Topic: #NO2X - JOIN THE WAR! - page 7. (Read 5281 times)

Well nobody has ownership in name of BTC, they do not have copyright ok but BTC belongs who develops it, so the actual BTC.

If you have enough power mining you can then take away the name of any altcoin for example and keep it for yourself?

I understand what do you mean but in somehow they "own it", the community own it. It is an open source project and anyone who want to contribute can do it, so just appropiate the name to someone else work does not makes sense. Well it makes sense for them as they "steal" something that already works.

I can give many examples but just got in mind even it is not the same topic but can be something similar when BCH forks and they copy Electrum wallet for BCH (finally they change the name to Electron). Electrum does not care they copy the code but to appropiate of their name it is not honest at all.

I don't really buy that argument. I'm against Segwit2x, but nobody has ownership of the name. I think attempts to own the name "Bitcoin" (in the sense of intellectual property) goes against what Bitcoin stands for, as the enforcement of IP requires centralized authority and state intervention. It creates confusion for newbies, true. But I don't think that qualifies as an attack. I'm okay with the idea of openly competing forks.

But I agree with those who think that miner coordination adds an element of coercion, since 1) users fear being on the weaker chain and 2) users need confirmations. Miners leveraging these fears and economic needs can be seen as an attack.

Don't forget that BCH was very rushed, the decision to create this fork was made just days before SegWit signalling period, so they had no time and opportunity to consolidate miner and service support. But if you visit /r/BTC, a lot of people there believe that Bcash is the real Bitcoin because it's true to Satoshi's vision, and that SegWit was a corporate takeover by Blockstream. So, it actually is an attack on Bitcoin, it just didn't grew big because it was based on some insane conspiracy theories with no technical proofs. And at some point more than 35% of Bitcoin miners migrated to Bcash for a short period of time, which caused some disruptions in BTC network. In my mind, anything that for some reason has "Bitcoin" name in it can be viewed as malicious brand hijacking, no matter if it's an altcoin or contentious hard fork, because this just creates confusion for newbies, which is exactly the goal of forkers.

https://bitcoin.org/en/posts/denounce-segwit2x

So what ? These businesses can chose whatever side they want whether if its in the new token or the original bitcoin itself. All the worked they put in to that coin wont matter if they dont have any customers. The hardfork is unstoppable at this point so let them, let them see how their coin pumps and dump in the end people wont waste free money. And traders are really looking forward to this and convert it to their bitcoins.

There are some pretty critical differences between Bitcoin Cash and Segwit2x from an ethical standpoint. I view Segwit2x as much more of an attack. BCH integrated strong replay protection, made no attempt to coordinate a supermajority of Bitcoin's hashpower, and presented itself from the start essentially as an altcoin.

Segwit2x is being presented by Garzik and company as an "upgrade." There is only opt-in replay protection, which means many people will probably lose money. And they are trying to coordinate mining power to coerce users into migrating to the Segwit2x chain.

As much as I dislike Bitmain, there's really no comparing Bitcoin Cash and Segwit2x. One of them is just an altcoin; the other is an attack. I'd only consider BCH to be an attack if LTC and all other Bitcoin forks were considered attacks.

I also think Segwit 2x is an act of terrorism.
There is only one Segwit 2X core developer, and I am trying to take over the bit coin core. It is dangerous and not usable.

Many people, myself including, view SegWit2x as an attack on Bitcoin, but any attack can also be viewed as a test. For example, the most recent Bcash was also a test - it has proven that Bitcoin can withstand hashrate swings and that miners can't dictate community what to do - users and services didn't start switching to Bcash even though it offers much cheaper fees. As the result, both Bitcoins value and the network were not affected by competing chain. So, SegWit2x would be a similar test - it will show whether corporations and mining cartels can influence the network and its user, or if it's the users who are deciding the future of Bitcoin.

Can someone simplify Segwit2x it's for us (newbies and noobs ofcourse) to definitely understand this and give the support what the community needed, can someone please post the simplified explanation for segwit2x?

Regardless of the outcome, some devs said they will keep developing Bitcoin(not 2x).

Several Core developers have expressed that they will not work on an implementation compatible with Segwit2x. I haven't seen one Core developer who has agreed to work on a post-fork Segwit2x-compatible client. And I believe that James Hilliard's BIP91 effort was entirely related to safely activating Segwit (instead of using BIP148), and not to do with the NYA/Segwit2x effort.


There's a couple very politically vocal developers (like Luke Jr. and Eric Lombrozo), but mostly the devs stick to the mailing lists and technical discussions. Luke has been trying to fork off for years. He's been talking about changing POW algo and difficulty algo for a long time. He's an exception to the rule and I think much of the community would be happy to see him move onto an altcoin and away from Bitcoin.

That's because GDAX is the same entity as Coinbase. Literally, GDAX is just the liquidity pool for Coinbase. On Coinbase's website, they refer to GDAX as their "product". And Coinbase does appear on the New York Agreement.


I agree, but when it comes to a hard fork, there is no way to predict future demand. It's completely impossible. There has certainly been a perception expressed by some that fees are too high and that block capacity is too low over the past few years. Nobody can gauge how representative that sentiment is of the Bitcoin network, though. And like I said, nobody can know what percentage of the network will switch to the forked network. That's true even if 100% of us were all lining up saying we supported Segwit2x.

This leads to all sorts of questions. Are hard forks ever ethical if they are coordinated with miners? Because miners switching networks deprives legacy network users of a vital resource -- transaction confirmations. That means that users will migrate out of economic coercion rather than free choice. Should this be considered an attack?

I was actually really surprised that Bitcoin Cash was able to properly add strong replay protection, because they waited until the eleventh hour to do it. Good on them, I agree.

Strong replay protection would be preferred here as well, but at least 2X has opt-in protection now. Maybe they can be convinced to improve on this; there's still ample time left.

It's interesting to note that the August 1 UASF did not have replay protection either (it technically couldn't), and it had a high risk of splitting the network and creating a separate altcoin. In fact, it could be seen as a worse attack than 2X because there was the additional risk that the legacy chain would suffer a massive wipeout/reorg attack, at which time the chains would re-align. All rewards mined and transactions that occurred between the fork and realignment blocks would be erased from the legacy chain.

There could have been massive, massive losses of a magnitude we've never seen before, and that's the leverage that UASF supporters used to push the network to change the consensus rules. I'm partial to the argument that both 2X and UASF were attacks. The latter was probably worse, though.

just to butt in
BCH was an intentional altcoin that was never suppose to be a bitcoin upgrade. it was not suppose to rely on consensus to form a decision on the route of bitcoins future

btc1 however 'was' under the pretense of the 2015 and 2017 agreements of a consensus utilising plan to hopefully upgrade bitcoins network. meaning it would not need replay protection because there would only be one network. which bitcoins consensus mechanism would take care of and leave a minority stuck unable to sync. thus would not matter. (yes core could then altcoin their minority but then core would themselves need to make their own replay protection)

but blockstream employes now want to backtrack their consensus promises and instead make core avoid consensus by core coding out any chance of using consensus for an upgrade... yes CORE ban/blacklist and avoid bitcoins consensus mechanism, thus its CORE creating the altcoin. and thus if core want the next 'fork' to be contentious enough to become a bilateral split then core should be the ones implementing the replay attack prevention on the core code. not the other way around

please do try researching the real details of whats actually happening.

P.S i did say 'hope' 'suppose' 'pretense' because its all just a ruse/bait and switch to get segwit in early, a few months ago and now the switch part of the bait and switch plan is happening. i only mention the paragraphs above in the context of if the agenda was actually to upgrade bitcoin to 2x.

but either way if core want to altcoin it. core should add some replay protection on their side. seeing as they are the instigators of making the altcoin

I think it is great you like both BCH and BTC.

But being upset about 2x it is not to be a Core fan.

When BCH fork, they add replay protection and did things correct, they have a different point of view so it is great they fork and they do their path, but how they are doing in 2x it is an attack to BTC so how can you expect people not get upset?

NoX2 look at bcash usless token, don't let them create more usless tokens they just printing money

Bitcoin Cash is doing great.  I don't see any fail.

Also I still have some BTC. 

I think it is amusing to see the Core fan boys so upset over 2x.

I thought you moved on to the failed bcc shitcoin. Why are you still here? Just for tolling?

Firstly, I'm not speaking for them (though I'm allowed to have an opinion). I'm just saying that this Twitter effort can't speak for them, because that's exactly what it purports to do. And I have been silent. Even when Luke Dash Jr was telling everyone that his tiny Twitter polls were evidence of widespread support for UASF, I was silent. When he was spreading deceptions that miners who didn't change to his version's consensus rules were 51% attacking the network, I was silent. In several hundred posts on this forum, I've been silent (except for very occasionally expressing the opinion that splitting the network is bad).

Unfortunately, silence from people who understand consensus forks well enough to combat the propaganda comes at a cost. Now much of the community wrongly believes that 1) soft forks are always backward compatible and 2) UASF incompatibility means a 51% attack. Neither is true. The reality is that any soft fork requires majority hashpower to be backward compatible (technically UASFs are a priori incompatible, and if they are compatible it can never be known before the fact).

Secondly, I didn't accuse anyone of vote brigading. Re-read what I said. And thanks for deleting all the context while constructing strawman arguments. But interestingly enough, the OP is calling for people to "join the war" with "#NO2X" and telling people to mass email the NYA companies. Thoughts? That's why I broke my silence, as it were.

Thirdly, I wasn't even trying to express that I was part of the silent majority per se, more so that the NO2X crowd doesn't speak for the broader Bitcoin community (if such a thing even exists anymore). The fact that the silent majority is silent -- that was more of a self-evident statement. Why should hundreds, or at most, thousands of Twitter accounts matter when we're talking about millions of Bitcoin users? I tried to ask Luke legitimate questions on Twitter about the lack of clear consensus for a UASF and he instantly blocked me. Naturally, I don't vote in his polls. This is indicative of why acting like small Twitter bubbles are representative of the Bitcoin economy is a problem. It's pretty well known by now that social media users rarely travel outside of their limited filter bubbles.

I'm holding my small amout of BTC, I'm not a coder nor very deep into IT world.

Only thing I would like to say is: please don't destroy bitcoin, as these businesses are still relying on it to earn money. don't kill the goose that laid golden eggs.