Topic: [2017-10-28] Segwit2X Statement and Concerns (Read 7565 times)

I guess, Segwit2x started as a movement to improve BTC and then missed out on a healthy discussion. Now they are trying to claim the name BTC, which is not possible without the support of the community. Regardless of the useful improvements, hopefully, they will just get the fork done and will establish an altcoin, so the true BTC can move on.

I can't really tell if you're pro or contra 2x based on your post buy I agree that change in some way is needed. But 2x is far from a healthy solution for the ecosystem. I also disagree with you on the mining matter, I would like to be able mine again but I don't think it's the best decision going forward and you will never get enough support (see bitcoin gold).

I did see what you are trying to tell there, mining your own transaction to be send or receive by anyone is indeed great. Change is inevitable in this modern world though if you try to stay in what you used to be then the world will not adjust for you, people have no choice if they think they are and if they don't want something they must not use it anymore instead find another great technology that will cater your wants and I think that is the purpose of some Altcoins out there.

Who wants a vote?  A vote is just the act of asking for someone's permission, masquerading as freedom.  Plus, when voting, you're usually only selecting someone to speak for you, in effect surrendering your freedom.  Screw that.

Bitcoin (or at least, crypto in general) is better than any democracy.  It's real freedom.  You just do stuff and see if people then agree.  You don't vote on it or wait for someone in power to say it's okay.  Code what you like, run what you like.  You'll be matched up with people who agree with you and you'll build a blockchain together.  Everyone gets what they think they want while market forces and competition sort it all out in the end.  Only the most successful chain with the most economic activity and most proof of work gets to be called Bitcoin.  If people find their chain isn't as successful as others, it's up to them to build on it and make it better, or resign themselves to transacting with an altcoin and hope it has sufficient value to be worth their time.  If it's not worth it, go back to the better chain.  There are literally no barriers to stop you, despite what some here might say.  

That's all that's happening here.  People overreact and get all dramatic about it.  But it's just people with different visions of what's best, doing their own thing.  No voting required.  And it's good for Bitcoin (again, despite what some here might say).  Bitcoin will naturally adapt and grow stronger by taking the best code from the open market at any given time.  And ultimately, users still decide what that code is, there's just no point in having a stupid vote about it.  Democracy should aspire to be more like Bitcoin, not the other way around.

Remember that voting is always based on what people (and usually corrupt liars at that) say they're going to do.  And you have to trust them to do it when you vote for them.  You don't get any guarantees.  You might not get what you voted for even if the person or party you vote for win.  Bitcoin is better than that.  You make an informed decision based on what has actually been made.  There's no trust involved.  It's right there for you to see it all in black and white.  No surprises, no u-turns, no failure to enact a policy because the opposition party prevented it.  If there's anything in the code you don't like, you don't have to run it.  Name one vote in history that ever achieved that feat.

Voting has no place here.  It's better without it.

I don't like change but I think what bitcoin really needs modernization. The transaction rate must be increased, the transaction cost should be reduced. Each user should be able to mine bitcoins and carry out transactions. Only in such circumstances, bitcoin may remain independent. Unfortunately users do not have the right to vote.

Cart before the horse as usual.  How can you tell which chain the users prefer when you don't want them to even have the alternative option?  Instead of telling miners what chain they should or shouldn't be mining, why not let them figure that out for themselves by letting the economic majority speak for itself?



Like UASF was rejected.

Golden words, I've seen some people here arguing that SegWit2x is an improvement proposal and that Core doesn't have monopoly on Bitcoin's developement, but that's not the point, Bitcoin is whatever chain users support - not miners, and not big businesses - they are supposed to serve the users, not dictate them what to do. And there are no signs that majority of Bitcoin users wants to fork - Core client dominates the node count, Bitcoin communities all over the world reject it, the biggest subreddit /r/Bitcoin rejects it, and most users who have their opinion about forks on this forum also reject it.

we are close to the final verdict and the end of the segwit2x drama, and now that we are approaching the end it has become more intense


Jeff Garzik’s New Altcoin Will ‘Jump’ Blockchains to Avoid Infighting Fallout

SegWait-a-Minute? Coinbase Appears To U-turn On Bitcoin Hard Fork


Bitcoin’s Upcoming SegWit2x Hard Fork, Put in Layman’s Terms


‘Can’t Tolerate This’: TREZOR Ditches BitPay Over SegWit2x ‘Games’

If there are many other bitcoin organizations and institutions that reject the Segwit2x hardfork, then that makes it contentious, and if it is contentious then it is an altcoin, and if it is an altcoin, but it demands to call itself bitcoin, then it should be considered a raid on the real bitcoin.

Tell everyone you know to dump Segwit2x as soon as they can. We should reject all aggressive raids pretending to be upgrades.



Signatories of the New York Agreement
ANX & Octagon Strategy [Statement]
Will shut down deposits/withdrawals during the fork, will NOT be supporting the Segwit2X fork in the near term.

BitClub Network
No statement or policy available.

BTCC [Statement]
Bitcoin is chain with most Proof-of-work, B2X will be allocated to each user

Genesis Mining
No statement or policy available.

Non-signatories of the New York Agreement
Bitfinex [Statement]
Original chain is Bitcoin, B2X will be allocated to each user

BitMEX [Statement]
Original chain is Bitcoin, B2X will not be allocated to each user

Bitspark
Will decide in mutual agreement with each remittance partner based on liquidity and reliability of each chain

Cryptomover [Statement]
Original chain is Bitcoin, B2X will be allocated to each user

Gatecoin [Statement]
Original chain is Bitcoin, B2X will not be allocated to each user

Genesis Block
ATMs will only dispense BTC as defined by Bitfinex

HKBitcoinATM
ATMs will only dispense BTC as defined by the legacy chain

OKCoin [Statement]
Original chain is Bitcoin, B2X will be allocated to each user

Tidebit
Original chain is Bitcoin, B2X will be allocated to each user

Read the article in full https://www.bitcoinhk.org/segwit2x-statement/