Topic: Good writeup/summary about the S2X situation (Read 377 times)
There are tons of useful writeups and summaries about the situation, but the easiest way you can understand it is like this. Here you have Bitcoin, which is decentralized $, and on it's way to becoming the world's reserve currency because it is in fact sound money. Then you have governments, politicians, suits, etc who have a lot of their wealth stored in FIAT and can't stand BTC taking over, so they try and stop it any way they can. Too be centralized $ don't work.
I don't really get why we haven't had clear statements of intention from all the relevant parties regarding this. I'm not talking exchanges who won't care, I'm talking the miners.
They're not helping themselves or anyone else other than whales.
They're not helping themselves or anyone else other than whales.
I suppose their silence hasn't helped, but maybe they feel their words wouldn't carry much weight after a fairly vocal segment of the community have effectively vilified them already. Partisan rhetoric seems to have resulted in the "guilty until proven innocent" mindset becoming more prevalent around here. It's likely some users are simply past caring what the miners have to say for themselves.
Also, not all miners are companies, so it's not as though they should all feel obligated to issue some form of official corporate statement regarding their intentions. But some of the larger companies could clear up some of the ambiguity about their stance, sure.
https://medium.com/@jimmysong/segwit2x-game-theory-scenarios-part-1-7f863904a72
This is a useful write up too. I don't really get why we haven't had clear statements of intention from all the relevant parties regarding this. I'm not talking exchanges who won't care, I'm talking the miners.
They're not helping themselves or anyone else other than whales.
This is a useful write up too. I don't really get why we haven't had clear statements of intention from all the relevant parties regarding this. I'm not talking exchanges who won't care, I'm talking the miners.
They're not helping themselves or anyone else other than whales.
unanimous consensus on all fields
It's impossible to guarantee that there is unanimous consensus on anything. It's very hard to measure consensus at all.However, instead of just watching what people support and trying to wait and see what consensus ends up supporting, some people (you in this case), try to make exaggerated and difficult to verify claims about what consensus favours, and use that as the main justification for opposing a project. Then people hop on because it does not have consensus. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
takeover attempt.
But it doesn't prevent Bitcoin Core from developing their software or from users to support Bitcoin Core, so in what way is it a takeover attempt?I said "takeover attempt".
Pretty sure you didn't. The word "attempt" doesn't appear in a single post of yours in this thread until that one. And even "takeover attempt" still implies they'd have some special power or influence over the network. Even if consensus did change successfully once because of their code, it doesn't mean they'd possess any additional control to make further changes that were unwanted. Further changes including adding KYC/AML or blacklisting would almost certainly be rejected by users, so any "slippery slope" type argument you wanted to make is moot.
So far you are the idiot that doesn't understand how for Bitcoin to work optimally all nodes must follow the same rules.
Then why were you telling everyone to run the decidedly different rules present in the code of UASF, you spectacularly tainted hypocrite?
Run UASF or keep dreaming about miners activating anything that really scales bitcoin.
What you can do is run an UASF node, not much else.
Duplicitous sack of excrement.
Found any KYC/AML or blacklisting in the 2x code yet? Or is it still just the usual assumptions about supposed intent?
If anyone creates a fork without a significant proportion of users and miners supporting the change, the fork won't succeed, so how can it be a takeover? Bitcoin doesn't have a controlling authority, so who are they "taking over" from? If the project remains open source, what's to stop any existing developers continuing to contribute code? Everything about the word "takeover" sounds like gibbering idiocy when you have even the slightest grasp of how Bitcoin works and actually think it through to conclusion.
Once again you show your delusional and nativity. I said "takeover attempt". So far you are the idiot that doesn't understand how for Bitcoin to work optimally all nodes must follow the same rules, therefore there are technical reasons not to hardfork it, unless there is unanimous consensus on all fields, it is a de-facto takeover attempt.
Jeff Garzik began talking about "safeguarding stolen BTC" and KYC/AML shortly before he and Gavin Andresen left the Bitcoin project a few years ago. I expect his views haven't changed, and he was always espousing and defending authoritarian & illiberal political views before that.
Found any KYC/AML or blacklisting in the 2x code yet? Or is it still just the usual assumptions about supposed intent?
segwit2x is a corporate takeover
If anyone creates a fork without a significant proportion of users and miners supporting the change, the fork won't succeed, so how can it be a takeover? Bitcoin doesn't have a controlling authority, so who are they "taking over" from? If the project remains open source, what's to stop any existing developers continuing to contribute code? Everything about the word "takeover" sounds like gibbering idiocy when you have even the slightest grasp of how Bitcoin works and actually think it through to conclusion.
I agree with WhalePanda. I have always said, continue to say and will say : BTC is the only real bitcoin, all these rigid forks it's a Scam and an attempt to earn no more money.
I don't think that "they" do. Regardless, that still doesn't make it an "attack", just an open source project.
Bitcoin is not just any other "open source project". It's strength relies on all nodes following the same consensus rules. Anyone is free to create their own node software as long as it doesn't go against the rules. If you want to change the rules you need massive consensus, something segwit2x obviously doesn't have. The conclusion is this is an attack, promoted by corporations. There are technical reasons to not hardfork Bitcoin around. These are all facts, which you may or not face...
You mean 'massive consensus' between all big players? big & small players? all Bitcoin users?
I'm afraid average, so to say, 'awareness rate' is rather low now and becoming still lower. Most people came just
...to profit off this mass confusion.
And I don't blame them - human nature, you know...
it brings nothing good but corporate triple letter agency friendly agents. None of the people involved in NYA care about a sovereign bitcoin.
Opinion.No, at a minimum, the sovereign Bitcoin comment is actually a fact.
Jeff Garzik began talking about "safeguarding stolen BTC" and KYC/AML shortly before he and Gavin Andresen left the Bitcoin project a few years ago. I expect his views haven't changed, and he was always espousing and defending authoritarian & illiberal political views before that.
Remember this always, some people are simply looking to profit off this mass confusion.
I don't think that "they" do. Regardless, that still doesn't make it an "attack", just an open source project.
Bitcoin is not just any other "open source project". It's strength relies on all nodes following the same consensus rules. Anyone is free to create their own node software as long as it doesn't go against the rules. If you want to change the rules you need massive consensus, something segwit2x obviously doesn't have. The conclusion is this is an attack, promoted by corporations. There are technical reasons to not hardfork Bitcoin around. These are all facts, which you may or not face.
Jihan
Jihan apparently sold his BTC and only accepts BCH payments for his hardware (nobody believes he is stupid enough to have sold his BTC). Roger Ver and co just want to create as much drama as possible in BTC now that the have high stakes on BCH, they are hoping people will think "oh, BTC fucked up, BCH is the only alternative now".
Why do you have to pretend that this is black and white?
Because it's an attack. They pretend that everyone using Coinbase is supporting thisEverything is explained and justified in the article which you didn't read.
It contains 5 points which are extremely loaded with ad hominems and it continuously attempts to leap to conclusions halfway through the article. It's hardly a piece of useful or informative writing for anyone outside of an echo chamber.For example:
This is not opinion but fact.
To separate "fact" from "opinion":it is contentious
Fact. it brings nothing good but corporate triple letter agency friendly agents. None of the people involved in NYA care about a sovereign bitcoin.
Opinion. Why do you have to pretend that this is black and white?
Because it's an attack. They pretend that everyone using Coinbase is supporting this, when 99% of Coinbase users have no idea of what is going on. It's hypocrite and they use their clueless users as hostages to push their agenda.It's a new client which is forked from the Bitcoin Core client in which the consensus rules are changed to support a 2MB block size. When stating matters of opinion you should be tentative and justify your points with evidence. This provides nothing to argue against apart from pointing out what the fork will objectively be if it occurs.
Everything is explained and justified in the article which you didn't read. And like I said, it is contentious, it brings nothing good but corporate triple letter agency friendly agents. None of the people involved in NYA care about a sovereign bitcoin. This is not opinion but fact.
In that case, how did it get developed?
Don't be dense. Figuratively speaking, nobody works on the thing, their github is dead, it's only Jeff and a couple other guys dicking around every once in a bluemoon. Their dev mailing list is amateur hour.
No. So it's a good thing that SegWit2x doesn't involve that, otherwise I would be somewhat worried.
Then you should do some more research, and see what Bloq is. Also realize how Jeff Garzik is launching his own shitcoin. These guys don't put the money where their mouth is. Nobody wants to trade BTC for S2X, they don't trust their own project with their money, they are just hoping the bribing is enough to last for X hours to trick people into going their way. Not gonna happen.
This is not an upgrade, this is an attack.
Why do you have to pretend that this is black and white?It's a new client which is forked from the Bitcoin Core client in which the consensus rules are changed to support a 2MB block size. When stating matters of opinion you should be tentative and justify your points with evidence. This provides nothing to argue against apart from pointing out what the fork will objectively be if it occurs.
BTC1 doesn’t have any developers
In that case, how did it get developed?Do you really want to give up your financial freedom and independence and put it in the hands of a couple of VC’s and CEO’s?
No. So it's a good thing that SegWit2x doesn't involve that, otherwise I would be somewhat worried.
https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/final-thoughts-before-the-2x-fork-70058b3d80d3
WhalePanda is a great writer for newbies to get started in the matter of forks and game theory. Some may not agree with some things, but it's overall a good start. I think we can agree on most things being said there. No matter if you are a fan of Core or not, segwit2x is a corporate takeover and the reasons for it being so are explained in an easy-to-understand layman terms there.
The conclusion:
This is just another attack against Bitcoin, it is a big one this time, but Bitcoin will come out stronger once again if it survives.
Whatever Jeff, Bobby or any others like to tell you: This is not an upgrade, this is an attack.
Prepare for very slow blocks and high fees, whatever that means for you. For me it doesn’t really change anything. I have some Bitcoin on exchanges to dump my 2X at a good price without having to wait for splitting tools for Trezor or something. But always keep in mind that keeping coins on exchanges is risky. You need to think about your personal risk/reward.
BTC1 doesn’t have any developers, Core’s cypherpunks just keep coding on. BTC1 is already a few versions behind and will keep falling further and further behind from a technological (and obviously decentralized) point of view.
High fees suck, everyone agrees on that, but always keep in mind that fees are calculated in BTC, not USD. The Bitcoin price went up x10 this last year. The good news is that there’s so much cool stuff being developed that will end up lowering the fees.
Try to avoid using companies that still support NYA. After this attack, there will be another one and another one,.. But we shouldn’t forget the bad actors involved with this one. So please educate the people around you and explain why they should avoid companies like Coinbase, Bitpay, Blockchain,… Full list.
Do you really want to give up your financial freedom and independence and put it in the hands of a couple of VC’s and CEO’s?
WhalePanda is a great writer for newbies to get started in the matter of forks and game theory. Some may not agree with some things, but it's overall a good start. I think we can agree on most things being said there. No matter if you are a fan of Core or not, segwit2x is a corporate takeover and the reasons for it being so are explained in an easy-to-understand layman terms there.
The conclusion:
Quote
This is just another attack against Bitcoin, it is a big one this time, but Bitcoin will come out stronger once again if it survives.
Whatever Jeff, Bobby or any others like to tell you: This is not an upgrade, this is an attack.
Prepare for very slow blocks and high fees, whatever that means for you. For me it doesn’t really change anything. I have some Bitcoin on exchanges to dump my 2X at a good price without having to wait for splitting tools for Trezor or something. But always keep in mind that keeping coins on exchanges is risky. You need to think about your personal risk/reward.
BTC1 doesn’t have any developers, Core’s cypherpunks just keep coding on. BTC1 is already a few versions behind and will keep falling further and further behind from a technological (and obviously decentralized) point of view.
High fees suck, everyone agrees on that, but always keep in mind that fees are calculated in BTC, not USD. The Bitcoin price went up x10 this last year. The good news is that there’s so much cool stuff being developed that will end up lowering the fees.
Try to avoid using companies that still support NYA. After this attack, there will be another one and another one,.. But we shouldn’t forget the bad actors involved with this one. So please educate the people around you and explain why they should avoid companies like Coinbase, Bitpay, Blockchain,… Full list.
Do you really want to give up your financial freedom and independence and put it in the hands of a couple of VC’s and CEO’s?
Jump to: