Topic: [2017-08-02]Could SegWit2x Lead to Three Different Bitcoins? - page 2. (Read 12393 times)

I think that just because of all the stress that was associated with the previous week if there was going to be something like that they would put it off for a little while. These things can be a major pain in the butt and people know that now.  Good to see nothing major happen and bitcoin is back on track to make it all time high of 3200$ +.

Still just playing with words and their definition to make your "point", huh


There is one Bitcoin blockchain, and one set of rules operating on the Bitcoin blockchain, and there can be only one of each: always 1 set of rules for 1 Bitcoin blockchain, and, 1 team that works on maintaining and developing it all at any one point in time. You seem to be desperate to prove otherwise, for some reason!

People are allowed to choose to change to different teams and their code, via a hard fork. And I'm a person, expressing my opinion about the choice. And your problem is..... ?

3 people have access to the source code keys for one specific repository maintained by one specific development team.  And as you are more than fully aware, no other development teams, including 2x or Jeff Garzik, can ever seize control of that specific repository.  I'm pretty sure we already had this discussion and you were making the same stupid assertions about theft then, too.  So why are you still making the same grossly disingenuous assertions now? 

You know no one can touch Core's GitHub but them, yet you still try to convince others that someone is trying to seize control of it?  Why are you trying to perpetuate this fallacy?



You can express your preference, just do it honestly.  I don't think that's too much to ask.  If I'm "trying to police the users" by correcting grossly abhorrent lies when I see them, then I'm sorry if that's too much for your delicate fanboy sensitivities.  Again, you know Core's repository is theirs and theirs alone.  No one can take it away from them or prevent them from publishing whatever code they please.  Again, you're the one trying to cast aspersions on other developers for doing something they're perfectly entitled to do.  If you were successful in your goal and did prevent them from doing what they're doing, that means users wouldn't have a choice to begin with.  Why is it only freedom when it's something you happen to agree with?  Why aren't people free to develop their own clients without you branding them thieves when you know they aren't?



Yeah, I've never pulled anyone else up about this point.  And that's just the last month alone!  Thing is, unlike you, most of them actually learned something from it.  It's hardly my fault you keep talking the same old bollocks.  For the record, I will call out anyone I see spouting that "hostile takeover" crap, so get over yourself, snowflake. 

If no-one is in control of the source code, how come only 3 people have access to the source code keys, hmmm? Your arguments are just wordplay, some person is always in charge of the code at any one time. You make it sound like anyone can just change the code at will, but that's not the way software development is structured. You don't like this fact too much, huh



And it's simple, if Garzik gets his hands on the blockchain, we're all screwed, and you're all too happy to promote arguments that say that's cool. It's not cool.


Listen: I am a Bitcoin user no different to any of us. And I'm allowed to express my preference for Bitcoin's direction any way i like, which you regularly seem to wish to deny me!

It's you that's trying to police the users, not me. And I always seem to be your chosen victim to bully! What's that about!!!?

Your argument is based on a flawed premise.  You can't "take control of Bitcoin's source code" because there's no one in control to take it from.  You can only release code and see who freely chooses to adopt it.  It's the users securing the chain, both non-mining full nodes and miners, who make the decision over which codebase they wish to make use of.  If Garzik is a fan of blacklisting, that doesn't matter unless those beliefs are enforced in the code.  If it is in the code, users will obviously factor that into their considerations when selecting the client they want to run.  They're not stupid, so stop treating them as such with your nanny-state mindset.

Bitcoin is absolutely about liberty of the users, which involves you actually letting them fucking choose, not telling them what choice to make.  Napoleonic complex much?

And how many times do you have to be told?  Bitcoin does not have an owner, so it cannot be stolen from anyone.

I heard of this.
Someone saying they are looking at another name to call it.
BCN was one of them.

If you check list of people and companies who signed New York agreement, you'll find that most of them are big blockers, Chinese miners, and companies tied to Barry Silbert. Maybe there's not even a single "SegWit supporter" on that list, so this "agreement" is pretty one-sided. So, any claims that someone is breaking NYA by opposing 2x fork is just a stupid propaganda, because one can't break something they didn't sign.
If miners will decide to fork, chain split is pretty much guaranteed, and we'll very likely to end up with much less total value than now.

I have just checked segwit2x (intention) on https://coin.dance/blocks?update and it has reached 90% support
According to NY agreement, Segwit2Mb proposal:
- Activate Segregated Witness at an 80% threshold, signaling at bit 4
- Activate a 2 MB hard fork within six months

If bitcoin transactions could be done faster and we pay less fees, than 1Mb block size and segwit will be enough, scale proposals always cause some drama and bitcoin split again? I don't want to count bitcoin cash, but only one bitcoin could has bigger support from people, business and companies such as today in everywhere acceptance.

"Scaling" is a facade and always has been, the conflict is about control. Who controls the code, who controls the direction Bitcoin takes. And the users decide, not some corporate cartel.

Offcourse, there is a threat of another split by Segwit2x hardfork scheduled in November. The fact that a significant percentage of the economic nodes have signed an agreement to hard fork means, well, that there will probably be a hard fork. Depending on how much of the network (miners, merchants, economic nodes) hard forks and what response some objecting companies may have, this may mean 2 Bitcoins at that point. The scaling drama hasn't over yet.

The issue with 2x is not really technical, it's political.

The programmer leading the 2x team (Jeff Garzik) has been part of 2 or 3 attempts to take control of Bitcoin's source code and development for nearly 3 years now. Garzik has long been associated with or directly espoused views that Bitcoin needs to be changed so that it's not like internet cash (which is what everyone has always thought Bitcoin was supposed to be)

Segwit 2x is gonna end up as Bitcoin Fiat basically, Garzik is a fan of blacklisting and "won't someone think of the children" US-liberal types, and always has been.

Bitcoin is about liberty, and as long as Bitcoin users choose the option that gives them maximum power and choice, then there's nothing Garzik and his precious protection racket (otherwise known by their criminal aliases "international institutions" and "governments") can do about it.

Stop trying to steal Bitcoin Jeff, how many times to do you have to be told, coward?

It almost seems like the author thinks that some very small group of people can speak for everyone else and bind them to an agreement.   That said, I doubt the agreement will be on the NYA timeline, but wouldn't be surprised if a block size increase eventually happened. Getting some of the improvements from segwit, particularly script versioning and the improvements it will enable, was worth a compromise given what it will allow.

Could SegWit2x Lead to Three Different Bitcoins?

he New York Agreement which ostensibly solved Bitcoin’s scalability crisis may actually end up causing a third Bitcoin to be created.

The agreement resulted in the creation of the SegWit2x plan, calling for the immediate implementation of Segregated Witness and agreeing to a November hard fork that will double the Bitcoin block size.

While this sounds entirely logical, the problem is that SegWit2x is a compromise. Like all compromises, neither side gets everything they want.

Not an ordinary compromise

SegWit2x isn’t an ordinary compromise, though. One side, the big blockers, had to grant an immediate concession by activating Segregated Witness. They now have to trust that the other side, SegWit supporters, will follow through with their promised block size increase in a few months.

However, having received what they wanted, the implementation of Segregated Witness to be exact, the SegWit camp could easily renege on their promise to increase the block size.

If this happens, miners who support big blocks might go ahead and launch the hard fork anyway. This could result in BTC-SegWit (what we have today), Bitcoin Cash launched on Aug. 1 with little miner support at present, and BTC-SegWit2x.

Such a split would actually be significantly more damaging than the Bitcoin Cash chain split since it would presumably have the support of a large number of miners.

It’s also likely that some non-big block miners would go along with the fork since they promised to do so when they signed the agreement.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/could-segwit2x-lead-to-three-different-bitcoins