Topic: Only 58 days until the SegWit2x fork (Read 1382 times)

I disagree, especially as 'never' is very strong wording.

Legal action? PoW change? Of course they can be held accountable.

Bitmain, aka Jihan is a PBOC agent thus you shouldn't expect him to act reasonably.

Bitmain is just corrupt evil.

Bitcoin will not fall from this, thus using 'nothing is too big to fall' and similar in this context is wrong. If it were to fall, all other PoW coins would be worthless.

Classic shitpost.

Awfully interesting project. Obviously not a scam.  I will keep an eye on this.

I recently read about the infamous antbleed and some other Bitmain related stuff.

Sure these guys are great at making hardware but they suffer greed to the point of stupidity.  Their stance seems to be: if I can't have it my way, then f*** it, cut the damn baby in half.  They seem ready to destroy the network rather than imagine a way to increase revenue that isn't Asicboost.  I suspect that some of the things I read about them can't be true, because no one would be that stupid right?  Competing and arguably better technology is available in alts.  I was looking at some crap coins on coinmarketcap, and was surprised to find that coins well above 200 and beyond have caps above a million usd.  Remember when that used to be pennies up there?  Coin #301 has a 24h volume of ~40k!  This is peanuts I know, but its #301!

Do these clowns really think that they can do whatever they want and Bitcoin will remain the invincible king?  Cryptos are here to stay.  But whenever a coin gets wrecked it is quickly forgotten.  Nothing is too big to fail!  IMO Bitmain has permanently destroyed their own reputation through stupid greed.  And guess what, there are lots of competitors chomping at the bit to replace them.

Disclaimer: I am generally a noob so it is possible that I have completely misread the situation.

One note on this. Mining ostensibly works in the best interest of the users, but since mining functions purely by profit incentive, it will never be true. This is why we have seen double spend attacks by mining pools before. If they can't be held accountable, miners will steal from users. So it should come as no surprise that really entrenched miners like Bitmain tried to paint the narrative such that they were saving users from high fees, when they were really trying to establish AsicBoost and maintain control over the block size limit themselves.

The other problem that has been hinted at here is that attacking the network might make sense economically from a long term perspective. That notion more so applies to short term attacks that work within the consensus rules (like block withholding or 51% attacks). If Bitmain thinks that they can secure AsicBoost through popularization of BCH (while exploiting the EDA no less), that's a high risk but high reward play.

Luke Dash Jr tends to have some extreme 'black-and-white' views on certain subjects. Changing the algorithm is the nuclear option but it is not completely off of the table. That would likely happen as a last resort effort, which would destroy the ASIC centralization.

They do address the problem. Mining works primarily under two assumptions: a) Mining will act in the best interest of the users. b) Attacking the network would not make sense economically, thus playing honest is expected behavior. The former we have seen to not be true with some malicious miners such as Bitmain/Antpool & co.

Segwit2x will always be an altcoin, regardless of what happens to Bitcoin.

---

Trading ShitCoin2x: https://blog.bitmex.com/trading-shitcoin2x/.

I think the jury is out on that. Developers like Luke Dash Jr seem to think that changing the POW algorithm to "fire" the miners will deter future takeover attempts like we are seeing now. I'm skeptical of those claims, because they don't address the underlying reason why we are at these crossroads: capital concentration in mining chip fabrication and the entrenchment of major stakeholders (like Bitmain). Litecoin was supposed to be ASIC resistant, but Bitmain now produces SCRYPT miners. For GPU-oriented economies, companies like NVDA have disproportionate influence on the mining industry and can have quite a centralizing effect. There are no easy answers here.

Having said all that, the majority of miners moving to the Segwit2x network (and even a majority of users) would not mean that Bitcoin dies. It will take years and it will be a long and painful market process, but I firmly believe that the corporate/bizcoin chain would lose in the end.

All that shows is that they have adequate hashpower to secure a chain.  But ordinary people would still have to use that chain and also maintain a decent amount of economic activity for the fork to be considered a success.  The problem seems to be that no one can agree on how much activity is actually needed to justify calling it a success.  Many argue BCH wasn't a success because it's transaction volumes are miniscule compared to the BTC chain, but fans argue the fact that it's still chugging along means it's successful enough.  I still don't take BCH all that seriously, personally.

The miners do not control Bitcoin. The control is mostly in the hands of the users. The day that this proves otherwise is the day that Bitcoin dies along with pretty much any other cryptocurrency using similar models.

coin.dance is showing that 85.7 of the miners are signaling for segwit2x, if this figure stays in favor of segwit2x does it means that the fork will succeed and segwit2x will be implemented?

Bitcoin Cash has lost nearly all of it's hashrate now, being nearly completely abandoned because of it's terrible "emergency difficulty adjustment". I find it very hard to say how people will sell SegWit2x because I believe it's impossible to send either fork and not have someone replay the transaction on the other one. I want to say it's impossible but I don't have the technical knowledge to say for sure. So they really are just trying to take over the network and become the default implementation.

any thoughts on why the byzantium fork was delayed?

its another drama that we will going to expect who's going to sell their bitcoin holding and who will hold to get free just like what happen to bitcoin cash
I think it will just ruin the value for ones and another downfall to expect good time to wait for this and see what this coin will bring to the community of
crypto after SegWit2x got release from btc chain.

It all depends on whether SegWit2x coin will get listed on major exchanges, because without it miners wont be able to sell their rewards, and so far no exchange has announced that they would list it. If the fork will be at least slightly successful and new coin will be created, than the result might be similar to what happened with BCH diffuculty adjustments, but now it will be more complicated because miners will be switching between 3 coins with the same algo. But if you'll check the graph, this lasted only a few days, so it can be only a short-lived disruption for the main network.

I support the segwit2x fork because i think it will be a huge step up for bitcoin and it will improve its current abilities  and i think it will be a great fork for bitcoin and it will attract more people because they will see that bitcoin is getting more improvements and in the next year, we can see a 10,000 USD price of bitcoin which is my target price.

I wonder what will happen to BCash... They will have to choose one of the chains to mine.

Not a supporter of any of those, but it will be interesting to see.

That's what I meant by BCH getting that part barely right

If I recall correctly they had their wonky first 2-way replay protection already earlier in place (wonky in that it was opt-in for BTC transactions). It's just that the final 2-way protection got implemented about 2-3 days before the fork.

Stop this stupid Segwit thing, everything is okay now. This would lead to another crazy coin popping out to wallets like BCC.

Dont ruin the entire crypto currency.

I agree we dont need another bitcoin coming out of this since a bunch of bitcoin forks will be bad for the real bitcoin in the long run.

The BCH developers waited until the last few days before the fork (i.e. the 11th hour) to add replay protection. Just like the Segwit2x guys, they didn't want to add replay protection because 1) it would make BCH not Bitcoin and 2) there wouldn't be working HD wallets out the box. Those two aspects make a hard fork much less attractive, so naturally, the forkers want to maintain the position that "consensus has been reached, so replay protection is not necessary."

Of course, hard forks basically guarantee network splits, so replay protection should always be necessary. I hope that this becomes the normal etiquette. Everyone should be free to fork, but lack of replay protection means many people will lose money -- guaranteed.

If this  another coming event is true and i have had some experiences already went though still i always keep the faith that bitcoin will survived this because lot of investors especially in popular names will help to protect the investment. I just thinking other people may panic again i hope they already learned from tha past.