Topic: Bitcoin vs Bitcoin2X - November, whats it gonna be for you? - page 2. (Read 2183 times)

Hi Grrizz,

    The node blocking goes a little further than just that, because the change can be introduced ahead of schedule; it will help to make certain that nodes are already well-connected to (good) peers and that the network goes into the event without there being a disruption for DoS leading to islands of nodes that would otherwise take a while to settle if the node happened to have had all of its previous outgoing connections to *soon to be bad* (incompatible) nodes.

    The contention in the PR is about how the node blocking is otherwise making "currently compatible" nodes, non-viable and is seen as adversarial; yet since doing so implies protecting the network when the other side does their "Network Upgrade" it is also seen as quite conservative.

    All these things have to be done carefully; and I wouldn't want to be the one pushing code to so many users unless I was damn sure of the behaviors and emergence.
    It looks like the Core devs are well aware of the system emergence the node blocking will produce (as designed).

    I would rather see the swarm aligned for network segmentation ahead of time, then play a game of entropy roulette looking for peers when all of the good nodes have already reached their maximum connection limit.

Best Regards,
-Chicago

I think you missunderstand the situation, core isn't against a block size increase they are just against doing it right now. Segwit increases the number of transactions that can be handled by a block something like 2x on average (depending on the transfers in the block), makes block scaling more viable and makes side chains like lightning network feasable (moving a lot of transactions off the blockchain and enabling fast, cheap, microtransactions). Core is against segwit2x because not only is it being rushed, they believe (and rightly so IMO) forking should only be used as an "emergency" measure, it would be far better to put off a fork untill it is nessisary and include as many fixes and longer term improvements to the code in a single fork as possable with proper, thorough testing and peer review.

From what I understand the segwit2x node blocking is being implemented to help avoid bogging down the network by preventing incompatable nodes from connecting to each other.

Yeah.. SegWit2X is just like a temporary solution. This 2MB block size solution will not resolve all the issues in the long term. Once the number of users increase, once again we are going to witness transactions delayed by 2-3 days.

Then you should have supported BCash instead. Both BSegwit and BSegwit2X will lead to $100 fees on chain, 2X is just a bandaid to delay the inevitable, segwit will eventually lead to normal users not able to afford on chain transactions period

That seems very sensible, but who's going to mine it? If Bitcoin goes from acres of ASICs back to GPUs that is a vast amount of disruption.

There is no point in trusting the Core. If they have their say, then the block size will be reduced to 100KB, and the fee will be like $100 per transaction. Their model will not survive in the long term future. So I will stick with BTC2X and I'll dump BTC Core.

Too much forking. Why can't we just focus with Bitcoin vs Ethereum?

The only thing I will be doing here is deriving the most out of this situation. I got some free BCH during the fork because of the BTC I held and I will wait for it to rise to how much ever I think is right and will sell it at that point. Its not about which side one is on, its about the profit, at least for me. Both the guns have a foreseeable future of being bright and leading the altcoin pack.

Don't you like forks? It is free money for everyone. But seriously, one fork is more than enough, it is confusing people and might halt bitcoin adoption.
I can't even imagine what will happen if we have more forking madness in the future, people would be disturbed by it.
I am waiting and assessing the situation myself, for now, I am unsure whether to sell BCC or keep it and sell BTC.

Hello gentlemand,

    From what I've read of the Core contingency plans; they will introduce a proof-of-work change to recover from an event where no blocks are being minted.
    Yeah, that would mean no timely transactions for a little while as wallets get upgraded, but by no means would there be infinite weeks between timespans.

Best Regards,
-Chicago

I believe you will see it in 21 Aug.


Old guard Bitcoin, meanwhile, on Tuesday celebrated community acceptance, more or less, of SegWit2x, a proposed code change intended to separate signature data from transaction identifier data and to increase the size of the blocks that store Bitcoin transactions.

The revision, scheduled to take effect on August 21, is intended to make Bitcoin transactions more scalable and faster. After that point, Bitcoin miners will begin rejecting blocks that fail to support the change.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/08/bitcoin_core_fork_cryptocurrency/

Hello buwaytress,

    Yes.  There is already some preparations being made to help the network weather the storm so that nodes aren't suddenly found without a peer.
    The discussion about how to best do this is getting real interesting real fast.

    The blurred lines between conservative and adversarial are getting hard to see.

Best Regards,
-Chicago

If the current signalling continues for 2MB, which is doubtful in the extreme but anyway, Corecoin will be dead as a dodo. It would take months for the difficulty to adjust downwards and weeks to reach an exchange even if you did want to dump.

Personally I support core, I'm not against a block size increase (and nor do I think they are) but I would rather give segwit a chance to settle in and see how it affects the network before rushing out a block size increase too, IMO that is something that can be done later if needed and hopefully with more important code changes bundled in and solid testing and peer review to better justify a hard fork.

If it does fork I will probably end up holding both though, at least for the short term, mostly because this fork seems to be a lot more contentious than the BCH fork however I really hope the NYA signees will be willing to accept a more relaxed timeline now that BCH is a thing to avoid what could be quite a mess.

Hello Joris!

As you say, the next storm of November is going to be a lot more serious than that of Bitcoin Cash. Personally, I still feel a lot of things can happen - either party can still change their mind for the common good, and a fork may yet be avoided or may be agreed upon by both. I think, like the majority of us who are only semi-literate in Bitcoin tech speak, I believe and trust in the "Core".

Theirs is the most consistent, most conservative approach. I have only seen the last year of Bitcoin but it is enough for me to say that there is no valid emergency that would justify more drastic measures than what is already proposed by "Core".

I agree with your strategy... Patience and strong hands seem essential to building a good crypto portfolio.

I'm not going to invest in bitcoin in cash. I generally will not accept new coins until they not show in the market. I'll keep the old bitcoin. He I never betrayed and I will not betray him. I don't like these divisions.

I am really hoping there is no split. But if there is, I will keep both. Just from a speculation point of view, if this split happens Bitcoin Segwit will be the minor chain over Bitcoin Segwit 2X. It would be interesting to see how that will affect the price and investor confidence.

Hmm.. So there are going to be three different coins: BTC, BTC2X and BCH? I think I will hold all three, at least for another 6-7 months. Even after that period, at the most I am going to dump 25% of each.

No one is talking about bitcoin cash. They're talking about segwit2x. It's probably going to succeed IMO but idk, I can't predict the future. I'm surprised that Roger Ver has enough money to pump bitcoin cash so high (since it's just a useless, unaccepted, centralized shitcoin).