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

Agree 20-40% of miners seem to be very short term motivated as seen when BitcoinCash difficulty dropped and was more profitable to mine than BTC - 30%+ of miner switched.

So will be all about the price BTC vs BTCSegwit the following few weeks till the 1st difficulty re-adjustment.

I think you are overestimating the power that some pool operators have. Even if the owner of
F2Pool decides to not support Segwit2x, it is entirely possible that the hashers (=the people,
who actually mine for F2Pool) have different preferences.

Besides, I don´t think that mining pools will be the decisive factor. It is more probable that
the miners will switch to the winning side - irrespective of which chain actually wins out.

The outcome is more dependent on the decision, which chain gets the desired "BTC" ticker
symbol at the main exchanges. As far as I know only Bitfinex has already clarified their stance
on this question. The other exchanges still haven´t addressed the upcoming fork.

This still says 90-95% so f2pool playing games or something...

https://www.xbt.eu/

An month without a restart seems unlikely to me... would like to think they have some resilience and can bounce one of a pair but you never know how well/badly these pools are designed.

Why are we still disusing this?

https://blockchain.info/en/pools

F2pool is %10+ of the hashrate, F2pool is not support segwit2xCoin anymore. Reason they are still voting "intentional" and noobs think it's still relevant:

https://twitter.com/f2pool_wangchun/status/906022864389681153

So thats -12% ish hashrate support for 2xCoin, and that doesn't count Slush and other miners that will defect.

The legacy chain will not disappear. Bitcoin will not lose.

So Core should add replay protection via hard fork because some other group that hasn’t rallied consensus to them wants to hard fork?  Never mind the complications from forks and rolling out new, well tested, software everywhere in a short period of time. 

Miners don’t dictate the protocol and it should be incumbent on the hard forkers to add replay protection if they can’t get consensus.  Otherwise it seems likely that the goal is only disruption.

If

If 90% or more of the miners supports it then its really core who should add replay protection and change the difficulty adjusting.

squatter, discussing the merit of SegWit was not the point of my post. I was just trying to respond to the usual maxwell's deceiving.

The witness discount was only included as a compromise with those seeking larger block sizes, and it was a worthy compromise since Segwit is at worst UTXO-neutral, whereas standard transactions cause inevitable and perpetual UTXO bloat.

How are there "two economics rather than one?" The only change to incentives appears to be that there is greater incentive now to spend UTXOs rather than to create them. That seems bloody great to me.

Maxwell's way of deceiving things is pretty unique I have to say.

Key parts of SegWit are:

- surprise, surprise witness segregation: i.e. moving scripts and signatures to a separate data structure from the one used to store data used to determine transaction effects.

- implement the above in a way that is soft-fork deployable, quoting the relevant part BIP 141: "The witness is committed in a tree that is nested into the block's existing merkle root via the coinbase transaction for the purpose of making this BIP soft fork compatible."

- changing bitcoin's economic incentive structure that will determine txns inclusion in a block via the introduction of a 75% discount applied to the witness part of a transactions, i.e. base size * 3 + total size  <= 4MB

All of the above will not be integrated in any of Bitcoin Cash implementations in the near, mid, long term or possibly never, for two order of reasons:

- bitcoin cash don't need witness segregation to increase the block size cause the block size limit has been removed all together on August 1st.

- the use a single composite constraint (weight) and the arbitrary discount of the witness data increase the complexity of bitcoin's economic incentives (two economics good rather than one) in a way that is not being studied and analyze enough.
 
The rest of the specification (BIP142/173, BIP143, BIP144, BIP145) are just an adaptation of various part of the code base to accomodate the new nested tree where witness is stored (e.g. BIP 145 adaptation of getblocktemplate), or "independent" piece code that have a reason to be used that goes beyond SegWit (the new signature scheme defined in BIP 143 or the the new base32 encoding of bitcoin address). 

In fact base32 encoding has been used already in project like TOR and I2P.

Lastly, Maxwell's allusions to the mis appropriation and rebranding of core ideas are at best delusional.

These are the two commits that implements the new signature scheme described in BIP 143 in Bitcoin ABC:
 
db236b5a6e2f6cf67d194f86f178584fa99b3ca7
1f50d97ef1885bdb09ea5ae403385fac23bf7276

as you can see both mention BIP 143 as the original specification. BIP 143 is mentioned in the original bitcoin cash specification, and of course 'sigsafes' label has never being used, I wonder where Maxwell found it. Same applies to Bitcoin Cash BIP 173 implementation.

Oh dear. What a perfect way to sum it all up..

Not to mention...


https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC

Update - 8404 nodes. 940 segwit2x. - so down to 11%.

So Core has 90% nodes and Segwit2x 90% miners. Oh dear!

Hmm, so it appears the technical specifications of Bitcoin Cash and Segwit2x are going to be very similar by the time the planned hard fork is set to happen. I've always liked Bitcoin Cash, lol (if only for making alt-dev hard forks look ridiculous )

BCH already incorporates part of segwit-- BIP143, the segwit signature scheme they've just renamed it "safesigs" and present it like it's their own brilliant invention. They're working on merging BIP173 (the error protected base32 addresses we created) but renaming it "cashaddress"... Sense a pattern here?

They've been going on about 'flextrans' which contains exactly the same design feature about segwit that they've thrown so much "not Satoshi's vision" mud about-- that new transactions don't commit to past signatures (a necessary criteria for fixing malleability).

They've gone on about "schnorr signatures" but their implementation there is just our prior abandoned code with the copyright headings removed and their own names added.

Don't make the mistake that honesty or technical merit are even considerations in their marketing. For all it matters for their marketing there is no u-turn so long as they don't admit it.  If you can tell that they are full of crap you aren't in the bcash target audience.

Now the interesting point is that 2Xcoin is going after the same unsophisticated audience, splitting that market.

As someone trying to be as impartial as possible in all this, the assertion may be that BCH isn't actually using all that extra capacity it boasts.  In the last 500 blocks, there hasn't been a single block over 150kb, let alone anything like exceeding the legacy 1mb cap.  It's not a true test of how the network would cope with larger blocks if they're generally far smaller on average than the ones being used in Bitcoin at the moment.  BCH just isn't seeing the usage right now to demonstrate what purpose it set out to perform.  It's not proving anything about larger blocks until the blocks are actually larger.

How is that would you care to elaborate?

by I suppose a crude metric, BCH has a network running and it's market cap is circa $7B

I think people with experience in altcoin mining, actually expected it - because they've seen it happen.

More likely they would integrate Flextrans instead of Segwit.

Because at one point it was 97% mined by a mystery miner. Following that the inflation rate was controlled by when one miner could be bothered to wake up or not. The EDA may have been necessary but it was also clearly not expected to be gamed so brutally.

Why would anyone follow a coin with developers so dim and miners so dominant? What else will they forget to address or break in the future? They've set a mediocre precedent. Lots of people have a grudge against Core but they still follow their code because they know what's what.

Seems pretty unlikely, heh.  BCH supporters made a pretty huge song and dance about how SegWit supposedly wasn't part of Satoshi's vision and isn't "true" to Bitcoin, so there'd be an inordinate quantity of humble pie to swallow if they went down that route.  It's too much of a marketing U-turn to take it seriously.  It could potentially even cause a loss of some of that existing support.  Those who do genuinely oppose SegWit could abandon it and look elsewhere.  Plus I'm not convinced BCH would take the market considering the fairly divisive manner in which it suddenly appeared out of nowhere.  I think most people have made up their minds about BCH by this point and probably won't be convinced otherwise.



Some people around here have some pretty interesting ideas about "control" in Bitcoin and mistakenly believe that only one single group of developers are allowed to make decisions and that miners are somehow a subservient underclass who do the bidding of the devs and can't decide anything for themselves.  Time and again they'll claim it's an attempt to take control from that group of developers, but then they can't seem to square this belief with the undeniable fact that anyone can edit the code and run any code they like, which means those developers never had control to begin with.  I would say they're safe to ignore because their views are so logically flawed, but the sad thing is, people are sometimes taken in by this ridiculous view and start repeating their rhetoric about "hostile takeovers", so you should continue to confront them wherever you find them.  Everyone does what they think is best for themselves because that's how this thing was designed to work.  It never has been and never will be about preserving the power of some centralised group of coders, because they don't (and shouldn't) have all the power.  No one dictates anything.  Not developers, not miners, not users.  It's only Bitcoin when all three come together voluntarily because incentives are aligned.  

what would happen if BCH activated segwit....? just to in your face segwit.....2x and also take the market

I mean what advantage or argument would you have left not to use BCH with segwit......

How would they control the code if Core devs would follow the 2MB increase?
We're far away from not being able to scale on chain and increasing the blocksize doesn't mean there can't be developed on other scaling solutions.
If other solutions works and get adopted then the blocksize keeps smaller or gets smaller again.

But its simple. If majority mines the segwit2x chain then core gave the main coding away.
Nothing stops them from following that chain.

So, which contradictory "fact" of yours would you prefer to be true?

• Bitcoin (with Segwit) has 1MB blocks
• Bitcoin (with Segwit) has 4MB blocks
• 2MB blocks is not enough
• 2MB blocks will be enough
• Stating that >1MB blocks is unsustainable is annoying

(bolded are true, red is subjectively true )


More to the point, no blocksize will ever be enough. That's why trying to use "scalability" arguments to justify blocksize increases is never going to make sense, it's an inherently un-scalable technology.

Scalability cannot happen on the blockchain, but it can happen at the level of transaction scripting. Which is, ironically, a point that the NYA proposal concedes anyway. Makes one wonder why the NYA puts so much emphasis on a blocksize increase... (and taking control of the Bitcoin source code in order to hard fork to that increased blocksize...)

I support bigger blocks. Bitcoin becomes less usable without.
Segwit didn't solve anything so far.
Adoption is very slow and many was ready for years.
I've integrated segwit to our plattform and its mostly done but no one uses segwit so far.
Core wallet doesn't even support it fully.
The change goes straight to a non segwit address, you would assume they would've code something in to enable segwit fully once its activated on the chain.
LN is far from ready and probably will face a lot of problems what might be solved or not.
Bigger blocks much earlier would've make sense and the blocks would've been smaller automatic again once other solutions are ready and adopted.
For now I see those scenarios:
1. Segwit2x become the majority and the 1MB chain will die if no changes made to diff adjusting and no replay protection added.
2. 1MB stays the majority chain and Bitcoin Cash will get more support as the 1MB chain becomes less usable with full blocks and high fees.
3. Segwit2x and 1MB becomes both enough hashpower to survive in this case it would be open what chain will win in the end.

F2pool said they will not support NYA anymore but still signaling. In the end individual miners decide on what pool they mine.
If many miners would disagree with NYA they would already have switched to slush or made new pools.
Till November a lot could change. It will be interesting but is annoying the same time.
The stalling caused a lot damage to Bitcoin already even if the price is high now what could be a bubble as well or not or maybe the price would've been even higher.

There is no technical and no economical reason to not increase the blocksize now and work on other solutions the same time.
Bitcoin Cash was released in a rush and more wallets and services support it already than Segwit and Segwit was ready for years...
Blocksize increasing would require to update nodes, such splits cost a lot more time and work to do.

Oh and the argument that bigger than 1MB blocks would not allow someone to run full nodes becomes annoying also.
With segwit the blocksize could be 4MB and the amount of transactions fitting in a block would only double if all would use segwit.

I have not heard that F2 pool left the 2x proposal, that's great, the more the merrier. Can't wait to sell more hard forked useless alt coin. I am honestly more worried about an alt coin overcoming bitcoin, than this 2x hard fork.

It's strange because the recently mined F2Pool blocks I could be bothered to check were still putting NYA in their coinbase and the declared Segwit2x support hasn't dropped yet.  If there is a drop in support, it increases the likelihood of either a permanent split, or if the situation snowballs and drops completely, then the fork might be aborted.  

The one and only thing it had going for it was that overwhelming 'consensus'. That will rapidly dwindle away. What you're left with is a rushed hard fork with no rated developers that no one wants other than a minuscule handful of people.

It's not going to happen in any meaningful way.



Why should every single user out there have to migrate to something decided by a handful of people with blinking boxes?

So I have read in a few articles now that F2Pool will not support segwit2x anymore.
That would mean about 10% of the mining power just left the proposal.
According to the article it is probable that other mining pools and businesses will withdraw their consent to segwit2x as well.
How will that affect segwit2x?

If 90% or more of the miners supports it then its really core who should add replay protection and change the difficulty adjusting.
Without adjusting the difficulty and without replay protection its most likely that the market will adopt quick on segwit2x.
The mining support could even drop then ( not must ).
It would be in own interest of core to add replay protection and update the difficulty adjusting.
If most miners will not support segwit2x by the time it activates then thats ofc another story.
I prepare for all outcomes but if segwit2x becomes the chain with most hashpower then I'll see that as Bitcoin as probably the 1mb chain will die if no replay protection and quicker difficulty adjusting is added.

Splitting your own coins can be easly done with RBF.
Send with low fee on the majority chain and when its confirmed use RBF to send them with higher fee on the minority chain.

sock puppet? You need some scaleing of the on chain capacity to keep fees low, saying non visa levels is a orthogonal issue.

block space should accessible at a relatively low fee.

Oh yes. I have to concur there. The timing changes everything. I think they wil backpedal when push comes to shove.

The truth about bitcoin and any pow based crypto-currency is that there is one and only one source of power, mining, and it can not be changed by some propaganda or civil activity, thus, I do not agree with your last statement about the split, there will be no split, core chain will die and market will adopt.

https://www.bitwala.com/bitwala-statement-segwit2x/

Here is the first NYA signee to state they're not going to support it without some contribution from Core. I fully expect the majority of them on the signee's list to do the same before November arrives.

SegWit2x is going ahead as planned, yes (source segwit2x working group and coin.dance intent). The 1 MB legacy-only chain is being mined by approximately 9-10% of the current Bitcoin hashrate (source: bitcoinwisdom.com). The 1 MB legacy chain will become an AltCoin if anyone continues to mine it after the 2x code becomes active otherwise the 1 MB chain will be the 2x chain.

Care to elaborate how do they impose their will on the users?
How exactly is anyone forced to do anything they would like users to do?

There is not only Segwit factor which effect the price.Lots of ICO's and Alt coin buying is also effecting the price..

Anyone reading the dev's mailing list, know that Segwit 2x has been rejected for months: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-June/014633.html

They even had a list of devs on the wiki that explained, transparently, where each one stood regarding the various BIPs and forks (segwit, uasf, segwit2x, etc)

They didn't endorse any of it at any moment.

But they began to be quite when they saw everyone is "ok" with segwit2x. Till now, when segwit will be implemented next week.
It was like "ahh they are signaling segwit2x.. well segwit is ok, they can signal it.. lets tell them when segwit is implemented, that we wont support the 2x part".
That they are strictly against segwit2x - even when the miners are signaling segwit - they should have given out weeks ago.

What are you talking about? They were never in favor of 2x.

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.

Thank you for this partial explanation.
I am still wondering why this upcoming mess is not much discussed...
There is currently so much uncertainty about bitcoin future for me.

99.99999% segwit will lock in in a few days. There is no controversy over this - miners, users, bitcoincore devs all agree they want this!

But the 1m->2m base blocksize increase is still very split. (I know segwit in effect enables 2-4 times more Tx in this 1/2Meg - but only as the wallets/users upgrade).

According to https://www.xbt.eu/ 90-95% of the miners are supporting the 2Mb blocksize increase that will occur at block 494,784 (edit: correcting as advised below based on https://segwit2x.github.io/segwit2x-announce.html).

So we will get an extra chain in about 90 days time. And the chain with 90% of the hash power will be the chain with the 2Mb block size - so NOT compatible with BitcoinCore!

As I have said before this causes huge issues for the BitcoinCore chain - as blocks will take 10 times longer, and also it will take 20 weeks till the difficulty resets (rather than the normal 2 weeks). And even after the reset blocks will still be taking 2.5 times longer for another 5 weeks.

So the big question is whether the "Economy" will move to the BitcoinSegWit2x code or not - i.e. payment processors, shops, wallets etc... According to https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/ they have not even started to - only about a few % have moved.

If we have a split where the "Economy" goes one way and the miners go the other will be mess!


Obviously 1000 things could change in the next 90 days...
1) BitcoinCore could release a patch to support 2Mb blocks!
2) Miners could stop supporting NYA (SegWit2x) - if this dropped below 50% I think the new chain would die very quickly.
3) Someone else could release a patch ontop of BitcoinCore that supports 2meg block - is trival to code now as can just hardcode a block to switch on.
4) BitcoinCore could release a patch that speeds up the difficulty reduction (like BitcoinCash did) to avoid issue of slow block issue. But obviously massively reduce security of blockchain!

well, yes, to an extent, but BCH does have some value x billion market cap ..... a smaller block change would indicate some value available to BTC, and I think utility. The BCH network has not collapsed due to code or block size problems. Not sure about centralization though.

A small increase would take the wind out of the sales of BCH, silence some of  Blockstream pet DEV theorists and make seg wit 2x independant fork moot.

BCash, aka Bitcoin Cash, aka Bitcoin ABC, has only shown the irony of how the market is not supporting big blocks, while their blockchain is mining blocks smaller than the 1MB blockchain. How dumb was that? Clearly nobody is supporting big blocks with real money.

It would suck that the NYC goons go thought with the hardfork again on November. Thats 3 fucking Bitcoins listed on coinmarketcap, and they will cause a price crash. They will have to run for cover because the hate will be real. The people that want big blocks already has BCash, what's the point of a rushed hardfork in 3 months?
They got a ton of hashrate (in theory) so we'll see what's up.

ok if so then wil lhave Bitcoin, bitcoin cash and the latest chain??
i mean the new one with 2MB for each block??
but this will fork from bitcoin chain or bitcoin cash chain?

None of the above.

Segwit will give us a maximum of 4 MB blocks (the maximum amount of data transferred or stored on disk for a block). Non-witness parts of the block will be limited to at most 1 MB. On the average case, we get about double the number of transactions per block.

Segwit2x is a proposal to hard fork after segwit activates, so we will still be getting segwit anyways. Segwit will activate in ~1 week. The 2x part of Segwit2x is supposed to occur 12960 blocks after segwit activates, and that will make the maximum block weight 8 million units, double what segwit makes it at 4 million units. This means that the non-witness data in the block can be at most 2 MB, and blocks at most 8 MB. However given that segwit2x has failed to produce a proper specification and even specify exactly what is supposed to happen, all of this could change. IMO it is unlikely that segwit2x will be Bitcoin; rather it will probably just become another altcoin like BCH did.

No, it really hasn't.

ok...I see....I gotta admit I kinda feel that we need 2MB blocks as a mix of on chain and off chain solutions, BCH has shown that a 8MB block is feasible....if nothing else....

Segwit is locked in and it will activate on August 23 or thereabouts. Then according to the proponents of Segwit2x there will be a hard fork to 2mb blocks. They say it will happen on November but some are saying that its an optimistic time line.

If it could happen, maybe next year.

Just want to confirm this

I thought is was 2x, but hear now its not.....

we are staying at 1MB.....? or will we get 2MB later?