Topic: Post your SegWit questions here - open discussion - big week for Bitcoin! - page 2. (Read 84845 times)

Hello, my question is about segwit2x. I read on a topic that would increase the value of the taxes but this does not seem to make much sense. How an improvement can increase fees?

Just for the record




There is nothing technical binding any miners to Segwit2x, at all.


The signalling is just that: signalling. There is no evidence that signalling miners are using the S2x software to mine with, which is all that could actually cause the Bitcoin hashrate to drop.

Good point about hash power surges. Buying miners is probably a more effective "vote" than screaming on social media... I hear MacAfee just bought 2k Bitmain units.

POW change is a joke to me - how could anyone believe you can change the POW and it will "still be Bitcoin"?  That's exactly how hundreds of altcoins were born!

I suppose that when the BTC mempool becomes full again during the 2x fork and fees rise past $100 per transaction that people will be panic exiting to alts, since no onchain transaction is required for alt buys. That will put strain on exchanges, who will be over capacity.  Plenty of hacks and "hacks" are likely. Those who have the stomach for it will be buying the dip, and trying not to catch a falling dagger...

 

Yep - I also expect some very high increase of the difficulty before the fork, also with some Bitcoin Cash power houses, after this the 1x legacy core crap will have more troubles to get mined - maybe also some attacks on the reorg after - that will force core to do a PoW HF and finally get an SWalt.

And I also expect a huge move of NYA coins and 2X supporters to exchanges to dump the 1X crap for 2x Bitcoin since with no haspower > no tx > brutal fees ( nice to see RBF working then) > no use case > no buyers. Up to this I expect them to keep up the BT1 futures as high as possible that dumb masses will pay them a lot when they dump it after the fork.

But before this all I expect more fights, drama and popcorn shortage and mods removing our posts here in some minutes

Ok, so you really want to convince us how powerful Bitcoin corporations are


Except they're not

---

Let me give you some advice:

Powerful people don't talk about how powerful they are. They just use their power.


People pretending to be powerful, that's who likes to talk.


So, if Bitcoin companies really could force users onto a hard fork they don't want, they'd just shut up and do it.

Which doesn't explain why there's always people hanging around these forums, talking about how the latest-greatest hard fork is gonna be unstoppable. Until it dies like all the others. Again.

Just for the record




There is nothing technical binding any miners to Segwit2x, at all.


The signalling is just that: signalling. There is no evidence that signalling miners are using the S2x software to mine with, which is all that could actually cause the Bitcoin hashrate to drop.

The posters above in this thread are well known and consistent scaremongers for Segwit2x, as well as many previous alt-dev hard forks. Their output is always contrived to scare Bitcoin users into accepting Segwit2x (or the latest alt-dev hard fork attempt), when the fact is that Bitcoin users always have the choice to reject alt-dev hard forks

I also expect some very high increase of the difficulty before the fork

I don't disagree with you, but you must consider how and why this happened. Segwit had a 0% chance of adoption without Segwit2x. Kore was so adamant that Segwit must be adopted but totally unwilling to compromise on blocksize. Silbert drafted an agreement to increase blocksize to 2MB in exchange for the miners rolling out Segwit, which the miners went along with. Then, Kore suddenly claims that the 2MB hardfork can't happen, just like they did when they breached the Hong Kong Agreement. They've basically destroyed their credibility and isolated themselves on an island of dweebs, in an echo chamber of censored reddit posts. It's pathetic watching these "cypherpunks" appeal to the SEC, claiming Garzik is committing computer fraud, and threatening lawsuits. I won't miss all of their drama.

I'm expecting that Bitcoin Cash's replay protection will be merged into the 2x and 1x forks at the last minute (irony). There is no other way to prevent absolute mayhem. Also I expect the BTC 1x and 2x spam transaction level to rise astronomically, creating a situation where transactions are unconfirmed for a week or more. This could be pretty stressful if there are replay attacks happening! Not to mention the price fluctuations, likely leading to some exchange defaults and "hacks".

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/coinbase-to-support-both-blockchains-following-segwit2x-fork/

This is what had me concerned

The fighting isn't between Core and Coinbase, it's between Core and Segwit2x. Bitcoin is going to fork again in mid November into 2 competing chains. If you own Bitcoin on the day of the fork, you will own equal coins on both chains. The bad thing is Segwit2x is not implementing replay protection on their chain. If you own your coin's private keys, you will need to take steps to avoid losing them in replays. You should send your coins to yourself simultaneously on each chain to distinctly different addresses until you have them split. It may take several tries to get it to work. If you leave your coins on Coinbase, they have stated that they will give you coins on both chains and taint them to avoid replays. Someone might disagree with me, but since you're new to Bitcoin, I'd recommend you leave your coins on Coinbase and let them do all the work of getting them on the correct chains. I am going to do it the hard way and split them myself. Once you feel technically proficient at how to do it, I'd recommend keeping your bitcoins only on addresses to which you control the private key as well.

By the way, I hate Segwit2x and will be selling a big chunk of them once I can.

...
Romero stated that Coinbase will provide customers with access to coins on both blockchains, although they may restrict access following the fork until both blockchains are stable and secure. “We are currently working on the engineering and security requirements for each bitcoin blockchain ,” the post continues.

Although not directly referenced, the post comes just one day after Bitcoin.org threatened to publicly denounce companies that support SegWit2x and do not publicly commit to meet certain demands. In particular, companies must agree to only use the term “Bitcoin” and ticker symbol “BTC” to refer to the original blockchain and may not do anything to “deprive users of their bitcoins”.

The Coinbase announcement appears to meet the second condition since it promises that customers will have “access to bitcoin on both blockchains” following the fork. However, Romero says they will not release a detailed plan for how they will name the two blockchains until closer to to the scheduled date for the fork.

However, the announcement does not appear to have appeased SegWit2x opponents. Cobra-Bitcoin, one of the current domain owners of Bitcoin.org, wrote on Github that the statement “isn’t really helpful” and that Coinbase must “immediately clarify that they will continue to call the current Bitcoin blockchain ‘Bitcoin’ with the ticker symbol ‘BTC’.” This would seem to imply that the announcement is not sufficient to remove Coinbase from the list of companies Bitcoin.org will publicly denounce.

Blockstream CSO Samson Mow — another vociferous critic of SegWit2x — suggested on Twitter that Coinbase’s position may violate the terms of the “BitLicense,” the financial services license bitcoin firms must receive to operate within New York state. Specifically, he pointed to language that prohibits licensees from altering a product or service in such a way that it is rendered “materially different” from its status when the license was approved or raises potential safety concerns and operational concerns.

I’m in wa state and as far as I can tell can only exchange with Coinbase. Should I be worried about this recent back and forth between core and Coinbase? Oh and FYI I’m green as hell with all of this so if my questions come off as ignorant... sorry, not sorry.
Chears

Thank you for all the replies. I have been reading them and there are a few solid reasons to support Bitcoin Core but I also want to play a little of devil's advocate.
I would like to read from 2X detractors at least ONE good thing about it.

It is hard to me that everything 2X supporters stands is a lie or against bitcoin nature.

And bitfinex has made a statement on it https://www.bitfinex.com/posts/223 

Segwit2x is nothing short of a coup attempt by businesses & miners in the Bitcoin space to oust the core developers of the Bitcoin code and force their control in the direction of Bitcoin technical development.

That is it, in a nutshell. This takeover attempt lead by Barry Silbert’s New York Agreement is veiled (albeit somewhat thinly in my mind) by the Segwit & big block debate to take attention away from the true intention of the miners & businesses. The ambition of Bitcoin miners & businesses will always inherently lean toward centralized control as they are unwilling to sacrifice efficiency for network security. This intention is in stark contrast to the aspirations of the average Bitcoin users who desire security and decentralization above all else. While there exists some debate between users regarding block size I believe even those who champion a push for larger blocks would outright condemn the ensuring totalitarian control over the network.

We must realize as a community that the Segwit2x code is not the argument, whether you desire big or small blocks, Segwit or no Segwit it is not relevant. The point remains the method by which the centralized mining cartels & businesses are attempting to force this change through the protocol and what is likely to happen in the future should they succeed. Should Segwit2x client change be successful;

A) It will be proven without a doubt that the Bitcoin network with all its hash power security and global scale CAN BE gamed. Any protocol changes that the miners / businesses want or are PAID / COERCED to want can be made, full stop. If they want Bitcoin to be inflationary rather than deflationary or to have 42 million minable coins rather than 21 million its just a matter of 1’s and 0’s at this point.

B) Power of development for the Bitcoin project will be taken out of the hands of the Core development team. The same team that has kept the Bitcoin network secure and stable with near 100% uptime for the past 8+ years. It is anyone’s guess who will stay on to develop the Segwit2x client.

C) Bitcoin’s status as a decentralized currency will be stripped. Bitcoins future will be entirely in the hands of centralized business’s and mining bodies. I am sure they will form some type of administrative group to discuss THEIR needs. The users will not be represented. (Sound familiar?).

D) There is no guarantee that the Bitcoin project will even remain open source. Once enough hash power and economic support lend themselves to the Segwit2x client the new miner controlled development team can easily flip the switch to closed source is they so desired.

The miners and businesses operating on the Bitcoin blockchain are entirely incentivized to centralize the networks development & operation as much as is possible. Centralized control will always be more efficient than decentralized consensus and thus adds to the bottom lines of businesses and miners alike. The users MUST NOT allow these bodies to take control of the network. Miners and business’s exist to serve the users & the network, NOT the other way around.

I suppose it is in the nature of human beings to desire power and control over others. Why this is exactly I can’t say, but I doubt anyone would argue the point. An attack of this type was bound to occur sooner or later in the Bitcoin space, I had no doubts of this. However I am taken back a bit by the lack of common understanding of exactly what is taking place here. For years a 51% attack on the Bitcoin network was in the forefront of every users mind and yet in the midst of a hostile takeover attempt all I see is complacency. Many posts on Reddit and Twitter are content to see that Segwit will be pushed through “in some form” but take no account to the method by which it occurs. They have been so aptly sold on the benefits of Segwit that they pay little attention to men pulling the strings behind the cloth. We would be far better off to have Bitcoin as it stands today without Segregated Witness then to allow manipulation of the protocol in this manner.

The only true power we as users have is to educate one another on the issues, whether they lie in the technical, economical or game theory realms as we move forward. At this point it seems clear that decentralized systems such as Bitcoin will always be under attack by centralized authorities wishing to take more control. If the Bitcoin project is to succeed the user base will need to be dynamic in their defense & understanding.