Hydrogen (OP)
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 2562
Merit: 1441
|
 |
November 17, 2017, 09:10:58 PM |
|
 Link to tweet: https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/931547098625052672  Scrolling through the thread, there is a lot of good info. Topics such as block size and centralization crop up. Definitely recommended content. I never got involved with the specifics of segwit2x to know how good or bad it is. Awhile ago there was a bug in Bitcoin Unlimited that killed nodes which seems to parallel this bug in segwit. History is repeating itself. A precedent may be forming where those involved with bitcoin unlimited, segwit2x and perhaps bitcoin cash are prone towards doing these types of things. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No Gods or Kings. Only Bitcoin
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
player514
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1414
Merit: 1039
|
|
November 17, 2017, 09:20:44 PM |
|
Link to tweet: https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/931547098625052672 Scrolling through the thread, there is a lot of good info. Topics such as block size and centralization crop up. Definitely recommended content. I never got involved with the specifics of segwit2x to know how good or bad it is. Awhile ago there was a bug in Bitcoin Unlimited that killed nodes which seems to parallel this bug in segwit. History is repeating itself. A precedent may be forming where those involved with bitcoin unlimited, segwit2x and perhaps bitcoin cash are prone towards doing these types of things. Interesting. I like how this was initially played off as a "inability to come to a consensus." I agree with the post; no competent devs would want to support the fork. It was basically an attack on bitcoin with such a lack of information that people didn't really even know what was happening. I find it really interesting how this whole situation is unraveling now. |
This area is up for grabs! PM me if you're interested.
|
|
|
salterious
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 258
Merit: 100
The revolutionary Export system/One-click Export
|
|
November 17, 2017, 09:23:53 PM |
|
Link to tweet: https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/931547098625052672 Scrolling through the thread, there is a lot of good info. Topics such as block size and centralization crop up. Definitely recommended content. I never got involved with the specifics of segwit2x to know how good or bad it is. Awhile ago there was a bug in Bitcoin Unlimited that killed nodes which seems to parallel this bug in segwit. History is repeating itself. A precedent may be forming where those involved with bitcoin unlimited, segwit2x and perhaps bitcoin cash are prone towards doing these types of things. Oh wow thank you truly for bringing something like this to light! I didnt know this was the whole reason behind the fork but I can honestly say I am not surprised and I thought the fork was ruled by greed. Now I can confirm my notion as correct and actually have some reasoning as to why those scumbags were trying to push 2x through. |
|
|
|
|
farhaan
|
|
November 17, 2017, 11:14:13 PM |
|
Link to tweet: https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/931547098625052672 Scrolling through the thread, there is a lot of good info. Topics such as block size and centralization crop up. Definitely recommended content. I never got involved with the specifics of segwit2x to know how good or bad it is. Awhile ago there was a bug in Bitcoin Unlimited that killed nodes which seems to parallel this bug in segwit. History is repeating itself. A precedent may be forming where those involved with bitcoin unlimited, segwit2x and perhaps bitcoin cash are prone towards doing these types of things. So,now we come to know the true reason for S2X supporters to suddenly cancel its activation.So,its not about the lack of support but technical error so that they could not make their ream true.Just they said that they don't want bitcoin community to get split blah blah blah.....So,finally truth has been revealed. |
|
|
|
|
pixie85
|
|
November 17, 2017, 11:32:52 PM |
|
So,now we come to know the true reason for S2X supporters to suddenly cancel its activation.So,its not about the lack of support but technical error so that they could not make their ream true.Just they said that they don't want bitcoin community to get split blah blah blah.....So,finally truth has been revealed.
I just pity those guys who pushed for conferences and talks to make miners agree on one and the same fork. You know back when the community was divided between BU and segwit... It seems that all that effort was for nothing because the devs failed at their job. They will have to find a way to upgrade though. We can't go on like this forever with the rising number of transactions. |
|
|
|
|
|
carlisle1
|
|
November 18, 2017, 12:58:40 AM |
|
Link to tweet: https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/931547098625052672 Scrolling through the thread, there is a lot of good info. Topics such as block size and centralization crop up. Definitely recommended content. I never got involved with the specifics of segwit2x to know how good or bad it is. Awhile ago there was a bug in Bitcoin Unlimited that killed nodes which seems to parallel this bug in segwit. History is repeating itself. A precedent may be forming where those involved with bitcoin unlimited, segwit2x and perhaps bitcoin cash are prone towards doing these types of things. Oh wow thank you truly for bringing something like this to light! I didnt know this was the whole reason behind the fork but I can honestly say I am not surprised and I thought the fork was ruled by greed. Now I can confirm my notion as correct and actually have some reasoning as to why those scumbags were trying to push 2x through. right mate this is enlightening to all crypto user that afraid of that segwit2x and finally revealed the real intention inside.i think this means celebration for bitcoin supporters to all those who keep trusting bitcoin and other coins.once it proves that greediness wont win in this communitu |
|
|
|
|
|
sofi@
|
|
November 18, 2017, 01:06:40 AM |
|
I was right then segwit2x has some technical issues that's why it was postponed and its not because of lack of any support from developers. Now I understand why bitcoin cash just pump the day segwit announce its postponement. But anyway this has no affect to bitcoin so I must say we should not be worry anymore and celebrate because bitcoin will remain the main coin and will continue to be at the top.
|
|
|
|
squatz1
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1285
Flying Hellfish is a Commie
|
|
November 18, 2017, 01:31:51 AM |
|
Incompetency, which is somewhat of a common theme in these forks with coins that aren't going to be worth anything, is going to be the death of the altcoin and forking of coins market. Which I think should already be dead, I don't think they should be here anyway.
This should be the beginnning of the end though, we just need everyone to come here and pray that this is over with.
Fuck BCH (Jihan and Ver) and 2X. RIP
|
|
|
|
|
aeternus
|
|
November 18, 2017, 04:30:32 AM |
|
Link to tweet: https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/931547098625052672 Scrolling through the thread, there is a lot of good info. Topics such as block size and centralization crop up. Definitely recommended content. I never got involved with the specifics of segwit2x to know how good or bad it is. Awhile ago there was a bug in Bitcoin Unlimited that killed nodes which seems to parallel this bug in segwit. History is repeating itself. A precedent may be forming where those involved with bitcoin unlimited, segwit2x and perhaps bitcoin cash are prone towards doing these types of things. Interesting. I like how this was initially played off as a "inability to come to a consensus." I agree with the post; no competent devs would want to support the fork. It was basically an attack on bitcoin with such a lack of information that people didn't really even know what was happening. I find it really interesting how this whole situation is unraveling now. I think it is understandable, did they thought they could develop a new coin in a matter of months? I always felt like it was rushed, in my opinion it was impossible from the very beginning to develop a working product with such a time limit and it seems that at the end the fork was destined to failure from the very beginning thanks to their unrealistic expectations. |
|
|
|
|
HighlanderMonk
Member
Offline
Activity: 266
Merit: 12
|
|
November 18, 2017, 05:05:45 AM |
|
It failed because only 7% of miners accepted it
|
|
|
|
|
jessicawelsh
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 420
Merit: 0
|
|
November 18, 2017, 05:07:20 AM |
|
It failed because only 7% of miners accepted it
Yeah , miners are people who will decided the fork will happen or not. So with only 7% it's not happen is a normal thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
jekjekman
|
|
November 18, 2017, 05:09:21 AM |
|
So,now we come to know the true reason for S2X supporters to suddenly cancel its activation.So,its not about the lack of support but technical error so that they could not make their ream true.Just they said that they don't want bitcoin community to get split blah blah blah.....So,finally truth has been revealed.
I just pity those guys who pushed for conferences and talks to make miners agree on one and the same fork. You know back when the community was divided between BU and segwit... It seems that all that effort was for nothing because the devs failed at their job. They will have to find a way to upgrade though. We can't go on like this forever with the rising number of transactions. Bitcoin network are really congested nowadays with those massive transaction each day and the higher fees of transaction are not what Bitcoin does so increasing the block size of the network is a must but how can this happen if Miners will not signal or support the new Hard Fork that is made by developers, they made this new changes for the better good of Bitcoin and I can't really blame that many people are too scared with any underlying causes that may occur, how I wish just for once we must trust the developers as they are doing this for the betterment of Bitcoin no more no less. |
|
|
|
|
|
gredisgold88
|
|
November 18, 2017, 05:26:17 AM |
|
stacking transactions in blockchain causes failure segwit 2x ? , can devlop blockchain btc outsmart by turn off transaction for 7 days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ReindeerOnMe
|
|
November 18, 2017, 05:31:07 AM |
|
It failed because only 7% of miners accepted it
As far as I know many miners supported it and then just backed out when the day of the fork is closing. I think there are some issues about it but we can conclude that the miners isn't the reason. |
|
|
|
|
|
Saifher
|
|
November 18, 2017, 05:39:41 AM |
|
Imagine if they hand't called it off, it would have been a huge disaster for the ENTIRE cryptocurrency market. What these guys from 2x did was very irresponsible and i hope people have learned their lesson after this mess.
|
|
|
|
|
HabBear
|
|
November 18, 2017, 06:15:34 AM |
|
That's pretty funny! And it's a much better explanation than saying "a majority of node operators refused to accept the code change." Imagine if they hand't called it off, it would have been a huge disaster for the ENTIRE cryptocurrency market. What these guys from 2x did was very irresponsible and i hope people have learned their lesson after this mess.
Huh? Why? Bitcoin Cash exists just fine but didn't cause any disaster. Same with Bitcoin Gold... |
|
|
|
|
Hydrogen (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2562
Merit: 1441
|
|
November 20, 2017, 09:39:50 PM |
|
This is very funny and all. Does anyone get an impression segwit was deliberately written to crash in cases where block sizes were not larger than 1MB to make bitcoin look bad?
All over the news and media there are stories of millions of credit cards numbers being stolen. There were hacks of equifax and the SEC. There's news about JP Morgan recently being charged with money laundering.
Could the error have been deliberately included to generate bad press on bitcoin/crypto?
|
|
|
|
|
AncientMystery
Member
Offline
Activity: 166
Merit: 10
“The Future of Security Tokens”
|
|
November 20, 2017, 09:56:49 PM |
|
OP, you brought up a very interesting opinion, thanks for that!
I the crypto world any type of manipulation is possible. I think this mistake was mainly used to pump BCH, not sure if it was planned or not...
|
|
|
|
|
szpalata
|
|
November 20, 2017, 10:17:56 PM |
|
OP, you brought up a very interesting opinion, thanks for that!
I the crypto world any type of manipulation is possible. I think this mistake was mainly used to pump BCH, not sure if it was planned or not...
FUD's are created and i can't tell for a fact whether they planned to create that panic in order to promote some shitcoin but it's even better they had no other panacea for their promotion except bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
jjacob
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1026
★Nitrogensports.eu★
|
|
November 20, 2017, 10:34:13 PM |
|
Link to tweet: https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/931547098625052672 Scrolling through the thread, there is a lot of good info. Topics such as block size and centralization crop up. Definitely recommended content. I never got involved with the specifics of segwit2x to know how good or bad it is. Awhile ago there was a bug in Bitcoin Unlimited that killed nodes which seems to parallel this bug in segwit. History is repeating itself. A precedent may be forming where those involved with bitcoin unlimited, segwit2x and perhaps bitcoin cash are prone towards doing these types of things. Segwit2X hasn't failed. The launch of Segwit2X has been postponed. I don't think you have heard the last of the scaling debate. The backers of Segwit2X didn't want the community to be sharply divided over its launch. |
|
|
|
|
