Topic: 2X (Read 4187 times)

You have ignored the deliberate non implementation of replay attack. Do these guys realise that they are fucking with other peoples money. And this is not an attack!!?

Jeff Garzik: “Today, bitcoin faces existential threats from forks, developer drama and so on. Knowing what we know and having a clean sheet of paper, we asked what would we build and the answer is this”.

Some one please remind him he is criticising the drama he has created and shilling his new ico. Yeah, "probably want to move Bitcoin forward" - Garzik will laughing to the banks reading such shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=30&v=kCAWqbD9EBo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn5ZNwPWhEc
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-beginners-guide-surviving-bgold-and-segwit2x-forks/
more context
https://blog.bitmex.com/the-segwit2x-hardfork-part-1-the-supporters-and-opponents/

From the point of view of a Segwit2x supporter, it isn't an attack, because it is meant as an upgrade - holdings on the Segwit2x chain are safe. And if an user doesn't choose to upgrade, he is leaving the "majority chain" and thus must take security measures - according to that point of view.

I already wrote that I don't support the Segwit2x fork anymore. But personal accusations of the SW2x supporters like Garzik do not help. That will make the miners that support SW2x - and the whole group of "big blockers"  - even angrier, and it would be more likely that they start a real 51% attack on the original chain if they have the power to do it. So it's better to use rational argumentation against the fork and try to convince the "moderate" and "unpolitical" folks.

I do not know if it would be better have 8mb blocks or not. What I do know is that all forks until now has failed because they didn't have tried consensus.

I don't believe Segwit2x is an "attack". It was, at first, an intent of a compromise. And the NYA folks most are businesses that very probably want to move Bitcoin forward - payment processors, wallet services etc. - and I think the reason they signed the NYA is that most of them (except miners/pools) would benefit from low transaction fees.

But I think that regarding the latest news, the most pragmatic stance is to support the Core/1MB chain while being careful with the private keys and treating the 2X chain as an altcoin.

Only if the Core chain really is attacked (double spending/51%) it is likely to succeed, and that would harm the whole ecosystem (and you should get out for a whole while of all the cryptocurrency stuff if you aren't a die-hard fan/hodler). According to the latest news a Segwit2x victory has a very low probability if even Coinbase doesn't use the BTC symbol for it.

Garzik's ICO may be another indication that he's not full-time dedicated to 2x and a loss of the Core manpower would be very problematic.

Percentage of miners drama is a fraud. BCASH is dead. Why would anyone support that. 2x is good for short term but the scaling is not sustainable so back to core. The drama is just creating doubts. And speculators love it. That is what it is all about.

Make sure you address all the reasons why Core is opposed to it, they're the ones who really know what they're doing.

Im not worried about what the market wants, but what they can do with enough hashrate to the legacy chain in order to avoid the market showing what it wants.

In other words, they could launch an attack, given enough hashrate, that could render pretty much impossible to let the market dump the 2x shitcoin. This is why they don't want exchanges to support both coins, and let the legacy chain process these transactions.

This is one of the biggest attacks on bitcoin we've ever seen. Im just hoping we aren't forced to change PoW, because that would be defeat in a way.

What good could come from New York?

Who wants 2x? Seems like the compromise that no one wants 

Indeed, signalling is just that. It supposedly shows intent, but miners have no skin in the game until the fork has occurred. If the futures markets are accurate and B2X is only worth 0.15BTC a piece, then they will be losing a lot of money by mining it. Then again, it's hard to say if the market is properly pricing in the possibility of the "stuck" BTC blockchain, and if people truly believe the NYA signalling is accurate. I think the market believes that the fork is unlikely to happen since there is such lack of consensus. But the market is often wrong. I'll have my popcorn ready and my coins on ice when the fork happens next month.

I'm also confused about the position of Ver, Wright and Jihan Wu. Supposedly Bitcoin.com and Bitmain are backing B2X, but they seem to be gung ho on Bitcoin Cash. Wright doesn't seem to support Segwit2x at all, or if he does, only to strengthen the position of BCH.

It's a power struggle between miners, developers and whales (Ver ...). All of them want to test their influence on Bitcoin's development.


The all time highs are probably - at least partly - related to the forks that are occurring. People want to get "free money".

So there is no "golden goose" that is shoot - the golden goose would (probably) not exist otherwise

Its the "stuck" bit that worries me too and also the replay protection or lack of. Will it be the case though that we wont have any idea how much hash rate is on either side until after the fork. I am still confused how Ver is supporting 2x when he now claims that Bcash is the true bitcoin?

It truly is sickening as btc hits new All time highs that they may shoot the golden goose

I'm guessing it will fail, but there is a slight chance that the Bitcoin chain could become "stuck" with extremely slow confirmation times and prohibitive fees due to long block times. In that case, there will have to be a POW change or at least a difficulty algorithm change that will require a hard fork.

Unfortunately, this isn't like 2013 where the community was quite unified. Now, the community is fractured and I'm not sure there would be widespread agreement on a POW hard fork. I fear that a lot of users would opt for the 2X chain in such a situation.

Just ignore it and do your thing, there might be a mild delay one day but that is the worst of it. These are just a bunch of drama queens and the fact that they whine about it makes it more visible. It will be fine and another new ass coin will pop out with overwhelming people behind it for no reason other than talk. Rumor built coins never last forever.

That I don't mention "negatives" of Segwit2x is because I consider Segwit2x not harmful and the block size increase to 2MB+SW in my opinion is manageable. In my opinion it is much less harmful than all the split fantasies by maximalists on the "small" and "big blocker" side.

But above all, I supported Segwit2x because it would have been an opportunity to keep the Bitcoin community united. Now I think this approach unfortunately failed, because small blockers and big blockers are stubbornly pursuing their own agenda and are not interested in a "compromise". It is possible that this will weaken Bitcoin's leadership in the cryptocurrency sphere, although I have hopes that in November a clear leader will emerge, and I believe it will be the Core+SW chain. (And I wouldn't be sad because of that.)

You really should re-consider your "maximalist" position. Not everybody that has a divergent opinion is necessarily an enemy.


Again, I've not said that the userbase of billions will be reached in 2018/19. Read my post again! I said that in 2018/19 we will have still an "infant" chain with no ultra-massive value added and a failed hard fork would then do much less harm than in - let's say - 2025 when Bitcoin could have become a much more important means of payment. But until 2018/19 we have enough time to plan what to include in a hard fork and how to roll it out.

We can wait, like you suggest - but if Bitcoin wants to be really a usable currency one day, then it should not operate at the limit of its capacity. In 2019, we probably again will have congestion problems, even without spam attacks. (My "predictions" are based on the past growth of 30-40% per year in transaction capacity.)

PS: Yes, I love extension blocks, but they are a second layer technology - so I don't know why you're mentioning them here.

I agree with this line of thinking.

Global worldwide adoption by 2019 is an unreasonable expectation.  Even the EU's switch to the Euro, which was well publicized and meticulously well planned (despite the obvious problems with their currency model), took some time for "the switch".  Shadow EU was tracking/trading for at least a year prior to the switch and there were periods of overlap with the national currencies.  Also, of course, that was for a subset of Europe, a decent sized population but not all of the planet.

I honestly don't believe that any current/proposed solutions would truly be able to scale in this period of time without a lot of disruptive "growing pains".  Progress on scale and the best approaches to achievement of it should be incremental.  Hopefully in advance of the need, based on reasonable projections, not pipe dreams of global domination virtually overnight.

A few years back, maybe 5-10 years, Visa or Mastercard (forget which) suffered an outage on Black Friday (which for those that are not familiar with the U.S. consumer market, is the day after Thanksgiving when virtually all retail businesses have begun big sales for Christmas -- it is the largest day of year for transaction volumes on payment cards here).  That outage was a BIG DEAL and cost retailers many, many sales.  Since then the card acquiring (merchant transaction) system has undergone significant upgrades including multiple global command centers that are highly secured and fortified installations.  (Which, incidentally, highlights the advantages of distributed ledger blockchains over those centralized legacy payment systems.)

Incremental, careful, well-planned, and highly tested progress is the best way, in my view, to develop a payment system that can truly be resilient for global adoption as that occurs over time.  Problems will happen, approaches that seem like good ideas will end up having blocking problems or unforeseen X-factors.  Going too fast and getting it wrong will damage the reputation of Bitcoin and potentially cryptocurrencies in general, given that BTC is the dominant and incumbent.

Outages that ground our air traffic system, such as one last week, are damaging to commerce but do not grind it to a halt.  They are manageable though perhaps alarming from a human safety perspective.  Outages that affect commerce as a whole, due to either bugs or limitations that did not seem apparent on the drawing board, would kill Bitcoin or any other technology that was deemed to be the cause of such outage.

Slow and steady wins the race.  Resilience requires deliberation and careful execution.  Progress may be slower than many would like, but there's a very good reason to be careful when you are dealing with a store of value.  There is little more in our societies that have to be trusted more than a means of exchange.  Bitcoin enables "trustless" commerce, but only if Bitcoin itself is highly trusted, with the track record to truly earn and keep that trust.

1. Will we survive with BTC if the largest miners will leave for 2X?
Will we have enough hashpower to maintain the network?

2. There is no even manual how to install the BTC1 wallet for the ordinary people.
How do they want to win???
Or will they MINERS (BITMAIN and Co) be satisfied if just crypto exchange markets follow them?

You were faintly suggesting that, while failing to mention any of the negatives of the S2x fork. I can imagine someone reading your post, but without knowing all the other relevant information saying: "well, if S2x will be the final ideal blocksize, i guess we should just accept it and kill the argument forever"

Strange how every post you make on S2x or Bitcoin Unlimited or Extension Blocks or whatever other external hardfork is just gently laid propaganda for leading people toward that hardfork. Very strange, and very consistent too. Isn't it.



For what reason? You have no clue what transaction demand is going to be like then, and you seem to be suggesting that Bitcoin is going to hit your postulated final userbase of billions of users sometime between mid 2018 and 2019. What's wrong with you, is it only hubris!?

Here's a sensible way to look at it: wait. Wait until capacity is truly unanimously judged to be required, then expand capacity. You can't possibly expect anyone to take you seriously when your long-term engineering decisions are based on clairvoyance, or maybe you were talking to Satoshi through a spiritual medium, tell us lol

Everything is primed for success right now. We got economical-political turmoil where a neutral gobal asset like BTC, being the most liquid crypto, could benefit from.
We got big Wall St pockets interesting in getting in.
We got a pretty empty mempool right now.

This hardfork is so dumb and im going to be pissed if it kills the obvious recovery towards ATH. It is literally the only threat and it has to come from big blockers as usual.