Segwit2x fork is still on or it is suspended now forever?

[sourjain]

Please share your views with supportive link as if the mid november fork is still going to happen or it is suspended after founders not able to agree on terms.

[achow101]

The soft fork is suspended by the primary facilitators of it. However this does not necessarily mean that it won't happen; it just won't have the majority of the previous support. Miners could still download and run the Segwit2x software and fork anyways, it is just unlikely that they will do so, although some might.

[Kakmakr]

Jeff Garzik is launching a Cross Chain ICO called Metronome and most probably working full time on that and the rest of the developers have to take responsibility for the coding on SegWit2X. The risk for failure is very high, when you consider that they refused to add replay protection with the code.

Who will step forward to take the blame, when people start to lose bitcoins <BTC> in the confusion with zero replay protection?

As a developer, I would not risk my reputation and my future projects on such a risky move. You do not mess around with a Billion dollar project, if there is the slightest chance that people would lose money, because of your mistakes. 

[Spendulus]

Jeff Garzik is launching a Cross Chain ICO called Metronome and most probably working full time on that and the rest of the developers have to take responsibility for the coding on SegWit2X. The risk for failure is very high, when you consider that they refused to add replay protection with the code.

Who will step forward to take the blame, when people start to lose bitcoins <BTC> in the confusion with zero replay protection?

As a developer, I would not risk my reputation and my future projects on such a risky move. You do not mess around with a Billion dollar project, if there is the slightest chance that people would lose money, because of your mistakes. 

But apparently they didn't care about that.

Or it took that a long time to grasp.

Why?

[aleksej996]

Jeff Garzik is launching a Cross Chain ICO called Metronome and most probably working full time on that and the rest of the developers have to take responsibility for the coding on SegWit2X. The risk for failure is very high, when you consider that they refused to add replay protection with the code.

Who will step forward to take the blame, when people start to lose bitcoins <BTC> in the confusion with zero replay protection?

As a developer, I would not risk my reputation and my future projects on such a risky move. You do not mess around with a Billion dollar project, if there is the slightest chance that people would lose money, because of your mistakes. 

But apparently they didn't care about that.

Or it took that a long time to grasp.

Why?

They probably thought that the Bitcoin Core would either lose all support or more likely that they will agree to fork as well.
Once they saw the battle was lost and that no one comes out a winner, they simply gave up.
They never wanted a chain split apparently, they wanted Bitcoin to do a hard fork as a whole with no legacy chain left, but they made a mistake of not asking people what they think first, did everything behind closed doors.

[Spendulus]

Jeff Garzik is launching a Cross Chain ICO called Metronome and most probably working full time on that and the rest of the developers have to take responsibility for the coding on SegWit2X. The risk for failure is very high, when you consider that they refused to add replay protection with the code.

Who will step forward to take the blame, when people start to lose bitcoins <BTC> in the confusion with zero replay protection?

As a developer, I would not risk my reputation and my future projects on such a risky move. You do not mess around with a Billion dollar project, if there is the slightest chance that people would lose money, because of your mistakes. 

But apparently they didn't care about that.

Or it took that a long time to grasp.

Why?

They probably thought that the Bitcoin Core would either lose all support or more likely that they will agree to fork as well.
Once they saw the battle was lost and that no one comes out a winner, they simply gave up.
They never wanted a chain split apparently, they wanted Bitcoin to do a hard fork as a whole with no legacy chain left, but they made a mistake of not asking people what they think first, did everything behind closed doors.

Fie, Fit, Foe, Fum.

I smell the stink of New Yorker-dumb.

[achow101]

if it is suspended, then, do they have a new schedule for Segwit2x fork?

No. We only know that those who were primarily pushing the fork have withdrawn support for it for now. We do not know if they will attempt again and when they might do so.

[karmakeddon]

if it is suspended, then, do they have a new schedule for Segwit2x fork?

No. We only know that those who were primarily pushing the fork have withdrawn support for it for now. We do not know if they will attempt again and when they might do so.

I do hope it stays this way for now. There have been too many bitcoin forks recently and we really did not need another one. If it happens, I do hope that it happens maybe a year or two from now. Let bitcoin stabilize then fork it again if needed.

[Kakmakr]

Jeff Garzik is launching a Cross Chain ICO called Metronome and most probably working full time on that and the rest of the developers have to take responsibility for the coding on SegWit2X. The risk for failure is very high, when you consider that they refused to add replay protection with the code.

Who will step forward to take the blame, when people start to lose bitcoins <BTC> in the confusion with zero replay protection?

As a developer, I would not risk my reputation and my future projects on such a risky move. You do not mess around with a Billion dollar project, if there is the slightest chance that people would lose money, because of your mistakes. 

But apparently they didn't care about that.

Or it took that a long time to grasp.

Why?

It is not that they did not care or that they were oblivious to the end result. They knew exactly what they were doing and it fit their agenda to sabotage or slow Bitcoin down. When Jeff Garzik showed his cards with Metronome, it was the beginning of the end for their little hostile takeover attempt of BTC.

The whole backroom deal fell apart as people began to realize what they were signing up for. < total ruin if this failed >

[ldah94]

According to Mike Belshe's announcement, they expect the size of the block to be increased later, once there is greater agreement from interested parties. So it's not a definitive cancellation, how long is it going to take? we do not know yet, what is known is that the bitcoin community is not yet ready for this hardfork

[Spendulus]

According to Mike Belshe's announcement, they expect the size of the block to be increased later, once there is greater agreement from interested parties. So it's not a definitive cancellation, how long is it going to take? we do not know yet, what is known is that the bitcoin community is not yet ready for this hardfork

This was never about the technical matter of block size.

It was about control. There has always been differing goals and mindsets between bitcoin "industry" and "users."

But if a minority can announce a fork and intentionally wreak havoc, and get away with it, that would appear to show a weakness in the overall functional of the algorithm in our admittedly imperfect society.

This "agreement" came from New York. New York is the banking capital of the world. Wouldn't the bankers like to control crypto? It would of course be a very different thing then.

That would be opposite from the goals of Satoshi Nakamoto.

On the matter of block size and it's importance.

Any traditional database expert would and is really laughing over a bunch of crypto nerds being conning on a pitch that a 2x block size in a database is going to solve their problems.

Really when a system upgrade is made for increased performance, the thinking has to be in terms of orders of magnitude improvement.

[aleksej996]

But if a minority can announce a fork and intentionally wreak havoc, and get away with it, that would appear to show a weakness in the overall functional of the algorithm in our admittedly imperfect society.

On the other hand, Bitcoin never saw something like this before and these forks had a huge economical support and yet Bitcoin is still alive and number one.
Give Bitcoin some credit when it's due. Bitcoin took this quite well regarding how big the support was from miners and big Bitcoin companies for these forks.
Even tho all these forks were asking for a small change to a protocol and put a lot of money on it, they still failed. This just goes to show that Bitcoin is a lot more resilient then you might think on the first glance.