitcoin gold not bitcoin cash as far as I know.

The thing is , increasing the size of blockchain is nkt always beneficial because now its more prone to being attacked, the developers are recently finding faults in previous versions and correcting it .. segwit2x will just increase the load.. its like you need higher security to be able to handle 2MB size and the security system hasn't seen a rapid and fast development thus there are many sector against it saying it won't be as secure as bitcoins.

Satoshi Nakamoto decided the Value to be 1 Mb because it was efficient to handle and more secure...
So that's what the all fuss is about.

But I feel is that segwit2x can bring a good change if handled correctly keeping in mind the security of people's assets.

And the transaction fee I think will be higher and obviously its going to be faster.

[TheGodson]

It probably has a lot of negative press, because people are starting to realize how much crap these forks are. BCH was a pump and dump. BTG was a pump and dump (well this one never pumped, but the developers probably made money anyway). Chances are B2X is going to be a pump and dump as well.

Honestly, what is the point in making a 2x coin when BCH is 8x already? BCH sucks and most people know it. A few people were suckered in with the Satoshi-Nakamoto's-true-vision crap. I saw how cheesy and crappy the website was when it first came out. B2X will probably suck as well.

I'm not complaining though, because these forks are free money that you can sell or turn into BTC. This free money isn't actually free. It comes from suckers who actually believe in them.


By the way some people may look at crypto currency prices from $ perspective, but the best way to gauge its value is looking at its relation to BTC. If you notice carefully. BCH is at an all time low in comparison to BTC, but not when it is compared to $. This metric is better, because the more money in BTC, the more money in the crypto world in general.

[illyiller]

a) Could you tell me why segwit2x does have a so much negative press as I understand it is a combination both? Is the thief of the technology by a consortium of companies the only (but important) reason?

Core developed, tested and implemented Segwit over a nearly two year period. There was never any agreement among Core developers to back a hard fork block size increase. I think some of them are open to it, but the main problem is the back room dealing and economic coercion characterized by Segwit2x. And the really short timeline. It's prudent to implement hard forks on a 1-2 year timeline give Bitcoin's massive user base. 3 months guarantees a major split if there is much support for the hard fork.
 

b) Segwit2x detractors promote Bitcoin Cash instead claiming that - but not limited to that - this cryptocurrency benefits from a much faster confirmation time and lower transaction fees. If my understanding is correct in case Bitcoin Segwit2x is activated and both currencies treat the same number of transaction and both are supported by the same Hashpower - would the transaction fees be more or less equals? What about the confirmation time (at equal transaction fees)?
 
Thank you in advance for your help.

My recollection is that BCH has 8MB blocks (no Segwit). B2X will 8MB blocks (Segwit). Since Segwit is backward compatible / opt-in, it takes time to see the ecosystem upgrade. That's why, presently, less then 10% of network transactions use Segwit. So, out the box, BCH is more useful than Segwit2x if all we're talking about is sheer transaction throughput. Bitcoin Cash has a separate problem of heightened inflation because of changes they made to the difficulty algo, but they're hard forking to remove those changes next month, last I heard.

[K33plE4rn1Ng]

Thank you. It helps a lot.

At the end we need a way to pay meaning quick confirmations and low transaction fees. How can BTC be used today for buying just a hamburger or a pizza with the current fees and confirmation time?

I have the feeling that Bitcoin is now a decentralized settlement system no longer a payment one. I believe we need a way to pay cheap transactions not to send big amount of money over a decentralized network.

Is the lightning network the way to offer a scalable payment system? Is there other alternative in the roadmap?

[TheGodson]

a) Could you tell me why segwit2x does have a so much negative press as I understand it is a combination both? Is the thief of the technology by a consortium of companies the only (but important) reason?

Core developed, tested and implemented Segwit over a nearly two year period. There was never any agreement among Core developers to back a hard fork block size increase. I think some of them are open to it, but the main problem is the back room dealing and economic coercion characterized by Segwit2x. And the really short timeline. It's prudent to implement hard forks on a 1-2 year timeline give Bitcoin's massive user base. 3 months guarantees a major split if there is much support for the hard fork.
 

b) Segwit2x detractors promote Bitcoin Cash instead claiming that - but not limited to that - this cryptocurrency benefits from a much faster confirmation time and lower transaction fees. If my understanding is correct in case Bitcoin Segwit2x is activated and both currencies treat the same number of transaction and both are supported by the same Hashpower - would the transaction fees be more or less equals? What about the confirmation time (at equal transaction fees)?
 
Thank you in advance for your help.

My recollection is that BCH has 8MB blocks (no Segwit). B2X will 8MB blocks (Segwit). Since Segwit is backward compatible / opt-in, it takes time to see the ecosystem upgrade. That's why, presently, less then 10% of network transactions use Segwit. So, out the box, BCH is more useful than Segwit2x if all we're talking about is sheer transaction throughput. Bitcoin Cash has a separate problem of heightened inflation because of changes they made to the difficulty algo, but they're hard forking to remove those changes next month, last I heard.

The fact that BCH is forking again will probably have a big effect on its price. It is currently at an all time low and the fork won't be good for it. With B2X however, I don't see as many people saying "wow, it is so much better" like how people were doing with BCH. For this reason I believe BCH will last longer than B2X and will be considered more valuable. In the long run I expect both of them to collapse.