Topic: 2X or not 2X. That is the question. - page 2. (Read 1460 times)

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

It's not needed. Look at the mempool, it's pretty empty:

https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/

Transactions are fast and cheap now that Roger Ver stopped the spam because he is running out of money. Also there's already 10% of segwit transactions, going for like 10 cents and pretty fast. Why do we need to risk a hardfork with stupid devs again? stop being emotional about Core. Hardfork is not needed from a technical perspective, period. Any other opinions are invalid and attack to Bitcoin. Look at Bitfinex futures, B2X is going for 0.21

https://www.bitfinex.com/order_book/bt2btc

Segwit2x is another dead on arrival hardfork sorry.

I agree with you, OP. bitcoin is always the best coin here and many people do not have a good knowledge and they are misinformed by many stupid sources and news. Right now, we need to do something to prove to the people that bitcoin can still be used and determined as the number one cryptocurrency in the world. In the future, I believe that bitcoin will continue to grow and dominate the market for at least a decade

I haven't read the article yet, from what I have researched previously. I support 2X 100%. I think it is just what Bitcoin needs. I support 2x for two reasons, 1)the scaling solutions it brings. This is long overdue. 2) to stop these bullying tactics by core.

Now let me go read the article.

Thanks for posting here achow, we need more knowledgeable people like you to give us the correct information.

Like what hv_'s arguments has shown is, it is very clear that there are many other Bitcoiners like him that are either brainwashed are misinformed. It is time to change that.

Looks like big blockers might be confused by Gavin Andresen calling himself "Chief Scientist" while supporting every single bitcoin hardfork under the sun

https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/gavin-andresen-224

He has literally supported everything since Bitcoin XT, confusing newbies into thinking these hardforks are legit and supported by the smart people. Very sad!


Indeed. The problem is when attackers list their altcoin as "BTC" on their bribed exchanges because they are scared to find out what people really want on the market. More confusing of the noobs strategy.

That's strange, I don't see any scientists supporting segwit2x. In fact, most of the "scientists" in Bitcoin (i.e. the developers and technical community) do not support segwit2x.

If UASF were a minority fork, it would have hard forked anyways, NYA did not do anything to "save their asses". It is arguable that UASF is what caused the NYA to happen and caused segwit to be activated because it lit a fire under those businesses and miners' asses to activate segwit.

Also, a lot of the companies that support segwit2x claim that we need more block space, yet they so far have neglected to implement segwit in their transactions which would allow them to use the extra block space brought by segwit and take advantage of the lower transaction fees.

And segwit2x can fork off and find that no one is actually using their coin.

That's not happening. It is a big deal to allow a little more block size because it can very negatively effect the network. Why should we stay and work on something we don't believe in and believe is detrimental to the network?

The segwit2x proposal shows a little improvement about bitcoin issue but it doesn't make any sense to deliver about the adoption to the masses and larger economic benefit as a whole. What we need for bitcoin is the transaction capacity at an instant, lightning speed as fast as VISA transaction capacity. It's hard to implement a bitcoin transaction to a grocery store, it is too impatient to wait another time of about 7 to 20 minutes for payment confirmation just for a single bitcoin transaction. I truly believe that the proponents behind segwit2x are trading platform in majority and not even a single economists are backing this proposals.

Well, just like with the UASF/BIP148 movement, most Bitcoin users are silent. They aren't wearing a hashtag on their Twitter handle. They aren't even on Twitter. So in this way, you will only see at most some hundreds or maybe thousands of unique users (on social media, forums), if that. These mediums are a very bad way to represent a much more diverse population of Bitcoin users that likely number in the millions.

That said, is "silence" the same as "consent?" Probably not. That line of thinking applies to UASF/BIP148 too. Lots of angles here...

NYA has much more money, power and scientists on board than you might know - and the NYA is already active and saved the asses of the UASF minority fork ( no replay protection!!)  - due to this NO2X can fork off and look for hashpower left  (stagnation as I said above)  or stay by allowing little more block_size - not a big deal.

No2x, we don't need segwit2x. In fact there were also no need for BitcoinCash. Do you know anybody around who uses BCH accept trading? NO!

Segwit is working very well. Transactions are getting confirmations less than 30mins if sent by a segwit-supported client.

We don't need Segwit2x.

No2x. The future of the protocol should be decided through the deliberations of computer scientists, not an agreement reached behind closed doors.

2x is being rolled out in a reckless way. I think it is prudent to take part in the network that values slow and properly deliberated changes to the code, not hasty hard forks. Backwards incompatibility is a serious issue to consider when designing a network like bitcoin.

Generally I'd say that understanding the NYA 2X move is bit complex.

It's about proper on-chain + off chain scaling and lower fees as low as possible.

In this forum here or at Reddit / Twitter we see 'only' some individual legends, heroes = early adopters fighting each other trying to use a abstract majority behind themselves like the 'users' , 'hodlers'  but nobody can really speak for the masses that are already in bitcoin or the bigger (billions)  still missing one that should get attracted to.

We see legends posting here for keeping this at 1x for different reasons and fighting against NYA.

Where would you locate the 1X supporters - already in the early adopter group (mostly fine with the actual situation and rather high fees, fine with store of value - don't care about growth that much)  ?

or

In the group that care about the quiet, unpolitical masses and the real potential if fees are way lower ?

I'd say NYA does care much more about the quiet, unpolitical (missing) masses because of bitcoin = money = business.
They care also about bitcoin price increase much more than the early adopters - most of these legends I'd expect to be 'all in' already - not much fresh money can be expected from those - rather cash out = price pressure.

NYA needs to care about increasing Bitcoin price much more since they expect ppl to do business and this business will grow better with higher Bitcoin value .

So 2X is the way to go - but I do not expect much support here

 

Ok, I respect that. But also as a sign of respect to the supporters of Bitcoin, is it in your opinion that replay protection should be included in Segwit2x?

 
From this comment alone, here is why I believe there are a lot of "Bitcoiners" out there who are uninformed, misinformed or simply do not care. They unaffectedly do not bother to mend their ignorance.

I just read the article.  I understand some of the technical issues and the purported advantages of S2X.  I also understand the counterarguments.

I support the Core team.  Their record of contributions to the Bitcoin community, to me, speaks for itself.  Much of that is evident in the pages of this forum.  Having been party to "backroom deals" in my life, I do not condone or support them.

This section of your referenced article speaks volumes as to the character of those advocating S2X:

(emphasis mine)

What valid reason do the SegWit2x proponents have to fail to protect the just under $80 billion USD in wealth (as of now) that Bitcoin users have stored on the blockchain?  On the other hand, what reason do those that favor S2X have to gloss over this extremely important facet of the current controversy?

Honestly, I don't know any of the people involved in this, but they seem to be acting like children in refusing to implement strong replay protection.  Children that didn't get their way.  That's not the caliber of person I want committing code to something that I'm involved in.

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

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?

Have you read the article mentioned above? https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/2x-or-no2x-why-some-want-hard-fork-bitcoin-november-and-why-others-dont/ It's clearly mentioned about 2X advantage which is better than Core such as; lower transaction fees and/or faster confirmations with 8Mb block size, but it's not enough, right? due to 2x has too much risks to be implemented into bitcoin nodes. Bitcoin core developers have ensure to make 2x hard fork become another altcoin, whether it will be successful or not, only time will reveal the truth.
Here another article; https://medium.com/@jgarzik/why-segwit2x-is-the-best-path-for-bitcoin-d9a4103f2fda

What I would like someone to explain me is how 2X is better than Core?
It seems everyone is driven by passion and the only one who have strong arguments are those against 2X, I have read some nasty things about 2X.
What concern me the most is the lose of decentralization that is a NO NO for me. enough of the China manipulation and mining kingdoms.

I support 2x. It is a step in the right direction imo. Ofcourse, its hard to get a vote from all the miners now as they are so concentrated and with different view.