Topic: Bitcoin vs Bitcoin2X - November, whats it gonna be for you? (Read 2183 times)

I am holding btc at the moment and will be holding at the fork. What I do after the fork will depend upon the price of the coins.

what block is this happening at

Yes probably that is a good approach but why the hard fork, why can't the miners be on board for once and plan a soft fork and solve all this issues. I haven't made any decision which to support, but like the majority I'll go where the herd heads, if 2x turns out to fail there won't be any point in holding it and I'll dump them but if it's a success and everyone is moving there then I would too but probably won't dump my legacy BTC.

I'm actually torn on this one in terms of game theory:

The natural assumption is that 2x is a bigger deal than BitcoinCash in terms of potential drama, but it's possible that the BitcoinCash split has actually taken some of the wind out of 2x's sails.  If you consider that BitcoinCash will be taking a proportion of the hashpower and economic support that otherwise could have contributed to the 2x chain, then it stands to reason that November's 2x split could likely be diminished or weakened as a result.  In a sense, it's better to have two infighting opponents squabbling amongst themselves than a single, organised and regimented opponent with their primary focus on you.  If it's purely a power-play based on strength in numbers, those supporting SegWit-only should be happy that their enemy isn't presenting a united front.

However, it may not be a power-play at all.  BitcoinCash could be seen as a kind of bartering leverage.  If you make people realise that there is a more extreme stance that could be taken (BitcoinCash), then the middleground (2x) may cause compromise to appear more temping by comparison and could conceivably gain support as a result.  It's really difficult to tell if those miners currently mining up-to-8mb blocks are doing it as a fallback because they genuinely believe it's the right course of action and the split is worth the risk, or if it's simply a sign of intent to make 2x seem more appealing by comparison and to strengthen their negotiating standpoint by presenting a more extreme alternative. 

It'll be fascinating to watch it play out.  I'm just gonna hodl everything to be on the safe side and consider my options once the aftermath is clear.

How can the two be compared, or put in the same basket? Core has avoided contention, continued to scale Bitcoin tremendously, and pushed for changes in a slow, responsible and methodical way. The NYA signatories are just profit-motivated business interests -- businesses and miners that want a hard fork for profit motive, not for the good of Bitcoin.


All these fork threats just harden my resolve to hold. Worst comes to worst, I'll support the wrong coin, but I'll have coins on the fork that takes the throne.

Lol, i will truly prefer that , NYA, 2x, 1x and UASF pleeesss!

I think I will hodl both bitcoin and bcash no matter if the price is down and, I believe that if the price is down, the price will be recover soon. i don't think that if there is any fork happened the price can not rise more high because every fork happen, the price will be affected too and will reach new level of the price.

We don't need to dump, let's HODL! As you can see last week, even there are a bitcoin fork that happened, the price is still stable, that means the users and investors are still holding their bitcoin even if it dumps. Also, there are no such thing as super power but you may call that controlling power.

Yeah, the war not ends, there will new rival 2x. OK let's be ready to dump. BTC is BTC not other names. Everyone , every country who has super power want to control bitcoin. Can they control the decentralized community with no government , bitcoin community not relying on government policy but relying on the market.

That seems ideal, and I think most Bitcoin users are incentivized to work towards that. Unfortunately, what's happening is that entrenched business and mining interests are pushing for their own profits, rather than for user interests. As these interests diverge further and further, a split becomes more likely.

The Bitcoin Cash split was a relative non-event. Not much hash power or wallet support, and very little support from Bitcoin businesses. The November fork has a lot more support (not from developers or users, per se, but from business and mining interests), so it should be more interesting to see what happens then.

the point is that they are both blockchain networks with native coins. thus, the incentives around contentious forks are exactly the same. some users will choose to leave the consensus, some will not, and some will use both incompatible chains.


arguably, the BCC and segwit2x forks are very rushed. clearly many do not agree with either of them. bitmain (very powerful miner) is backing BCC and we have not necessarily seen the end of it. segwit2x has much more support (from businesses and miners), even if bitcoin core developers and the user base opposes. so, it is very contentious.


ethereum classic had extremely low hash rate and network activity after the split. hash rate was something like 99:1 in favor of ETH, and out the door, no services supported ETC.

due to quick difficulty readjustment, though, and the timing of the poloniex coin split, ETC was profitable to mine very quickly. the rest is the story of any altcoin.

BCC's difficulty readjustment was not fast enough. it was not profitable to mine for days, and still may not be.

comparing bitcoin and ethereum has never been a good idea. they have nothing in common.
the split of ethereum was because it was rushed and nobody agreed to it but the wealthy foundation wanted it and also it was a roll back to reverse the losses they have sustained. the support for each chain was big enough

the bitcoin split was a small group of people with small hashrate who went though with it and created an altcoin which nobody wants.

for example if support for ETH/ETC was 60/40% the support for BTC/BCC was 95-5%

seems sensible after seeing the ETH/ETC and BTC/BCC debacles play out. i'm only really interested in BTC, and i think that's what will take the throne in the long term, but there's no point insta-dumping the other coins just to double down on my BTC holdings. better to let the market figure it out for me, and make a decision months (or even years) later.

So theres another split again coming on november just like what happen today in bitcoin and bitcoin cash? Why so many spliting in bitcoins why dont they just stick together and join forces to make bitcoins more promising.

Wait, when did "Core" ever say they want a block size reduction? In fact, core's apprehension isn't just about block size, but a caution against delivering something they feel will open the network to vulnerabilities. It's not so much an anti-block increase but a "wait til we know more" approach. Of course they want to continue scaling for the long-term, but again, there is no urgent need that justifies recklessness.


Yeah! I know it can be a simplistic view, but keeping the legacy chain should be the most natural thing to want - for Bitcoin anyway. There's just absolutely no emergency, no crisis, little justification for forking off right now.
@Mahesh

Imho the "fee" excuse is no excuse.

99.99% of all Bitcoin users are either traders or hodlers. I'm almost 99% sure that today no one on this planet ordered a cup of coffee with bitcoin. You also don't buy coffee with a bag of gold powder.

Fee's will be addressed, but that will take time.

When people invest in some cryptocurrency, they are essentially investing in developer team behind that coin. This is the reason why no altcoin has ever flipped Bitcoin's marketcap - Bitcoin Core is the biggest and the best dev team in all crypto space, while most alts have some few amateur devs, who can only copy Core code and tweak it on very basic levels. This is why alts like Viacoin, Vertcoin, Syscoin, Groestlcoin, and Digibyte implement SegWit in attempt to get attention. Now, if you think about SegWit2x coin and Bcash coins as alts, it becomes clear that they are no different from Dogecoin, because they lack something that makes Bitcoin valuable - strong developer team.

because bitcoin is incomplete, and ETH also had many fork, like ETH classic, and ETH it self is based on bitcoin, everything is based on bitcoin, alla the altcoin are born from bitcoin, but for me it's bitcoin ith segwit, standard bitcoin do not scale and the high fee is stupid

I think you hit the nail on the head here.  The public statements on the dev mail list etc are more about the rushed timeframe for a hard fork that is not an emergency.  Taking the statements at face value, of course.  If Core were to come out with a statement staying something like, in 0.16.x or 0.17.x Core will support a block size increase to 2MB (or whatever) I think that would take the wind out of 2X's sails and resolve the NYA issue prior to a contentious hard fork.

As far as the 100kb block, that is what one Core developer (luke-jr) had stated.  I didn't see others echoing it.

With Segwit alone the increase in block size should mitigate blocks being full quite quickly unless the spamming doubles or triples which is not inexpensive.  

I guess we'll see how things progress going forward, and it will be interesting regardless.  

Interesting, that makes a lot of sense, thanks for the run down

And lol, yep, you would definitely have to be very thorough (and have balls of steel) to be pushing code to a userbase like the BTC network