Topic: Just confriming, segwit or segwit2x is going ahead on BTC? - page 3. (Read 5979 times)

I observed this segwit,segwit2x,2mb,4mb,8mb discussion for several months. Im really disappointed in bitcoin core. When everyone was signaling for segwit2x it seemed that everyone is ok with that and we finally got a consensus. And suddenly bitcoin core says they dont want to stick with segwit2x.
Even tough there are 5k core nodes, this does not has to mean that the community want to follow bitcoin cores path.
For me it more seems like there is a company which tries to force the whole community to follow their path.
Im going to install and run segwit2x node.
Hopefully everyone else who is the same opinion is going to do that.
Kind of sad to see how a single company is killing Bitcoin.

I really hope segwit2x comes out this year. I know it will sort of "hurt" bitcoin, and not really give any benefits, but I am a greedy man and I would love to dump some more fork coins. Especially after how much free money I made of bitcoin cash!

I don't think people do - they just want low transaction costs and fast confirmation times - which Lighting does help deliver.

But I don't think we can get to visa tx levels even with Segwit, LN whilst only having 1 meg bitcoin blocks.

As every time you open/close a LN channel you need a tx on the bitcoin blockchain. And unless people are prepared to open their channels with USD1000's at a time there will be a lot of channel creation. 99% of people do not have 1000's that they can leave tied up in a bitcoin / Lightning channel till they need to spend it. Most people lead a surprisingly salary cheque -> landlord/mortgage/bill/supermarket type existence each month.

In fact the whole economics of Lighting does not make sense to me - you end up with so much capital tied up in the channels - although guess this would be great for the Bitcoin price!! But that is a topic for a different thread!

With Segwit about to lock-in then the whole LN infrastructure is enabled and people can start building/marketing it - and if I am wrong will take off.

So why not make the block bigger too? Needing 288 meg instead of 144 meg a day of bandwidth is hardly going to make the network more centralised - is a few cents a day more cost to run the node - maybe if we were talking about a 1 Tb a day increase you would have a point.

And anyway centralisation is all relative. The FX market is decentralised - but you need a USD 100m+ a year IT budget to run a FX Spot desk at an Investment Bank!

No, its people who want to use off-chain solutions not devs ! On-chain won't scale to VISA levels sorry...

L2 solutions are the best technical proposal since it preserve decentralization and can scale far more than raw block increase. LN increase privacy as a side effect too.

Also, S2X and BCH are nothing more than big businesses and cartels imposing their will on their users, it set a very bad precedent in the development governance where closed doors meeting and centralized actors decide what should be implemented or not...

In term of price BCH and S2X may have a future but in term of financial sovereignty and paradigm shift they don't have anything, notice that all companies that are against L2 solutions are middlemen type companies ! LN can make them redundant !

Here is a 4Meg one:
http://blockdozer.com/insight/block/0000000000000000012401ef17c6eefc28a25ebc98ac5c085174d5f418ebc3db

Agree - generally low tx volumes though.

Don't think objection from devs is that there are fundamental technical issues with 2Mb. Think it is more they want people to use off-chain (Lighting) solutions.

And if the BTC blocks are big there will be less incentive for people to use these solutions.

BCH showed nothing since there is no transactions on that chain at all, they can't fill up even an 1 MB space...

Is this the commit?
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/1de73f4e19fe789abb636afdb48a165a6fd31009

Bit odd no mention of SEGWIT2X in the commit comment. Also trivial for BitcoinCash to just stop publishing those bits and then will stay connected...
Or run a fronting BitcoinCore node with this commit removed.


And I am still confused why everyone is so scared of HardForks. If the developers, user-base and miners are all in agreement they just happen. Only issue with this one is the split in opinions. But if the developers started backing it (say supporting in 0.15) then the userbase would follow I expect and the whole issue would be solved.

Feels like the main objection is from the developers is saying it is risky - but is only risky because they are not supporting it!

Does it, though?  I mean, to avoid a messy split, sure, the entire network has to switch across to it in one go.  But considering the entrenched views involved, a contentious split seems the far more likely outcome right now, unless someone proposes a compromise in the very near future.  It all rides on numbers now.  The hashrate each chain can attract, the number of nodes supporting each chain, the economic activity being transacted across each chain and the number of businesses, vendors and other third party services supporting each chain.  Essentially 4 main categories in which to contest.

My initial impression (as things currently stand at the time of writing) is that first blood may go to 2x on the hashrate (unless miners start dropping support soon), whereas SegWit-Only will probably smash the node count out of the park, so that's a 1-all draw in the first two categories (purely IMHO in case that wasn't obvious).  But the second two are somewhat more tricky to predict.  Could go either way.  The hashrate may grant an advantage to 2x in terms of economic activity, since they would likely gain all the SPV wallet users that simply follow the longest chain, but conversely, it's difficult to tell in advance whether lack of non-mining nodes would potentially mean issues for relaying peoples' transactions, which could deter users from 2x.  But equally, if there is a lack of hashrate on SegWit-Only, that could also cause short-term issues and delays transacting due to mining difficulty.  I can't even begin to forecast what businesses, vendors and third party services might be doing, though.  I think most of them will just play it by ear and not make any snap judgements.  I suspect they'll be watching it all unfold as keenly as the rest of us.

The Segwit bit was the easy part. The 2MB bit will prove to be anything but. The entire network has to switch across to it in one go.

Well, the price soar I think is due to SegWit2x and we can see that people reached consensus segwit2x was a right thing to do.

I think it's a fine and necessary idea in principle but as you say it's the timing. It's ridiculously short and all parties involved, Core and the 2X crew, have now guaranteed another alt. Which one will be the alt is another matter.

Considering the diversity of node software out there, I'd assume there probably won't be enough 0.15.0 clients to cause sufficient grief to the 2x miners.  I'm guessing they would still be receiving enough transactions from other nodes to "keep up".  Will be an interesting exercise in network topology and propagation to find out for certain, though.  How few compatible nodes is enough to stay current until the fork?  Will there be gaps in coverage in certain regions?  It's going to be educational if nothing else, heh.

That pull request has already been merged into Bitcoin Core. It will be part of the 0.15.0 release. This means that if you run Bitcoin Core 0.15.0, you will be disconnecting all segwit2x nodes.

A large part of the technical community opposes segwit2x for a variety of technical reasons. Furthermore, Bitcoin Core will not be supporting Segwit2x. The hard fork will likely still happen, just not very cleanly. If segwit2x continues to refuse to implement replay protection, refuses to set the hard fork bit, refuses to change their network magic, etc, then their hard fork will cause a lot of problems. This could result in network partitioning and replayed transactions (and thus potentially fraud). Since it is basically guaranteed to be a messy chain split, they should be working to make it as clean as possible, after all, they are the ones diverging from the status quo.

No one? In this forum, at least, there was a poll with a majority approving Segwit + 2MB. You now can say that there was low participation in my poll, but I have really discussed this topic many times at BCT and there are many people here approving  a conservative block size increase.

The aspect of the agreement I personally object is timing. November (or any date in 2017) is, in my opinion, too early for a hard fork. So I had a slight (delusional) hope that there could be an agreement to postpone the 2MB part to mid-to-end 2018, with the approval of at least some of the Core developers. But it seems that won't become true.

The NYA was not only signed by miners, but also by "big fishes" of the "economy" like BitPay and Coinbase, and there seem to be only a few companies completely opposing the 2x part (see support). If these big companies keep supporting it then I think the Segwit2x chain will be the stronger one.

Who's going to be suing who? What court would take the slightest interest in this? It's a loose conglomerate of miners who are free to wander off whenever they like. On the very day it was signed there were people who 'signed' it who didn't know the actual details.

If it does happen the only lawsuits flying will be against any exchange that lists 2X as it won't have repay protection, so no exchange will list it.

I'll be amazed if this fork happens. People don't bet tens of billions of value on something put together by a handful of nobodies behind closed doors forcing a fundamental change in a few weeks that no one outside the room it was created in agrees with.

Segwit was established and thoroughly tested and it was a soft fork. 2X is none of these things.

The players will gradually bail on it as November approaches.  

actually "few %" should be "about 10%". I did not realise that Bitcoin Unlimited and Classic are both compatible with the change. Not sure about XT - but only 27 nodes.

https://coin.dance/nodes is a bit clearer..

There are 8124 nodes (I excluded the Bitcoin-ABC as they are now an alt-coin!)

And if I sum BitcoinUnlimited, btc1 and Bitcoin Classic I get 977 - so 12%.

Still a lot less than 100%!! Will be interesting to see how this changes over the next 100 days...

Hmmm.

Do I need to split out my Bitcoin Cash from my Bitcoin into new wallets before the next fork?



Then we shouldn't ever throw away old wallets.
I can see where this would get old fast.

I just hope that #1 will happen before November and a split could be avoided. Not that I am afraid of any splits. For example, the Bitcoin Cash split did more good than harm in my opinion. But I am tired of moving my coins and exporting my private keys every time.