Topic: Mainstream Media: Bitcoin split is good (Read 867 times)

Nope.

Playing around with miners fees and what they may mine in the future is stupid. If miners don't get the fees, they won't mine and Bitcoin will fail. You are also making the same assumptions that the miners in 20 years time will be the same miners now. Punishing today miners at the expense of future miner is folly.

No one who understands how Bitcoin works would say that.  They would say that after sending a transaction it's possible to double spend, and that as the transaction receives confirmations it becomes exponentially less likely that a user can double spend.  Eventually the chances of a double spend are negligible and you can safely ignore it.
The "assumption" (understanding of how Bitcoin works) that I have just explained is correct.  SegWitx2 makes no changes which would alter that.
Please explain how you think that SegWitx2 increases the possibility of a double spend.

From what i understand segwit is not just a block size increase,they do increase the block size limit by removing the signature data from bitcoin transaction ,i am not sure whether it is the best possible solution to free space so that more transaction can get through and if some one has a better solution for that i am all for it,there is nothing wrong in having competition for having the best solution for bitcoin.

The current fork was just because of greed of few miners who want to centralize bitcoin which they can't have anytime soon. Bitcoincash is another bitcoin clone rather than forked coin. Don't believe in any shit coins like this in future, BCC bubble was already bursted.

I am in favor of Segwit, off chain transactions, LN, Schnorr signature, these are necessary to prevent miner manipulation to some extent and also to give users a choice. I am not good with too much technicalities, basics, Segwit is a block size increase/block weight increase. Transaction malleability, 4:1, 1:4. If I am right the base limit is around 2 MB.

Now I guess this where the big blockers don't agree. I personally do believe 1 MB blocksize wouldn't be enough forever, sooner or later it needs to be increased. Big blockers believe a soft fork implementation to increase blocksize wouldn't be sufficient in the future and I guess Segwit + 2x increases the base block limit to 8 MB.

But hard forking the network three months from now would be suicidal. I am not dragging myself into the politics of bitcoin, just my opinion. Core has been working on bitcoin from the beginning. I don't know if Core would agree upon a hard fork or not. If yes then the Core developers and Jeff Garzik team of developers could work together to create a robust code through efficient planning and multiple testings and then implement it one year from now.

In my honest opinion I do believe bitcoin should scale with an equal blend of off chain and on chain implementations. Off chain solutions might be a bit harsh on miners, once all the bitcoins have been mined, incentives would be transaction fees only, a necessity for a PoW protocol, and off chain solutions would keep them in check.

As far as LN or big blocks are concerned, then the centralization argument can be put forward from both the sides. There is and would be centralization in some of the working modules of bitcoin, but as far the whole protocol isn't served into a platter and handed it to the government, I am good with it.

BCH has opened a Pandora's box. ViaBTC was planning to launch an ICO to buy/rent hash power to fork the network. Some individuals with heavy pockets wouldn't shy away from forking the network for their own personal gains. Splitting protocol, multiple chains/coins, uneven distribution of hash power, lack of decentralization and security. In the end bitcoin users would end up holding different pieces of bitcoins.

I had read a post on discussion thread today from an user asking when is the next fork so he/she can cash in quickly, no shit given about the consequences of a fork

Bitcoin is an open source protocol. Everyone can argue and create a lot of commotion, but at some point in time everyone would have to agree up on something or make a compromise for a cause which they believe in.

Yes it is good if Bitcoin Cash continues developing as peer to peer cash payment.

There is one important point that no one, afaik, has mention so far. I'm saying nothing and hoping the dumping of Cash continues.

When there is billions of dollars at stake expect big egos and that is what happened here,segwit might be a solution and if anybody thinks that there is a much better solution for the scaling issues ,then we need to split and go towards their values and aims rather than fighting all the time,they did not want segwit and that is the reason we have two coins now.

I think its another attempt at a bitcoin hit piece in some ways. All the people who know nothing about bitcoin are basically saying "I TOLD YOU ITS SPLIT, ITS DEAD", they have no idea whats going on.

Just like they have said it is not possible on the current blockchain with the tech involved?
See how that assumption turned out.. just as yours will.

There will be someone who will flip the script and then you will have what was said can not be done with the current blockchain.
Then we will be back at this very same argument.
Like a dog chasing it's own tail.

I really don not know for sure but the split was so good and creates everyone free money for all of us right? I mean dude, for every bitcoin you have in your wallet that is also the equivalent of the Bitcoin Cash(BCC), then you instantly have 400 usd. And isn't it awesome? To have free money? Well if you have more than enough bitcoin, then it is so good for you to have free money. That is why I think the split was great and a success and I think that bitcoin could not be harmed by this.

pereira4
your getting too obvious.
its funny, just months ago u and ur pals were screaming for anything not core to F**k off' you and your friends loved it when gmax requested non-core implementations to do it.. and now you pretend it was some government agenda fighting core..

just admit you wanted the split so you can get fiat rich, everyone knows all you care about is fiat income.
your drama to try speculating the price is not subtle. and infact too obvious. you and billy really need to stop getting your material from reddit

The thing is, the split is actually good for both parties. Both can now actually just focus on their own projects and move forward; instead of all the drama and arguing that has been happening for the past few months.

I don't know about you guys, but problems and drama like this are to be expected because of the decentralized nature of bitcoin. And guess what? I have more news for you! Like it or not there will be more forks in the future. This is really necessary for the future of bitcoin in general. I hope most people realize that.

There might be 100% support in blocks, but that's just because of BIP 91 forcing miners to signal SegWit.  Also, you know perfectly well that miners don't have to represent the economy, hence why BCH has a value.

Consensus is a lot messier than just "it looks like that proposal has over 50% support, let's all follow it regardless of our actual thoughts on the matter".
Common sense would dictate that you are wrong.  The main point of the blockchain is to prevent double spending.

And that is all it should be viewed as. As a test coin.
As you just said. That is the real fact here and that is all it should be handled as such. On a testnet.

Segwit2x enables double-spending from what I heard so it is a bad thing for all who hopes better things to happen on the bitcoin landscape still in formation. And people are actually the lightening network to be in place in it's place.

Segwit activation will happen on August 8th. So we will see what the price of either coin does at this point up until this timeline you just gave of mid November.

You Sir, are a man after my own heart - Divide and Conquer, as old as religion However, there's is still only ONE Bitcoin!!

I agree it can be used as a test coin and surely it will be good for the progress of bitcoin in the future.

  The way that Bcash happened actually has no overt effect to bitcoin network. I don't mean market price here.
Considering BCH as test coin for bitcoin protocol, it might be even good for bitcoin progress. Testing something intended for bitcoin on what is not so valuable as bitcoin is not a bad idea.
  As to Segwit2x it's not clear for network effect yet. The development needs a close watch till mid November.

Positive or not the Hard fork can really change bitcoin Big time, and I guess there are many people really panic when August 1 occur, but when the event occur there are so many positive feed back they didn't expected that the upcoming event will be like this but yes the hard fork can still occur that mean the risk is not yet over.

Yup, but there's still the chance to experience an HF so at the end Segwit can lead to 3 coins branded BTC - BT[?] (segwitHardfork) - BCC(Altcoin) the market didn't  experience the negative effect of BCC but this it will be pretty chaotic if a hard fork occurs.

There's still one Bitcoin. I don't think that the community was devided. All bigblockers are altcoiners and bitcoin haters and they actually don't have any bitcoins like Ver who spent all his bitcoins on desh and eht