Author

Topic: Bitpico Claims Segwit2X is Still Alive Despite All Evidence to the Contrary (Read 188 times)

hero member
Activity: 555
Merit: 507
Saw some moron announced it on bitcoin.com too
https://forum.bitcoin.com/project-development/bitcoin-segwit2x-btc2x-the-most-advanced-version-of-bitcoin-t56981.html

Premine and all that good stuff... Roll Eyes

Hope it is a bad joke
newbie
Activity: 6
Merit: 0
Reports of 2X’s death have been greatly exaggerated. That’s according to a statement issued by little-known mining group Bitpico. In a defiant message that appeared on a mailing list, Bitpico claimed to control 30% of the network hashrate and to be pressing ahead with the B2X fork regardless.
The Zombie Fork That Just Won’t Die
The message posted by Bitpico raised the prospect of Segwit2x being resurrected within hours of being laid to rest. The original statement halting the proposed fork to the bitcoin network, signed by Mike Belshe and five other major backers, unequivocally said:

We are suspending our plans for the upcoming 2MB upgrade.
Bitpico elected to ignore this memo however, averring that they would press ahead with the hard fork nevertheless because “everything is set in motion”. They continued:

Backing down the difficulty right now is a strategy. Wonder why 30% network hash-rate disappeared? It’s ours; the miners that will continue what is set in motion. A handful of humans cannot stop what they have no control over.
The audaciousness of the claim garnered a lot of attention, and opened the door to the intriguing possibility of Segwit2x living on. Closer scrutiny of the little-known Bitpico group reveals a few anomalies however. In particular, their claim to control 30% of the hashrate doesn’t appear to hold up.

Who the Hell Are Bitpico?
No sooner had the name #BitPico begun trending on Twitter than the group’s statement was picked apart and their very identity called into question. It was pointed out that there is little evidence of Bitpico’s existence prior to September of this year, and their claim to own a significant proportion of hashing power seems fanciful to say the least. As Wikipedia might put it, “citation needed”.
Jump to: