Segwit2X and the fight for BTC

[cioloxl]

First of all, btc finds itself in a deadlock, where it's no longer viable as a fast and cheap payment method, being painfully slow and expensive. And this is all Core's doing. Mind you, I am not an adept of Bitcoin Cash and I'm not here to champion BCH or their side. But doubling the blocksize to 2mb coupled with segwit would alleviate, at least for the moment, the strain on the network. I'm not arguing that increasing the size without reason would be a good thing, I can understand the sentiment that mr. Antonopoulos is trying to convey, that increasing the size endlessly would pose a serious threat to the network in the future and make it harder for individuals to provide nodes. But 2mb is not gonna make that happen.

BTC lost its dominance over the altcoins BECAUSE of core. Because of religious extremists like Luke Dash Jr that only see their views as being the right ones. Why was such a shady character (the man advocates for the DEATH of non-catholics and all other type of crazy stuff, if you didn't know: https://np.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/search?q=luke&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all). Why are these people put on a pedestal and trusted blindly? Like I said, I'm not here advocating Jihan and Ver's cause, but the Core team is dangerous.

Can someone change my view by pointing to the contrary? I think S2X would be a great improvement for the current problems of Bitcoin and it's something that they ALREADY agreed to.

[TheGodson]

Sorry, but B2X is a trap. (Post being edited to include freaking picture... hang on)

edit: Okay here it is:  


I spent a long time trying to get this thing up here, so be happy that I did. I first tried to get the BB code from imgur... didn't work. Tried downloading it to reupload it... didn't work. Finally I linked youtube video to make a new post and was able to get the BB code there.

Okay, now for the reasons. BCH was garbage as well as BTG. These coins were specifically made to make money. When it comes to these coins there is always a premining and false crap about "Satoshi's ture vision" and what not. BCH is faster than BTC. B2X will be too. Guess what though, LTC is even faster than both of those. Bitcoin is on top for a reason. It is actually used in the world and has better developers behind it. The code for it is better and everyone knows it. All these forks are just hyped up and used against less understanding individuals to make money they are simply... you guessed it.

They are a trap!  

[cioloxl]

Sorry, but B2X is a trap.

Go on, I'm genuinely curious. Trap in what way? Laid by whom and what for?

[fiulpro]

Dude if you think core team is dangerous then the squirrel sitting in the yard ...assume her to be a rattle snake.
Core team aims at providing best facilities but not at an expense of security.
No matter how nice it may seem but with increase in the speed of bitcoins it must be adapted to deal with higher threat and vulnerability, it might leave a lot of space open for hackers and guess what ?
People will soon realize it and stop using it !!
It will affect the Crowd in a negative way and the value of bitcoins will go down at a very fast rate.
Core team planned this years before but they weren't ready to implement it considering the high security threat it might pose.
Yes it can have a positive impact no doubt but !!! The question is are they well equipped to handle this burden that too so suddenly ?? Because millions of people are out there in the market doing transactions every day and securely letting them complete their task is one thing thats Primary.
I don't have any grudge towards segwit2x until and unless they can handle what they promised but efficiently and securely.

[cioloxl]

Sorry, but B2X is a trap. (Post being edited to include freaking picture... hang on)

edit: Okay here it is:  


I spent a long time trying to get this thing up here, so be happy that I did. I first tried to get the BB code from imgur... didn't work. Tried downloading it to reupload it... didn't work. Finally I linked youtube video to make a new post and was able to get the BB code there.

Okay, now for the reasons. BCH was garbage as well as BTG. These coins were specifically made to make money. When it comes to these coins there is always a premining and false crap about "Satoshi's ture vision" and what not. BCH is faster than BTC. B2X will be too. Guess what though, LTC is even faster than both of those. Bitcoin is on top for a reason. It is actually used in the world and has better developers behind it. The code for it is better and everyone knows it. All these forks are just hyped up and used against less understanding individuals to make money they are simply... you guessed it.

They are a trap!  

BTG is truly a scammy shitcoin, but I don't think BCH is useless. I don't like that they opened the floodgates to this name-stealing shit, but it's a coin that has low fees and is fast. Bitcoin will lose and the whole ecosystem will lose if in 2018 in doesn't become more than a store-of-value asset. I feel another boost in adoption is around the corner and I don't want adoption to be hampered because people won't see it more than a payment system with irreversible transactions (normal people won't see this as a perk) that isn't either fast nor cheap. We need lightning network, and we need it yesterday. A block increase would be wonderful right about now. This is the way I see it from an economical point of view, maybe technically someone can prove me wrong.

[jseverson]

I agree that Bitcoin should not stay the way it is. Cryptocurrencies are evolving, and it's getting left behind. Forks, obviously, are the only way to accomplish this, so I cannot say I am truly against forks. What I am against, though, are hostile take overs. I have no opinion over the integrity of the core members, but if the team behind S2X truly wanted to change Bitcoin for the better, it shouldn't have to be "my way or the highway."

I'm sure it would not have been impossible to come up with a compromise especially if all the involved parties have the same end goal. Instead, they're going to push through with the fork, and they don't even plan on implementing replay protection -- if that isn't hostile, I don't know what is. Forks aren't inherently bad because they come with improvements, but they should be done in the correct manner in my opinion.

[cioloxl]

I agree that Bitcoin should not stay the way it is. Cryptocurrencies are evolving, and it's getting left behind. Forks, obviously, are the only way to accomplish this, so I cannot say I am truly against forks. What I am against, though, are hostile take overs. I have no opinion over the integrity of the core members, but if the team behind S2X truly wanted to change Bitcoin for the better, it shouldn't have to be "my way or the highway."

I'm sure it would not have been impossible to come up with a compromise especially if all the involved parties have the same end goal. Instead, they're going to push through with the fork, and they don't even plan on implementing replay protection -- if that isn't hostile, I don't know what is. Forks aren't inherently bad because they come with improvements, but they should be done in the correct manner in my opinion.

Blockstream is cancer, that's not up for discussion. But why is Core so adamant about not increasing the size to 2? Just 2, the whole system is bottlenecked and they want to wait. This wait is hurting Bitcoin way more than a measly 2mb size. Personally, based on my own analysis, a 2mb cannot be bad. Going higher, probably. At least for now. I could see 4mb being ok for 2020+

[jseverson]

Blockstream is cancer, that's not up for discussion. But why is Core so adamant about not increasing the size to 2? Just 2, the whole system is bottlenecked and they want to wait. This wait is hurting Bitcoin way more than a measly 2mb size. Personally, based on my own analysis, a 2mb cannot be bad. Going higher, probably. At least for now. I could see 4mb being ok for 2020+

Well, there are arguments out there that 2mb is too large and that it would eventually lead to centralization, with only specialized companies being able to run full nodes. I don't necessarily agree nor disagree with that, and really the only reason why I'm opposed is because like I said, I see it as a hostile take over.

Most arguments about segwit2x pretty much run in the same vein. This was never about the technical issue. Maybe core is also adopting that line of thinking? This does create quite a dangerous precedent after all.