2X or not 2X. That is the question. | Bitcointalksearch.org

The_Dark_Knight

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 502

Quote from: liviux on October 11, 2017, 07:41:42 AM

Man, this segwit 2x is so complicated. So many articles pro, so many against, people in Twitter pro and not, etc, etc.
This does very bad to the community and to beginners. Especially when there was a consensus (or so I understand from NYC). So it was OK some months ago and not ok now.
I hope this shit won't happen in the future

No it was never ok, the miners and several business related to bitcoin made a pact the famous New York Agreement, but two of the most important actors of bitcoin were never consulted, first the devs, they are the ones that maintain bitcoin and create new features and every single one of them is against this, and second the users of bitcoin, most informed bitcoin users are against this fork because it is not necessary.

Densitymax

sr. member

Activity: 437

Merit: 250

Quote from: ronaldo718 on October 12, 2017, 05:31:01 AM

I think this will really help bitcoin to make fast transcactions

This has nothing to do with it, there will be more transactions and the problem with scalability will again arise. We need to add more meaningful solutions, such as lighting transactions on top of the blockchain.

ronaldo718

newbie

Activity: 34

Merit: 0

I think this will really help bitcoin to make fast transcactions

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: richkellj on October 12, 2017, 03:54:17 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on October 09, 2017, 12:53:29 AM

Everyone, please take some time and read this article before you decide to support Segwit2X/btc1 or not.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/2x-or-no2x-why-some-want-hard-fork-bitcoin-november-and-why-others-dont/

I know many people in the community are misinformed, uninformed or simply do not care. That is a big mistake. If you care so much to buy and hold Bitcoin then you should also care to know what is really going on. Bitcoin's future depends on it.

I hope you guys supporting 2x realize that you want to live the future of your valued assets in the hands of some greedy miners and companies who are looking for ways centralize bitcoin.

I would rather go for an increased fee than having that. I will stick with bitcoin core till the end and fu** all forks by dumping them for core once they step in. Let's shoot em dead on arrival. 2x is just another free looser coin as far as I am concerned.

You could first work out about what 'centralize' really means and what degree is enough before you start making FUD.

You might learn this after the fork but who cares when this forum here turns over and 1x is a PoW changed alt Grin

I've got my popcorn ready and wait.

richkellj

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 500

Quote from: Wind_FURY on October 09, 2017, 12:53:29 AM

Everyone, please take some time and read this article before you decide to support Segwit2X/btc1 or not.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/2x-or-no2x-why-some-want-hard-fork-bitcoin-november-and-why-others-dont/

I know many people in the community are misinformed, uninformed or simply do not care. That is a big mistake. If you care so much to buy and hold Bitcoin then you should also care to know what is really going on. Bitcoin's future depends on it.

I hope you guys supporting 2x realize that you want to live the future of your valued assets in the hands of some greedy miners and companies who are looking for ways centralize bitcoin.

I would rather go for an increased fee than having that. I will stick with bitcoin core till the end and fu** all forks by dumping them for core once they step in. Let's shoot em dead on arrival. 2x is just another free looser coin as far as I am concerned.

The_Dark_Knight

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 502

Quote from: mensa84 on October 09, 2017, 10:24:44 AM

I do not see any problems with the introduction of SegWit2x
SegWit2x is needed primarily to reduce the commission. The reduction of commission is necessary for bitcoin to develop further as a means of payment in e-commerce

The issue is that is completely unneeded, maybe at some point in the future we will need to make the blocks bigger but at this time we do not need it especially since segwit was activated recently, I think we need to gave it an opportunity and see how it works with the lighting network in place then once an analysis has been made then the blocks could be made bigger if necessary, but at this time this is nothing but an attack against bitcoin and the devs.

Pab

legendary

Activity: 1862

Merit: 1012

I see that with seagwit transactions are much faster,i ve been reading that 2x in introduced to fast,not enough tests looks like somebody is in hurry,so wait and i will look how it is going

Maveth13

full member

Activity: 336

Merit: 112

I think a discussion like these should be maintained. People don't really understand what SegWit2X is and why increasing the block size can be beneficial and can cause damage. Some people might not even know that we already did increase the blocksize. With an increase in block size, more transactions can be handled by the network, transactions will be faster and cheaper. But, with bigger block size, the cost to operate a full node would also increase and might lead to fewer users running full nodes. It's hard to decide but worth a healthy debate.

illyiller

hero member

Activity: 697

Merit: 520

Quote from: liviux on October 11, 2017, 07:41:42 AM

Man, this segwit 2x is so complicated. So many articles pro, so many against, people in Twitter pro and not, etc, etc.
This does very bad to the community and to beginners. Especially when there was a consensus (or so I understand from NYC). So it was OK some months ago and not ok now.
I hope this shit won't happen in the future

There's a big difference between an agreement between various parties, and consensus of the entire network. Technically, regarding incompatible (or potentially incompatible) forks, consensus is impossible. It's impossible to obtain the consent of every user. In the case of a backward compatible soft fork, it is possible to obtain consent from every user, because the new consensus rules are compatible with the old. However, such a fork is only compatible if backed by a majority of miners -- hence the high activation thresholds of BIP141 and BIP91.

So, hard forks can never have consensus -- that's impossible. And soft forks can never have consensus (consent of every user) without majority miner support. Some #NO2X folks will disagree with the latter point, but they are wrong. For example, BIP148 supporters did not obtain my consent to incompatibly split the chain, although they represented that consensus for BIP148 existed.

OriginalBankster

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: achow101 on October 11, 2017, 05:43:02 PM

Quote from: OriginalBankster on October 11, 2017, 04:34:31 PM

Quote from: Quantumplation on October 11, 2017, 01:17:14 PM

Hardware wallets is not the safest because they can become corrupted and there is nothing that you can do if the company that you got it from went out of business.

can you explain further?
I have ledger and if they go out of business it still works. Or do i need coninously updates?

That statement is simply untrue.

The device and the wallet software that you connect it to (you don't need to use Ledger's software either) do not require Ledger to be in business for it to function. You just won't get any software updates and if a security vulnerability is found, it may not be fixed. Otherwise the device works fine without Ledger still existing.

The protection against device corruption is the 24 word seed that you wrote down when you first made the wallet. It follows the BIP 39 standard and private keys are derived using the BIP 32 and BIP 44 standards, so you can use that 24 word seed with any supporting wallet software or hardware wallet and be able to access your coins. There is no need for the company to be in business and you can still access your coins even if your device is corrupted, destroyed, damaged, or lost.

thank you for clearing that up

achow101

staff

Activity: 3458

Merit: 6793

Just writing some code

Quote from: OriginalBankster on October 11, 2017, 04:34:31 PM

Quote from: Quantumplation on October 11, 2017, 01:17:14 PM

Hardware wallets is not the safest because they can become corrupted and there is nothing that you can do if the company that you got it from went out of business.

can you explain further?
I have ledger and if they go out of business it still works. Or do i need coninously updates?

That statement is simply untrue.

The device and the wallet software that you connect it to (you don't need to use Ledger's software either) do not require Ledger to be in business for it to function. You just won't get any software updates and if a security vulnerability is found, it may not be fixed. Otherwise the device works fine without Ledger still existing.

The protection against device corruption is the 24 word seed that you wrote down when you first made the wallet. It follows the BIP 39 standard and private keys are derived using the BIP 32 and BIP 44 standards, so you can use that 24 word seed with any supporting wallet software or hardware wallet and be able to access your coins. There is no need for the company to be in business and you can still access your coins even if your device is corrupted, destroyed, damaged, or lost.

procesdad

full member

Activity: 476

Merit: 100

CAT.EX Exchange

everyone is buying bitcoin with the money in hand and thinks you will make money. I do not think like this.
I think it's more logical to buy altcoin

OriginalBankster

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: Quantumplation on October 11, 2017, 01:17:14 PM

Hardware wallets is not the safest because they can become corrupted and there is nothing that you can do if the company that you got it from went out of business.

can you explain further?
I have ledger and if they go out of business it still works. Or do i need coninously updates?

miguelmorales85

hero member

Activity: 544

Merit: 507

Quote from: vit05 on October 09, 2017, 07:50:24 PM

Who exactly support 2x?

I have seen names that support BCh, people that will support BTgold. But who are the persons, and not companies, that are supporting bitcoin 2x?

This is an extract from this official URL posted today in https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2017-10-09-segwit2x-safety

Wallets

Abra (United States)
Bitcoin.com (St. Kitts & Nevis)
BitPay (United States)
BitPesa (Kenya)
Blockchain.info (UK)
BTC.com (China)
Circle (United States)
Coinbase (United States)
Coins.ph (Phillipines)
GoCoin (Isle of Man)
Jaxx (Canada)
Luno (Singapore)
Ripio (Argentina)
Unocoin (India)
Xapo (United States)
Exchanges

ANX (Hong Kong)
Bitex (Argentina)
bitFlyer (Japan)
Bitso (Mexico)
BTCC (China)
BTER.com (China)
Coinbase (United States)
Coins.ph (Phillipines)
CryptoFacilities (UK)
Korbit (South Korea)
Safello (Sweden)
SFOX (United States)
ShapeShift (Switzerland)
Miners

1Hash (China)
Bitcoin.com (St. Kitts & Nevis)
Bitfury (United States)
Bitmain (China)
Bixin.com (China)
Genesis Mining (Hong Kong)
ViaBTC (China)
Other

Bitangel.com /Chandler Guo (China)
BitClub Network (Hong Kong)
Bloq (United States)
Civic (United States)
Decentral (Canada)
Digital Currency Group (United States)
Filament (United States)
Genesis Global Trading (United States)
Grayscale Investments (United States)
MONI (Finland)
OB1 (United States)
Netki (United States)
Purse (United States)
Veem (United States)

Miracle_Man

member

Activity: 201

Merit: 10

The commission in Bitcoin is too big and with this one needs to do something. If Segwit2X helps fix the problem then I say Yes X2

haroldtee

sr. member

Activity: 644

Merit: 299

Quote from: JohnnyNnex on October 09, 2017, 09:05:58 PM

Just FYI, I support 2X in my opinion, it is better!

It is funny most people clamouring for 2x do not even have any idea what they are requesting for. 2x will not have any support from users and it would be as dead as the previous 2 forked chains (past BCC and upcoming BCG) before it. Say NO to centralization. We are cool with our decentralized currency and I am dumping all the forked coins for core on arrival.

Densitymax

sr. member

Activity: 437

Merit: 250

I would have taken any path that the developers from the Bitcoin core offer. If you need a 2-megabyte block, then this decision should be made by the main developers. We should not destroy the ecosystem of bitcoin, but should make it stronger.

Quantumplation

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

NOTE: This message was originally not posted by me, but instead by someone who compromised my account. I have deleted the content.

JohnnyUranus

member

Activity: 130

Merit: 14

Segwit is enough (for now), we do not need 2X. We do not need this fighting at all.

achow101

staff

Activity: 3458

Merit: 6793

Just writing some code

Quote from: liviux on October 11, 2017, 07:41:42 AM

Especially when there was a consensus (or so I understand from NYC). So it was OK some months ago and not ok now.

Segwit2x never had consensus and it was not ok some months ago.

Topic: 2X or not 2X. That is the question. (Read 1459 times)