Topic: segwit2x (Read 847 times)

everyone knows core doesnt want to be a payment system so forget trying to push cores altcoin as being something merchants will use direct. core want their future coin to be some background coin that people just hold. hence the recent rumours of it turning into a ponzi because of the lack of real utility and just being used to rob peter to pay paul for profit with each new holder.

as for CB not caring about coinbase/bitpay. the hard lesson he has to learn is if a coin has no utility its just a crap coin like the other 1000 crap coins being held in the hope someone else will buy it for profit... but never happens

utility is key, merchant adoption is the door way. anyone thinking a currency can prosper without utility is just fooling themselves or just saying crap because they heard someone else say the crap and brainwashed into believing it

Assuming miner/exchange cohesion continues:

What do you think the Bitcoin as original Bitcoin use case(s) in 2018 is going to be. Do you think that there will be exchanges say in the US for that?
Peer-to-peer?
merchant agreements?

And how long is it going to take to get the new POW hash implemented to protect this coin from mischief? or is that not necessary?
And without the POW hardfork how is difficulty going to adjust in any rational time with the loss of the >90 percent of the miner hashpower?

Thanks for your comment.  This issue of relative chain support is exactly what I am trying to understand. I am having some difficulty seeing how the original chain keeps on trucking. But I certainly don't have a comprehensive understanding of the existing food chain.

There are other alternatives, but that requires:

-Users to only buy from merchants which are using an alternative payment gateway that accepts the earlier chain
-Merchants to actively switch their payment gateway to a new one

Ultimately, if a user wants to buy from a merchant, they will just buy from them.  It's unlikely that they will go to the lengths of actively avoiding a huge amount of merchants out of opposition to the SegWit2x chain.
It seems likely that users (and companies) will just call whichever one they prefer Bitcoin, and that there won't be a chain which everyone just simultaneously agrees is Bitcoin because the support for each chain won't be so overwhelming that the other becomes less relevant.

I have been trying to clearly outline my assumptions so that they can be challenged.
For instance

Comments assume the miner/exchange cohesion continues.  (still applies)

Other Assumptions:

that the supporting exchanges will follow their stated position to follow the majority hash power.
defining a new core hash for POW, testing of it, deploying it and achieving significant usage will take finite, non-trivial, time.
a large fraction of bitcoin users are not super-knowledgeable about crypto currency algorithms
a large fraction of users get their bitcoins from majority hash following exchanges and not peer-to-peer at least for the next year.
a large fraction of users who spend their bitcoins with merchants do so by way of merchant support from companies like Bitpay.

I am willing to update/revise my assumptions based on discussion if appropriate.  I sure don't think I have all/most/many of the answers. On the other hand I don't think my assumptions are far off.  The most interesting one, in my opinion, is miner cohesion but I don't speak Chinese so I can't help there.

Coinbase, Bitpay, Gemini, and quite a large number of heavy hitters are spelled out in the New York Agreement.

relative to "who's calling what an alt coin"  It aint me babe.  Its (assuming miner/exchange cohesion continues) Coinbase, Gemini, Bitpay  and on and on that have tons of real customers who will be calling Bitcoin-from-segwit2x Bitcoin/BTC and to use their services a Core supported coin won't be that.  It will be like eth or ripple or bitcoin cash - AN ALTCOIN.

One actually needs some assumptions defined if you want to attempt to reasonably model the future progress of something

You're making alot of assumptions

It's unlikely that people will choose to transact on the S2x chain, Bitpay and Coinbase aren't enough to keep it going, alternative to both have existed for years.


And the "who's calling what an altcoin" stuff is a pretty funny joke. It doesn't matter what's called what, it's about the overall technology model behind the coin that counts. Being called "Bitcoin" isn't a magic trick that makes something valuable money, unfortunately

Comments are based on the assumption that current miners hold their signaled position.

Agree that hashpower  in terms of hashes per second can be much less, on a new hash algorithm, if there are no current asics available, and still be strongly credible.

However,

People are going to have to have the new Core selected hash scheme for POW quickly or the Core-ALT-Bitcoin will take quite a  while to get going.  If Core selects a new POW Hash scheme with the due diligence that it normally follows that would seem to take a fair amount of effort, test deployment, yada yada.   When are you thinking this is going to happen?  

I see the current Bitcoin wonderful success as a very large ocean liner, used by a lot of people.  Useage patters like oceanliners turn slowly.  So while there may indeed be longterm ways around the existing exchanges (and damn I hope their are),  I don't see that as having much effect in 2018 while Bitcoin-from-segwit2x rocks on and Core-ALT-Bitcoin is a low volume altcoin trying to get listed.

gmax shot him self in the foot.

1. saying only the main contributors oppose it - so he only cares about his own employee's opinions not the real community.
2. he pretends to say its bad to change the rules. - yet has already changed the validation rules via segwit, the network topology via segwit, the transaction and block format via segwit and the 'priority' of transactions via segwit. and if he loses the vote in november where people no longer support cores implementation. he is then going to go on a orphan rampage and then go change the algo and security too.

yes core is setting up the walls to block other implementations.. not the other way around. the other implementations want to work together as a peer network of mutual respect.. only core wants to have control and wall itself away

3. he says that the hashrate does not matter and tries to twist it into a argument about the 'joules' of electric. its not about joules of electric. after all the joules of electric per hash have changed since 2009.. the real debate IS about the hashes. and security.
by this i mean... it took a few dozen computers a year (many many many kw/h to make the blocks of 2009-2010). but today anyone can replicate that with just a USB miner in days. so measuring security in joules is stupid

i think gmax should just man up and raise his hand and admit he has dropped off from wanting to make bitcoin great and is just trying to play around and mess with bitcoin to boost his ego and resume so he can make bulk loads of fiat on hyperledger. its too obvious what direction he wants his next project to be

in short. core has not been independent since 2014 and has slowly lost its appeal. soon people will realise the real point/ethos of bitcoin and realise decentralised/distributed coding/security means more than kissing ass

gmax has been sabotaging bitcoin since 2014.
making it too expensive to use for developing countries due to his fee mechanism changes.
removing validation with the 'treat as valid' crap purely for stupid excuses like 'efficiency' where there is no efficiency problems because bitcoin would still work on a current gen raspberry pi, let alone a modern basic computer.
and all the other back door trojan exploits he allows to side step consensus ... it makes me laugh when i see so many people kiss his ass, and not see whats beyond his butt-cheek

You seem a little fixated on absolute hashrate numbers. Remember that if the PoW changed, the hash function is inherently different, and so comparing SHA256 hashrate with CuckooCycle hashrate is pretty meaningless.

You're also forgetting that PoW change will see Bitcoin mining explode in popularity, so the actual purpose of the hashing will be far better satisfied with such an unavoidably more decentralised hashrate.

You forget too that Coinbase and Bitpay are not the only providers of their respective services. And in fact, the recent news about Atomic swap transactions with BTC/LTC trading pairs is a paradigm shift in the making when it comes to cryptocurrency exchanges. Sure, Coinbase could provide it, but what would be the point in having a centralised point of trust when atomic swaps transcend the need? Who's going to trust Coinbase after all this strongarming anyway?


You should stop forgetting things

Thanks for the link. Watched the video.  I had read many of the highlights in the various bitcoin blogs but it was best to see it straight.

So if the x2hf succeeds then based on user demand for the solution from core either:

1.) POW hard fork - which would seem to me to result in a low hash power altcoin since BTC will be already in play at Coinbase, Gemini, Bitpay... based on their public statements of following the majority hash power or being actual NYA signatories.

or.

2) Core team walks away.

As far as 1.) I am trying to game out the world where this happens and I see a low hashpower altcoin as being a pretty anemic vehicle for the Core Team.  But perhaps they indeed could add some attractive new features that users would like and try to slowly build support and turn it into a real player.  The timing is going to be the tough thing here as it seems to take quite a while for a community to change based on features and the BTC-from-segwit2x coin would likely attract some level of qualified development to at least copy good open-source ideas and tack in alt/core's wind to forestall some of their momentum.

Another position from his talk that I take to heart is that the further you are from bitcoin core the more plausible bad ideas seem.  I have led software developments (not cryptocurrency) and I know full well that this is generally true.  I also know that it can not be effectively used as an overarching lever to convince a business  community or business leaders that their views must be subordinated. (when perhaps sometimes they should).

You might listen to GMAX here a little about that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1COaUmPtR4&feature=youtu.be&t=1627

People who own Bitcoin bailing - indeed, but partially or more counterbalanced by new people that are finally cluing into wonderment of cryptocurrency and don't want to invest their money into coins controlled by a 23 year old with a parade of big banks behind him.  

And I have an inkling that if MAHF happens and things stabilize, that additional developers will want to be a part of such an amazing currency, even if some of the best in the world pass.

Of course Core could hard fork a POW change and get an alt coin registered with Coinbase, Gemini, Bitpay etc. possibly.  It might take a little while and I don't know if they really have the heart for a move like that or if it is just a passing thought.

People who own Bitcoin bailing.

Exchanges have nothing to exchange and miners have nothing to mine if everyone's buggered off.

That won't happen en masse of course, and even if it did it wouldn't be all at once, but it seems mind boggling to me how blind all these players are.

They do not operate in a vacuum. They became these hideous succubi off the backs of thousands of little guys and gals who dragged Bitcoin out of nothingness with their passion and enthusiasm.

Buyers sure like to buy coins from exchanges I think. I understand localbitcoin and other peer to peer but I thought exchanges were pretty key.
Users sure like to buy stuff from companies that use outsource mechanisms like Bitpay that are indicating (against pushback) that they will follow the majority hash chain.

I understand that you may stop using Bitcoin after the Segwit2xpocolus. But if it the Miners don't bail, that tons of normal users and buyers will still use the exchanges and the merchants with Bitpay and the like. Most of them won't even notice.

I doubt any other group is going to show up on short notice and prove sufficiently meritorious to you 

Fully agree with the amazing work that Core has done - much of it mindnumbingly beautiful.  But am also trying to suss out a realistic future.
Also would much personally prefer a solution where core, the exchanges, and the miners could agree on scaling but I don't always get my wishes.

Finally -> Users and Buyers power to destroy everything is a very interesting observation.  I have heard it alleged but I think that if the miners have solid peer to peer networking in place and the exchanges also peer directly with miners in this network that it would be hard to disrupt but alas there may be an angle that I am missing.

Users and buyers?

As a group they can't be consulted or cajoled or second guessed. They also have the power to completely destroy everything. They should not be fucked with yet all these willies are being waved in their faces with the expectation that they'll do what they're told.

I would not use or buy a Bitcoin that wasn't overseen by competent developers. Core are passive aggressive penises but they're also the best in the business.

I wouldn't mind at all if another group came along that proved they had what it takes. Nothing's come close so far.

All of this posturing is completely ignoring the incomparably huger element, us lot, that actually gave the entire thing a penny of value. I haven't got a clue how many people feel similarly, but 2X is a needless risk and no one's going to have much confidence in something that reckless.

This is one of its features.
 

I think "thick whores" will do as a suitable synonym for "independent strong minded business men"
And as such they won't care about losing the core developers.  They will care about losing the exchanges but the exchanges are publicly pronouncing they will follow the hash majority - some even in SEC filings.

So I haven't figured out who the well-moneyed white knight exchange that matters is, that is going to tell them they are not necessarily following the hash majority.

Or is their another form of "money" other than exchanges that the miners will be influenced by?

Apart from the politicised miners like Jihan Wu, the rest of the Chinese miners are a bunch of thick whores who'll mine anything if it makes more money. I doubt most of them could identify a Core developer if one of them sat on their face.

The only thing miners respect is money. The money is now outside of China. If the money is sensible it's not going to put up with a chain split.

Is your thinking that the miners will change their position based on their concern about losing the core developers? The miners seem like pretty independent and strong business personalities to me but maybe they have a more long term affinity for well laid crypto theory than I thought.

And suggesting POW change to them reminds me of how well our negotiations with N Korea are currently going.

If the miners stay together the exchanges are probably likely to stay because they need volume stability for their trades. (I would imagine).

This is the big question. Miners are replaceable. Replacing Core would be nearly impossible. I think more people who signed it will flake out as the time comes until it's clear that the creation of yet another Bitcoin will be inevitable. That definitely wasn't their plan so it's likely the idea will die off.

The answer I often read is that assuming the MAHF is actually successfully accomplished then core will(?) switch to a new Proof of Work algorithm that will allow more small miners which will increase the difficulty of miner hard forks in the future.

The question is if the current MAHF happens, and the exchanges stay with the majority hash power, what will attract regular people to the legacy Bitcoin chain.

I guess if all this actually came to pass and the legacy POW hard fork happened there would be an effort to get legacy Bitcoin back on Gemini and Coinbase and Bitpay as a different coin.

Then the question becomes under what symbol would these exchanges present (ouch) since they have already reportedly committed to having the BTC symbol follow the existing majority hash power which would (in this scenario) be Segwit2x

Sounds faintly familiar to Ethereum Classic and Ethereum if the miners and exchanges stay with their public pronouncements.

Admittedly, I'm brand new here so maybe some expert hands can fill in better answers on this scenario end case.