I am proud to be a part of the Bitcoin community. Long live CORE!

Topaz72

member

Activity: 322

Merit: 10

Quote from: Wind_FURY on November 09, 2017, 01:13:17 AM

First it was the USAF and then it is the halting of Segwit2x/btc1. Thanks everyone for standing fast and staying on course to support the No2x movement. It has again showed that what matters most in Bitcoin is the community, not the "oligarchy".

But you have to admire their Mike Belshe, Wences Casares, Jihan Wu, Jeff Garzik, Peter Smith and Erik
Voorhees and the rest for raising the white flag and admit defeat for the good of the community.

Yes I think yes I’m also lucky that I’m a part of this plat forum because here we can learn a lot of things and day by day we can learn a lot of things from it so I think bitcoin is very use full for every one and any one can take advantage from it bitcoin also provide a very good source of income for very one and we need to take advantage from its.

LuffyD.Monkey

full member

Activity: 336

Merit: 101

Quote from: esgdrhlg on November 09, 2017, 10:23:30 PM

Quote from: davis196 on November 09, 2017, 02:12:22 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on November 09, 2017, 01:55:00 AM

But will those forks really be considered as the real "Bitcoin" by the community? No, and the supporters of Segwit2x knew this, which was the reason why they cancelled it. But they are welcome to continue on with the hard fork as long as there is replay protection. Which is another way of saying "we are the altcoin".

Perhaps the Segwit2x supporters and devs realised that they will lose more from the hard fork compared with what they could win.I was really concerned that this event will hit the bitcoin price,but now i hope that
the bitcoin price could hit 10 000 USD at the end of December.The bad thing is that all the people who bought btc just to get free forked "bitcoins" will try to sell some of their btc holdings.

There is a problem that has to be faced, that bitcoin transfers are getting slower and slower, and blockchain capacity is close to saturation and higher fees. If there is a bitcoin reform we all agree on, it is better than the game of interest between businessmen.

That is very right to say. The problem of transaction delay is increasing from time to time. Which is creating problems for the people. Sometime the transaction even delayed for weeks, I think it is too much important to solve the problems, and for that we should take any step for the betterment of bitcoin.

cpfreeplz

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1042

Quote from: Kakmakr on November 10, 2017, 01:12:24 AM

Could you imagine the embarrassment if they went forward with SegWit2X and Bitcoin users started to lose coins with this whole Replay Protection fiasco? The anger and outrage would have ruined their reputation even more. Yes, they raised the white flag, but it was not to stop the war. They saw what the outcome of this might have been and they protected their own reputation.

You cannot gamble with a Billion Dollar project and other peoples wealth. The Core developers gets this and they will not put code out there that might harm the experiment. Just look at what happened with Bitcoin XT. ^hmmmmm^

Was it going to be implemented later or they just were really going to go ahead and fly without it in the hopes that they would become the main chain? That's just insanity. It would just prove how incompetent they really are.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: pooya87 on November 10, 2017, 02:43:02 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on November 10, 2017, 01:53:14 AM

~
But I also disagree. NO2x has proven that the UASF was the reason why Segwit was activated. The miners and the merchants have no choice but to follow what the community wants because it is the nodes that give demand for blocks the miners make.

When I say the "community", I mean the people who run full nodes and the people who would dump B2X or BCC or whatever fork to hold the real Bitcoin which is the Core implementation.

well that is always the issue. you can never define "community" and using words like "economic majority" to force a fork (like what UASFers did) is not the same as hashrate and nodes supporting something.

i am not saying UASF was ineffective, and i am not against UASF either. but i say User Activated SF needs to be all or >95% of nodes supporting the fork and a large enough hashrate and not <30%. by that time there were not enough nodes. the majority of old nodes (the ~6000 usual bitcoin nodes) were not supporting UASF and a lot of nodes were created on Amazon servers (similar to recent S2X spike) supporting UASF. and that is not community the same way Amazon S2X nodes aren't community today.
and the hashrate weren't there to support UASF either.

on the same subject read this: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/014152.html

Quote

The miners and the merchants have no choice but to follow what the community wants

not at all.
miners will always mine what gives them more profit (just the way they switched to bitcoin cash when they could mine 1000-1500 blocks per day instead of 144 normal daily blocks and it was profitable).
and merchants would stop accepting bitcoin if they feel it is becoming a hassle or risky to do so.

Yes, but what gives the miners more profit is the "Bitcoin" the community wants hold and use. The merchants also follow what the community wants.

If one day the whole community dumped Bitcoins and started buying and using Bitcoin Cash then the miners and the merchants will follow.

Kingofbitcoin12345

full member

Activity: 462

Merit: 102

Each one member of this community have this connection with bitcoin that can’t really be destroyed using technicalities.. Bitcoin and the community has been fighting side by side for almost a decade now and trying to replace with a hard fork coin needs more than 100 reason for each users and investors to be attracted and leave it with I prefer to called “the free altcoin”..

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: Wind_FURY on November 10, 2017, 01:53:14 AM

~
But I also disagree. NO2x has proven that the UASF was the reason why Segwit was activated. The miners and the merchants have no choice but to follow what the community wants because it is the nodes that give demand for blocks the miners make.

When I say the "community", I mean the people who run full nodes and the people who would dump B2X or BCC or whatever fork to hold the real Bitcoin which is the Core implementation.

well that is always the issue. you can never define "community" and using words like "economic majority" to force a fork (like what UASFers did) is not the same as hashrate and nodes supporting something.

i am not saying UASF was ineffective, and i am not against UASF either. but i say User Activated SF needs to be all or >95% of nodes supporting the fork and a large enough hashrate and not <30%. by that time there were not enough nodes. the majority of old nodes (the ~6000 usual bitcoin nodes) were not supporting UASF and a lot of nodes were created on Amazon servers (similar to recent S2X spike) supporting UASF. and that is not community the same way Amazon S2X nodes aren't community today.
and the hashrate weren't there to support UASF either.

on the same subject read this: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/014152.html

Quote

The miners and the merchants have no choice but to follow what the community wants

not at all.
miners will always mine what gives them more profit (just the way they switched to bitcoin cash when they could mine 1000-1500 blocks per day instead of 144 normal daily blocks and it was profitable).
and merchants would stop accepting bitcoin if they feel it is becoming a hassle or risky to do so.

iamTom123

hero member

Activity: 490

Merit: 501

Quote from: pooya87 on November 09, 2017, 01:39:54 AM

More accurately: first it was UASF, then it was UAHF which meant creation of Bitcoin Cash, then it was bitcoin gold and afterwards it was plans for bitcoin silver, and eventually it will be at least a dozen more forks like this in the future because of UASF and all those who were saying forcing a fork with no consensus is fine! At least these SegWit2x guys finally admitted what consensus should mean for bitcoin.

I have been wondering the same thing before: How come those people vested with the decision-making power would not want to establish an acceptable protocol where there should be consensus every time there is an issue that has to be solved and that once there would be a consensus then everybody would be respecting the decision and not force to have a hard fork something which is not working really good for Bitcoin in the long run. When we say consensus, it should be a real consensus and not one done by arbitrary force.

The way I am seeing things right now is that this dynamic is just part of Bitcoin evolving and growing towards it getting better and more robust in the future. From now on, there should be a way for the voices of the small Bitcoin holders to be heard...hope there can be proposal along this line so that we can all support the move.

winnersss

member

Activity: 72

Merit: 10

Quote from: Wind_FURY on November 09, 2017, 01:13:17 AM

First it was the USAF and then it is the halting of Segwit2x/btc1. Thanks everyone for standing fast and staying on course to support the No2x movement. It has again showed that what matters most in Bitcoin is the community, not the "oligarchy".

But you have to admire their Mike Belshe, Wences Casares, Jihan Wu, Jeff Garzik, Peter Smith and Erik
Voorhees and the rest for raising the white flag and admit defeat for the good of the community.

So everything is based everywhere on people. Who created you Bitcoin, who supports such a price for him, who provides you with bits for buying. So the community is a force, one you will never stretch.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: pooya87 on November 09, 2017, 11:44:11 PM

Quote from: hatshepsut93 on November 09, 2017, 10:35:25 PM

Quote from: pooya87 on November 09, 2017, 01:39:54 AM

more accurately:
first it was UASF, then it was UAHF which meant creation of Bitcoin Cash, then it was bitcoin gold and afterwards it was plans for bitcoin silver, and eventually it will be at least a dozen more forks like this in the future because of UASF and all those who were saying forcing a fork with no consensus is fine!

at least these SegWit2x guys finally admitted what consensus should mean for bitcoin.

Well, SegWit2x was a bit different, because it was an attack - it always presented itself as the "true" Bitcoin and just an upgrade to Bitcoin protocol rather than an entirely new currency. Although Bitcoin Cash is also close to it, since many of its supporters call "the real Bitcoin" and "original Satoshi's vision".
But in both cases, OP is right, we as community are the one's who really control Bitcoin and miners or big companies don't actually dare to force their forks upon us because they know that they depend on us and not vice versa.

i disagree. SegWit2x was the reason SegWit was activated and without the promise of 2 MB hard fork it would have never been activated. believe it or not BIP148 (UASF) would have split bitcoin into 3 different chains on August 1st (which makes it an attack more than anything else): legacy without SegWit with ~70% hashrate, SegWit with ~30% hashrate and UAHF/BCH with new hashrate that ViaBTC and antpool threw in it. and that would have harmed bitcoin more than anything else. and that UASF-Segwit didn't have replay protection either and the number of nodes for it was also very small and mostly on Amazon servers like the S2X nodes these days.

But I also disagree. NO2x has proven that the UASF was the reason why Segwit was activated. The miners and the merchants have no choice but to follow what the community wants because it is the nodes that give demand for blocks the miners make.

When I say the "community", I mean the people who run full nodes and the people who would dump B2X or BCC or whatever fork to hold the real Bitcoin which is the Core implementation.

Kakmakr

legendary

Activity: 3542

Merit: 1965

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Could you imagine the embarrassment if they went forward with SegWit2X and Bitcoin users started to lose coins with this whole Replay Protection fiasco? The anger and outrage would have ruined their reputation even more. Yes, they raised the white flag, but it was not to stop the war. They saw what the outcome of this might have been and they protected their own reputation.

You cannot gamble with a Billion Dollar project and other peoples wealth. The Core developers gets this and they will not put code out there that might harm the experiment. Just look at what happened with Bitcoin XT. ^hmmmmm^

MaggieDeng

newbie

Activity: 40

Merit: 0

Just wondering how many more hard forks coming on the road? How long the support of the core team can stay in the BTC world?

dmyddtun

newbie

Activity: 64

Merit: 0

Segwit2x/btc1 may be stopped, maybe good, which is a good emphasis for bitcoin. People can't always look at forks. It may be profitable in the short term, but it does not represent bitcoin, which is a good thing for the community, and I think bitcoin can also go up.

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: hatshepsut93 on November 09, 2017, 10:35:25 PM

Quote from: pooya87 on November 09, 2017, 01:39:54 AM

more accurately:
first it was UASF, then it was UAHF which meant creation of Bitcoin Cash, then it was bitcoin gold and afterwards it was plans for bitcoin silver, and eventually it will be at least a dozen more forks like this in the future because of UASF and all those who were saying forcing a fork with no consensus is fine!

at least these SegWit2x guys finally admitted what consensus should mean for bitcoin.

Well, SegWit2x was a bit different, because it was an attack - it always presented itself as the "true" Bitcoin and just an upgrade to Bitcoin protocol rather than an entirely new currency. Although Bitcoin Cash is also close to it, since many of its supporters call "the real Bitcoin" and "original Satoshi's vision".
But in both cases, OP is right, we as community are the one's who really control Bitcoin and miners or big companies don't actually dare to force their forks upon us because they know that they depend on us and not vice versa.

i disagree. SegWit2x was the reason SegWit was activated and without the promise of 2 MB hard fork it would have never been activated. believe it or not BIP148 (UASF) would have split bitcoin into 3 different chains on August 1st (which makes it an attack more than anything else): legacy without SegWit with ~70% hashrate, SegWit with ~30% hashrate and UAHF/BCH with new hashrate that ViaBTC and antpool threw in it. and that would have harmed bitcoin more than anything else. and that UASF-Segwit didn't have replay protection either and the number of nodes for it was also very small and mostly on Amazon servers like the S2X nodes these days.

harrypotter1229

member

Activity: 162

Merit: 10

Yes, my friend. Without the support of the community, the rest is empty talk. This may be good news for its future development.

Sophiea

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Yes I am proud that I'm part of Bitcoin community, it is a great privilege that I got a chance to be one of them. It's not only you earn income but also you will meet different person that also help you learn something new. Wink

Beicin

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

I hope we can achieve consensus regarding scalability soon, no matter who are the devs in charge. Bitcoin needs more tx/s capacity if we want more user adoption across the world - it's literally a good thing for anyone involved in the crypto market.

Youghoor

sr. member

Activity: 1036

Merit: 275

but everybody is here only for one reason, money. and they have probably cancelled segwitx2 because it was like a complot only to pump/dump the price of bitcoin, it is a conspiracy, nobody wanted to get it released, i read this on redit but i dont remember where, it really makes sense if you read all that post in there.
But you are wrong with core, i think that you are just refering to another coin when you talk about "core".
obviously that segwit was a shitty fork, but there was no reason to just make it disappear just a week before it was going to be released.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: esgdrhlg on November 09, 2017, 10:23:30 PM

Quote from: davis196 on November 09, 2017, 02:12:22 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on November 09, 2017, 01:55:00 AM

But will those forks really be considered as the real "Bitcoin" by the community? No, and the supporters of Segwit2x knew this, which was the reason why they cancelled it. But they are welcome to continue on with the hard fork as long as there is replay protection. Which is another way of saying "we are the altcoin".

Perhaps the Segwit2x supporters and devs realised that they will lose more from the hard fork compared with what they could win.I was really concerned that this event will hit the bitcoin price,but now i hope that
the bitcoin price could hit 10 000 USD at the end of December.The bad thing is that all the people who bought btc just to get free forked "bitcoins" will try to sell some of their btc holdings.

There is a problem that has to be faced, that bitcoin transfers are getting slower and slower, and blockchain capacity is close to saturation and higher fees.

The Core developers are aware of it but that does not mean the solution should be rushed just to make the Bitcoin oligarchy happy. The block size increase should be taken more slowly and tested thoroughly before release. The community should also reach consensus if there is a proposal for a hard fork.

Quote

If there is a bitcoin reform we all agree on, it is better than the game of interest between businessmen.

Yes.

hatshepsut93

legendary

Activity: 3024

Merit: 2148

Quote from: pooya87 on November 09, 2017, 01:39:54 AM

more accurately:
first it was UASF, then it was UAHF which meant creation of Bitcoin Cash, then it was bitcoin gold and afterwards it was plans for bitcoin silver, and eventually it will be at least a dozen more forks like this in the future because of UASF and all those who were saying forcing a fork with no consensus is fine!

at least these SegWit2x guys finally admitted what consensus should mean for bitcoin.

Well, SegWit2x was a bit different, because it was an attack - it always presented itself as the "true" Bitcoin and just an upgrade to Bitcoin protocol rather than an entirely new currency. Although Bitcoin Cash is also close to it, since many of its supporters call "the real Bitcoin" and "original Satoshi's vision".
But in both cases, OP is right, we as community are the one's who really control Bitcoin and miners or big companies don't actually dare to force their forks upon us because they know that they depend on us and not vice versa.

esgdrhlg

member

Activity: 173

Merit: 10

Quote from: davis196 on November 09, 2017, 02:12:22 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on November 09, 2017, 01:55:00 AM

But will those forks really be considered as the real "Bitcoin" by the community? No, and the supporters of Segwit2x knew this, which was the reason why they cancelled it. But they are welcome to continue on with the hard fork as long as there is replay protection. Which is another way of saying "we are the altcoin".

Perhaps the Segwit2x supporters and devs realised that they will lose more from the hard fork compared with what they could win.I was really concerned that this event will hit the bitcoin price,but now i hope that
the bitcoin price could hit 10 000 USD at the end of December.The bad thing is that all the people who bought btc just to get free forked "bitcoins" will try to sell some of their btc holdings.

There is a problem that has to be faced, that bitcoin transfers are getting slower and slower, and blockchain capacity is close to saturation and higher fees. If there is a bitcoin reform we all agree on, it is better than the game of interest between businessmen.

Topic: I am proud to be a part of the Bitcoin community. Long live CORE! (Read 469 times)