Topic: [2017-11-01] Split or No Split? Bitcoin Miners See No Certainty in Segwit2x Fork (Read 2237 times)

That's the most painfully obvious, isn't it? And there's really nothing wrong with that either. It's become an industry in its own right, and believe me, most miners share the same sentiment. If they take a side, it's only because they believe that brings the most profit. And while the opinions reflected in this article might seem refreshing to OP and others, it comes as no surprise. BTCtop and the big guys came into this business, stayed and expanded on simple instinct of economics. Chinese businesspeople may be more open about it, but I doubt non-Chinese corporate miners think differently.

Cypherpunks and libertarians by definition would never enter the hashpower game. And you know what? I think this varied spectrum of people across the board, somehow involved and shaping Bitcoin in their own image, is not only inevitable, it's good. The world can't adopt Bitcoin without bearing an imprint of extra-ideological motivations.

I think only believers will move to another chain and the biggest mass of miners will stay on that chain which gives the biggest profit. BCC fork didn't bring any changing to simple users like I am, so I doubt that new fork will change anything in the sense of transactions speed and fees.

that is right. I will just mine the chain with most profit. I might stick to the 2x just for short period.

It might seem like wishful thinking, but at this point basically anything can happen. The only thing that's certain is that all speculation we see is being pumped into the internet, is empty and hold no value until the fork has actually been initiated. I am prepared for basically any situation, and for that reason I will not directly cash out all my S2X coins. This fork is confidently said the last major obstacle for Bitcoin to overcome, and in case we walk out with an as limited amount of damage as possible, we'll blast through the $10,000 level and beyond like it's nothing. Other than that, I do expect quite some trolling and shilling to happen in the coming weeks, but it's all part of the game I guess.

Coinbase as the (I think) biggest Bitcoin company - and thus the biggest "asset" of the Segwit2x supporters - already has stated that it supports both chains and that the original chain will stay with the BTC symbol. So its users will probably use the "original" chain more than the 2x chain. Blockchain.info will use "BTC" for the strongest chain (as I remember) but also supports the other chain.

So I don't think there will be much "automatic switching" to the 2x chain. The only chance Segwit2x has is to disrupt the original chain  - make it unusable by getting a high hashrate advantage, so users switch because of the better experience (smaller block intervals). But the statements in the article - that even ViaBTC is more likely to support the original Bitcoin chain -  make it likely that 2x will have a hard time to get more than 75% of the hashrate.

Very likely Segwit2x will be dead (or morph into a small altcoin) relatively soon.

The #No2x crowd is very confident (too confident, really) that miners will immediately return to the legacy chain. One problem is that we really don't know what network activity and future demand for either version will look like post-fork. The coin split contracts can't tell us much; they are very low volume. So they are basically just telling us that there are more die hard legacy chain supporters than B2X supporters who want to immediately dump the other chain.

There are two problems with these contracts beyond what I just mentioned. Coin split contracts can't measure the likelihood that users will continue to hold both coins. If you wanted to hodl both, why use a coin split contract? I think there is very little information to inform these markets, either.

#No2x seems to assume that miners will look at the futures prices now and decide against Segwit2x. But what happens if a majority of miners mine the 2x chain, meaning that Coinbase, Gemini, Blockchain, Xapo, Bitpay and others follow the 2x chain? That's a lot of network activity switching chains. Network activity -- users -- are the basis for network value. It becomes more difficult to make the argument that miners will switch back to the legacy chain if a majority of network activity switches to 2x.

I don't know what will happen, but the confidence (and arrogance) of the #No2x people makes me think that pain might be coming for the legacy chain.

Miners are here for the profit, most of them are not cypherpunks or libertarians, so they will do whatever is the most profitable for them. They signal their support for SegWit2x because they think that it would be profitable for them if everyone switched to it, but I'm sure that if people will stay with the original Bitcoin (which seems like the most likely outcome), they will stay too. So, SegWit2x would be similar to Bcash - difficulty fluctuations and periodic hashpower switches to whatever is more profitable, but eventually it will die off when the money for supporting it on exchanges will run dry.

It's hard to find a franker bunch in the world of blockchain.

While the attitudes of more corporate miners may have created the impression the sector itself is shrouded in secrecy, the trope doesn't exactly hold weight. And though it's true those who run the computers that secure bitcoin can be evasive, they're often also brash – a trait no doubt heightened by the fact that they effectively create value out of thin air.

But combine this penchant with linguistic and cultural gaps, and you have a recipe for mixed signals. Quite simply, it can be hard to tell where miners stand on issues related to the technology – even those in which they arguably play a leading role.

Not to mention, in an industry that changes fast, miner's opinions can evolve just as quickly.

Jiang Zhuoer, founder of the world's third-largest mining pool, BTC.Top, for example, isn't shy about his opinion on bitcoin's upcoming Segwit2x fork, the third this year following bitcoin cash and bitcoin gold.

But Zhuoer, whose pool serves 12.4 percent of the world's bitcoin miners, appears to already be personally embracing alternatives, even after signing an agreement that might suggest his preference would be otherwise.

He told CoinDesk:


Such statements can send conflicting signals. After all, many of the network's code proposals effectively call on miners (a significant stake of the network's node operators) to initiate contentious changes to protocol rules. And while this practice has encountered criticism, it nonetheless persists.

Indeed, one of the biggest open questions ahead of bitcoin's upcoming Segwit2x hard fork is how many miners will actually stand by their agreement to run the software, and if they will do so unilaterally, dedicating all their hash power to the cause.

As of now, metrics are only relative.

While most miners who signed the agreement write the phrase "NYA" into the blocks they produce, doing so isn't binding. Further, due to the semantics of how mining works, it remains to be seen whether enough of the network will move to change bitcoin's rules so as to eliminate the chance of creating another cryptocurrency.

The pool problem

Personal opinion aside, Zhuoer is in the business of selling what amounts to software subscriptions – the BTC.Top pool coordinating global miners into a unit whereby any rewards collected by any participant are distributed equitably.

So, while he may have certain opinions, Zhuoer must also consider users, a fact he acknowledges.

He notes, for instance, BTC.Top's own mining aside, the company plans to allow customers to "choose to mine any coin" or automatically switch between blockchains, turning their computing power to whatever coin is most lucrative, even after Segwit2x.

So, while his mind is made up, he is less clear on whether he believes a blockchain split is likely, or that his opinion is material on the outcome.

"I do not know. We should ask bitcoin users," he said via WeChat. "They decide the result."

Haipo Yang, CEO of ViaBTC, the fourth largest pool by mining power, agreed, indicating that his pool will only offer bitcoin mining on the original bitcoin chain to begin.

"We have not received user request to run 2x. If 2x survives and the users request it, we will support both. Let the users have a choice," he told CoinDesk via WeChat.

If Zhuoer and Yang's statements are any indication, then, it might not be best to view the proposed figures for how much hashing power will support Segwit2x as set in stone.

Also on the record for backing out of Segwit2x is bitcoin mining pool F2Pool, with its operator Wang Chun telling CoinDesk in August that he didn't support the New York Agreement any longer. However, at press time, F2Pool is still "flagging" for the change in its blocks.

As with Zhuoer's operation, Chun operates a pool and it's unclear whether his miners will be given the choice to run a version of the bitcoin software of their choosing.

Chun did not respond to requests for comment.

Although, there is some precedent for slow adoption of new software. In the rollout of bitcoin cash, mining pools slowly opened up to the new software, with ViaBTC launching the option first and BTC.Top and Bitmain's AntPool following suit soon after.

The new statements suggest a similar, staggered approach could be ahead.

Conscientious objectors

But, as noted in our explainer, the difference here is that bitcoin cash wanted to leave the bitcoin blockchain behind, while Segwit2x is seeking to make its code "bitcoin's code."

As such, a choppy rollout could have unseen and possibly unsafe implications, creating a period where there are two chains, even though one may win out.

But not everyone agrees that one version is likely.

Jan Capek, CEO of the fifth largest mining pool Slush Pool, said he'll be aligning behind Bitcoin Core developers in their rejection of the Segwit2x software.

In his view, the introduction of the Segwit2x software will definitely "lead to the creation of two bitcoins" – one of which runs on a blockchain with bitcoin's current rules, and the other which features the rules proposed by Segwit2x supporters.

Despite the fact that businesses are backing the proposal, he sees Segwit2x as the latest in a trend that's bound to bring diminishing returns.

"I would expect that every new fork will have a smaller impact than the previous one," he said.

It's also notable that smaller miners seemed more inclined to believe a split is more likely. Li Ang, who operates 1 petahash-worth of mining equipment for a smaller mining pool called Canoe Pool, called it "an event with a high possibility."

Likewise, litecoin developer 'PZ,' an organizer of a meeting that led to litecoin miners passing a tech upgrade in April, said Segwit2x "will create a new currency."

Finally, Jack Liao, the CEO of Lightning ASIC, the company behind the bitcoin gold hard fork, also forecasted that "four chains" with four unique cryptocurrencies will likely survive November.

Wild card

Still, the wild card appears to be whether bitcoin cash has effectively shifted perception, as the blockchain boasts an 8 MB block size, considerably higher than the 2 MB block size Segwit2x will introduce.

With this in mind, it isn't just Zuoer who noted he prefers bitcoin cash to Segwit2x. Roger Ver, CEO of Bitcoin.com, an educational website that offers a mining pool, said that while he's "very bullish" on the fork in the short term, he's "even more bullish" on bitcoin cash in the long run.

Inked in May, the New York Agreement predates the creation of bitcoin cash and so doesn't appear to factor that cryptocurrency in. But industry observers believe the creation of the bitcoin cash protocol and the investments that have been made into it have shifted long-term strategies for miners.

Evoking the grand terms that sometimes best befit bitcoin power games, Steven Mosher, head of sales and marketing at mining chip maker Canaan, believes that, in the long-term, miners will support Segwit2x as a way to boost investment in bitcoin cash. Indeed, Mosher, whose company sells chips to miners big and small, said his customers largely have a preference for bitcoin cash, and he noted he sees them participating in the build-up of what he called a "long-term infrastructure play."

All in all, he sees the Segwit2x fork as part of some behind-the-scenes power jockeying that will continue to pit miners against developers against businesses, perhaps in the self-interest necessitated all along by the nature of bitcoin's distributed system.

He concluded:


https://www.coindesk.com/split-no-split-bitcoin-miners-see-no-certainty-segwit2x-fork/