Topic: [2017-11-06]Bitcoin Needs New Proof-of-Work Chain After SegWit2x, Says Bitcoin.o (Read 2273 times)

On the surface at least it has far more compelling backing, but at the same time there are some gaping holes too. No one's commented on code, future development, how to address the people unhappy with it or pretty much anything beyond gluing a 2 to the name.

If this really is the usurping of Bitcoin it's not a very professional job.

X2 will be like bitcoin gold only waste of money and will never win

The 83% of support you are talking about is actually the percentage of miners signalling for the upcoming 2x 'upgrade' (actually only 82.6% of the blocks were mined by miners signalling support for segwit 2x according to coin.dance). You should take that percentage with a big grain of salt since signalling for 2x isn't binding so when miners are supposed to upgrade their sofware they can still decide to pull out. A lot of big companies have left the New York Agreement already so I'm very curious how this will affect the whole 2x debate and if will end up having to pick sides. We have got a thrilling couple of days ahead of us.

Well said. I've had enough of the miners complaining how they know what's best for BTC. If they want 2x, they can have it. When users decide that they want Core because they are better, smarter and more ethically minded, the miners will realize they made the mistake of their life when their ASICs become racks of useless e-waste.

lol

Given that scenario, I don't think anyone would care which coin is called Bitcoin and which is called altcoin. People who are making informed investment decisions, (i.e. investing based on the tech, not on what it's called) aren't going to choose "compromised centralised Bitcoin fork" over "uncompromised decentralised Bitcoin fork". Subtle semantic arguments make you look very manipulative d5000, the truth is that both B2X and BTC are altcoins if they both hardfork

Simply using language like "fork" or "altcoin" is not as effective as more objective descriptions, such as "centralised" or "KYC/AML sympathising".


And as for "pretty hard to convince most users to change", you're underestimating the support for the Core team, and entirely forgetting that Bitcoin started with only 1 user. Cryptocurrency is a meritocratic, capitalistic environment, and the capital and the merit aren't going to follow 12 or 15 corporate CEOs that add very little value to the crypto platform they support.

Which chain do you all think will win?

Isn't this just as closed door and elitist as the NYA thing? Who consents to a PoW change? Where does the suggestion come from?

I agree that disposing of the corporate miners can only be of benefit to BTC, but it shouldn't have taken something like this to force it. And they'll be back in a different form with different gear or it'll create a new class of them.

If bitcoin will completely abandon the services of the miners that he is there? It seems to me that this was necessary to think when bitcoin has become a hostage of large pools. Such problems do not arise when each user could participate in the confirmation of transactions. Perhaps again, you need to think about it?

Segwit2x still has the attraction over %83, mean 2x still has enough hashrate, support from miners.
But, this debate has been around since few months ago and it's clear that bitcoin core against 2x due to some problems will be occurs in the future.
Well, as long as core developers and 2x supporters follow the consensus rules nothing to worry about as the founder has created bitcoin in this way, and we will see the result on November 16th.

Very interesting, we had similar plans for worst case scenario during August 1st, when some people were suggesting that in case SegWit won't get activated on the main chain, we should fork to switch PoW to cut the grip of miners. Bitcoin works on assumption that miners behave rationally and do everything to maximize the profit, meaning that they follow the most valuable chain, but all these years we've been witnessing how miners are trying to get more control over Bitcoin and dictate the course of its development. SegWit2x will show whether they will keep being rational and will follow the more valuable chain - the original Bitcoin, or if they will try to attack Bitcoin with their fork. In this light, changing PoW sounds like a very logical step for users in case Bitcoin network will get completely abandoned by miners for a long period of time.

The good ol' "nuclear option" again ...

I have nothing against a PoW change, but unfortunately, such a kind of hard fork would convert the "New PoW Bitcoin" itself into an altcoin. It would be pretty hard to convince most users to change to the new chain if Segwit2x really gains traction.

That Bitcoin.org is owned by a possible supporter of a chain with a changed algorithm a "heavy" asset, but that would be mostly relevant in the first phase after the fork. But if Segwit2x "wins" (it can only win if it conserves the hashrate leadership and industry support for some time, e.g. one month) then it will have already "pulled" most users to its chain and its ecosystem, and it may be too late for the "New PoW Bitcoin" to conserve leadership.

And I think Cobra is greatly exaggerating if he says that Bitcoin would be "destroyed" if the 2x chain wins. It's only one variable that is changed. If I was a Core developer, if the 2x chain really wins, I would try to conserve the position as the leading development team publishing a 2x-compatible client - and BTC1 never would win enough traction to "overtake" Core.

Anyway, I don't think Segwit2x will win - and that's much better for BTC's health (above all for the "health" of the development team). Cobra's statement, however, is to be read in this context: it is most likely an intent to incentive businesses to stay with the 1MB chain, outlining (or better: repeating, as the "nuclear option" scenario is not new at all) a "roadmap to survival" for the 1MB chain in the case it becomes unusable because of low hashpower after the fork.

Bitcoin Needs New Proof-of-Work Chain After SegWit2x, Says Bitcoin.org Co-Owner

Cobra, the co-owner of Bitcoin.org and Bitcointalk, has appealed to the Bitcoin industry to hard fork again should SegWit2x ‘win.’

In a dedicated blog post over the weekend, one of the longest-serving members of the Bitcoin community said that if 2x gains enough support, detractors should come together to recreate “destroyed” Bitcoin.

The Core chain, however, will not suffice, even if it survives the hard fork period.

“If the unthinkable happens and 2x wins, it doesn’t mean Bitcoin has been “changed,” it means Bitcoin has been temporarily destroyed, and we need to get to work to collectively recreate it,” he announced.

“We won’t surrender and we won’t compromise. A new hard fork will be released with a new PoW algorithm and we’ll carry on as normal.”

Cobra adds a further hard-nosed stance to the SegWit debate, which has already seen multiple businesses and private entities cause controversy with either full or zero support for 2x.

While the standard anti-fork practice is to support the Core chain, Cobra sidelines it in the event the “unthinkable” happens.

“The market and exchanges should be prepared to support three different forks of Bitcoin this November. The original chain, the 2x chain, and the new Bitcoin chain with a better PoW,” he concludes.

“As soon as the new PoW hard fork binaries are released on Bitcoin.org, I intend to fully commit to supporting that chain and calling it “Bitcoin,” even if hash rate returns to the original chain at a later date.”

SOURCE https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-needs-new-proof-of-work-chain-after-segwit2x-says-bitcoinorg-co-owner