Topic: Is S2X already on life support? - page 2. (Read 901 times)

I think the bigger question is, when are we going to see an end to attempts to support all these constant bogus forks?

I know it's putting unneeded stress on their businesses. Perhaps if companies like Coinbase and the exchanges get tired of having to deal with all the forking and providing means to the coins for their customers, they will finally put an end to all this nonsense by stating "Any and all future forks that are contentiously launched, we are flat out just not going to support. Period."

I'm guessing it'll only take another round of this shit or maybe two before they finally throw in the towel.

Difficulty would simply drop on the main BTC chain and blocks would come at a regular rate of 1/10mins eventually with any sort of network disruption. With no userbase, and a price trend that will probably be downwards over an extended period of time, there is no reason for anyone to use S2X if the BCH situation is repeated. And for now, signalling is only intent. There is no guarantee that the signallers will switch to S2X.

Exchanges have a lot of power. Most heavy miners send their coins straight to the exchanges so they ultimately end up being puppets to the exchanges. If an exchange decides to go one way then they alter their miners to ensure that they are making the most profit at the end of the day.
In a way it's kind of ironic/hypercritical. Bitcoin is meant to be decentralised but the lack of trust and power given to small exchanges means that the bigger exchanges are the ones calling the shots at the end of the day 

I kind of wonder how much depends on the ticker symbol. Bitcoin = BTC right? Not BCC or BCH or BTC1 or whatever else.

Bitcoin is BTC. Who decides this? Top exchanges. That is a lot of power resting there.

I think more than anything, the node spoofing measure was an emotional response to the 0.15 update auto-disconnect feature. The BTC1 guys know (or should know) that they need preferential peering to prevent network disruption when the fork occurs.

There's no precedent here, so I'm not too sure what will happen. Bitcoin Cash wasn't backed by services/ecosystem, so it doesn't provide any insight. What will happen if Segwit2x becomes the strongest chain regarding proof-of-work? That could have an effect on the market, and I'm not sure people are considering the magnitude of it. Bitcoin has always eclipsed all other cryptocurrencies in hash power. What happens if Segwit2x overtakes it in hash power and is also backed by most major Bitcoin services?

let's take closer look, though. bitfinex said this:


here's what coinbase said, leaving their options open:


so, we have an acknowledgment that there will be two blockchains. this is clear enough, and indeed, it's not what the NYA signatories set out to do. at the same time, no one seems to be backing down. in fact, clearly, coinbase is planning to move forward with the fork, and plans to offer full deposit/withdrawal support for both coins within a few days of the fork (compare to ETC or BCH).

no company of note has left the NYA. and all the miners are still signalling -- even f2pool. roger ver has gone off the deep end and is taking the opposite approach to bitfinex, saying that segwit2x will be the default bitcoin blockchain and BTC ticker.

in other words, i'd say that the fork is still likely to happen at this point. i think right out the gate and in the long term, there will be more demand for the legacy chain. however, it will be interesting to see what happens if 90% + (or even a simple majority) of the hashpower does indeed back the fork.

my advice is to trade wisely and do not make this ideological. the safest bet is to hodl both coins or to sell only a small portion of either. the best opportunity will probably play off hash power distribution. i believe the futures market is currently pricing in a fair chance that the fork doesn't happen, and that the miner support behind segwit2x will significantly drop as we approach the fork. i suspect the market may be wrong about both points, though.

bitmain is the wild card -- they could unleash a torrent of hashpower at fork time and they have an interest in the legacy chain being the weaker chain. don't underestimate that.

S2X is held together by shoestrings and a little hope. With all the practices they're already doing to stay afloat (blending in with Core nodes because of the lack of S2X nodes) I really don't see much going for it. Miners can afford a loss to fake preference towards S2X for a little while, but the userbase just won't be there for it. It's a project that was doomed from the beginning. For most of us it'll be free shitcoin like BCH was.

That is presupposing there actually will be any type of fork. The closer it gets the more ludicrous and unwanted an idea it appears to everyone, both signees and opponents. Its initial intentions are already comprehensive toast.

I'm afraid it's a bit early to predict the demise of S2X as there are still many industry proponents left. While I doubt that S2X will come out on top, there will likely be a lot of chaos during and after the fork, which might actually give S2X a fighting chance.

In the end miners will undoubtedly follow the money, which means it will largely depend on which fork manages to gain larger monetary support. However I'm not sure whether this time the result will be as clear cut as with BCH.

Bitfinex have stated that for practical reasons S2X won't be Bitcoin - https://www.bitfinex.com/posts/223

Coinbase have acknowledged there'll be two chains if it happens and it may take several days to access them - https://blog.coinbase.com/update-on-the-bitcoin-segwit2x-hard-fork-69426f14bc85

These are two of the biggest players and their actions have confirmed that the NYA thing will do exactly what it aimed to avoid.

I can see the Chinese miners being mindless enough to crack on until they realise it's worthless, but I don't see why anyone else is going to bother any more.

Is S2X in the bag or will it be yet another toothless boogeyman?