many of this scaling discussions is needless distraction from what we all need at this time. we need to promote the cryptocurrency technology as a united front...
That is true. Nowadays, not only bitcoins but the whole world of crypto coins is in a declining phase. It is not the right time to concentrate on such matters like Jeff is no more a contributor etc. He himself does not want the public to read too much into this. We must focus on Bitcoin’s future. 
Topic: Segwit2x Developer Jeff Garzik Removed From Github Repo (Read 736 times)
if 2x does not go ahead I have to begin to wonder if the accusation against core by BCH do not hold more water.
why would you not at least increase the block size a little. Tech has clearly increased since 2009. BCH has not collapsed technically or otherwise so it shows its feasible.
I wish BCH would activate segwit, so you can have LN and larger blocks, it may also finish the issue of once and for all.
I personally don't like BCH; neither is I an obsessed bitcoin lover nor an altcoin lover. However, bitcoins is the best among all so far but without lightening network, it is not possible to speed up such a large number of transactions. Segwit 2x activation plays an essential role in further development. why would you not at least increase the block size a little. Tech has clearly increased since 2009. BCH has not collapsed technically or otherwise so it shows its feasible.
I wish BCH would activate segwit, so you can have LN and larger blocks, it may also finish the issue of once and for all.
if 2x does not go ahead I have to begin to wonder if the accusation against core by BCH do not hold more water.
why would you not at least increase the block size a little. Tech has clearly increased since 2009. BCH has not collapsed technically or otherwise so it shows its feasible.
I wish BCH would activate segwit, so you can have LN and larger blocks, it may also finish the issue of once and for all.
why would you not at least increase the block size a little. Tech has clearly increased since 2009. BCH has not collapsed technically or otherwise so it shows its feasible.
I wish BCH would activate segwit, so you can have LN and larger blocks, it may also finish the issue of once and for all.
So, this is not drama. It's like Drum'n'Bass 
Very soon will be SegWit2 and price of bitcoin will be rise.
Fees of transaction cheap and fast today, I tried send btc today and wait few seconds only. Fees was 0.05usd.
Very soon will be SegWit2 and price of bitcoin will be rise.
Fees of transaction cheap and fast today, I tried send btc today and wait few seconds only. Fees was 0.05usd.
many of this scaling discussions is needless distraction from what we all need at this time. we need to promote the cryptocurrency technology as a united front...
This is the best comment I have read all day. You are 100% correct. Unfortunately we all get too consumed by the he said she said and completely get distracted by what is important here. All this energy should be focused on promoting cryptocurrency
many of this scaling discussions is needless distraction from what we all need at this time. we need to promote the cryptocurrency technology as a united front...
what changed in the past 3 years?
it is very weird to see Jeff Garzik go from a trusted bitcoin developer to someone who the core developers deny now.
here is from his trust rating on his account on bitcointalk, written by GMaxwell in 2014
i hope he doesn't delete it now
it is very weird to see Jeff Garzik go from a trusted bitcoin developer to someone who the core developers deny now.
here is from his trust rating on his account on bitcointalk, written by GMaxwell in 2014
Quote
Technical expert on the Bitcoin system and has given me good advice. I've run unaudited code by Jeff on systems with access to a large amount of Bitcoins.
i hope he doesn't delete it now
Jeff has said in the past that he thinks people should be removed who dont make commits. He hasnt made one in 2 years. I dont know if he is even really upset, I havent seen him make a statement on it personally.
I understand what you are saying. But can you kindly clarify one thing for me. How was Jeff not an active contributor if he developed Segwit 2X? How much time of non activity counts as non-active contributor. I am asking this because the Segwit debate started 2/3 years ago, the NYA was not so long ago. Do you know when he developed Segwit2X?
He wasn't contributing to Bitcoin repo on github - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
SegWit2x is a fork from Bitcoin on github - https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin
Basically, instead of making proposals and discussing it with Bitcoin developers, he just created his own project, and also named it "Bitcoin".
So if that is the case of what is going to happen, would I to assume I need to be worried about the future of BTC in general???
If it keeps splitting every time an update is being talked about, will the market lose confidnce? I really don't understand all the politics of this all. It is getting very obnoxious.... Please lets just have 1 bitcoin protocol
All those forks (XT, BU, Classic, Bcash, etc.) are essentially coming from the same people, who are only interested in quick buck, and don't care about long-term stability of Bitcoin network.
That explains, why BCH suddenly shooted up like a rocket. But I think, there is no reason to doubt on "BTC 1". Just regret, that I dumped BCH for its lowest price. The best would be as Bitcoin holder, to keep BTC, BCH and a possible third Bitcoin.
this actually has nothing to do with BCH price
that thing went up before this started and it was a pure pump which is in the dumping phase right now. like many altcoins it is very simple to manipulate the price of it and they are doing exactly that. and why do you think it took exactly this much! it is to get rid of the dumps first then pump it. and soon dump again.
Honestly, I am getting confused.
After a new fork we have again another chain, that I get. But which one is then considered to be bitcoin?
How are hashrates predicted to be devided up??
Is there anywhere an overview about who is supporting what?
Maybe including a few scenarios of what will happen under which circumstances?
After a new fork we have again another chain, that I get. But which one is then considered to be bitcoin?
How are hashrates predicted to be devided up??
Is there anywhere an overview about who is supporting what?
Maybe including a few scenarios of what will happen under which circumstances?
The hashrate is depended on how much mining power supports the coin. If the hardfork happens November, the current Bitcoin(lets call it BTC segwit) will have less hash power than BTC 2X. The mining power that supports the NYA is more than 80%. In that case BTC will end up being the real BITCOIN.
BTC Segwit is supported by Core developers who have almost zero mining power. The BTC2X is supported by most miner, exchanges and businesses.
That explains, why BCH suddenly shooted up like a rocket. But I think, there is no reason to doubt on "BTC 1". Just regret, that I dumped BCH for its lowest price. The best would be as Bitcoin holder, to keep BTC, BCH and a possible third Bitcoin.
Honestly, I am getting confused.
After a new fork we have again another chain, that I get. But which one is then considered to be bitcoin?
How are hashrates predicted to be devided up??
Is there anywhere an overview about who is supporting what?
Maybe including a few scenarios of what will happen under which circumstances?
After a new fork we have again another chain, that I get. But which one is then considered to be bitcoin?
How are hashrates predicted to be devided up??
Is there anywhere an overview about who is supporting what?
Maybe including a few scenarios of what will happen under which circumstances?
The drama was never officially over, it just started losing attention because everyone went crazy about the price. But to me this is far more important, because in November some group of businesses and miners will launch a hardfork with the same name as Bitcoin, in attempt to confuse unexperienced users. So, removal of Jeff Garzik from bitcoin repo would be justified even if he was an active contributor, but he wasn't active for the last few years, so it's not a big loss for Bitcoin Core development.
I understand what you are saying. But can you kindly clarify one thing for me. How was Jeff not an active contributor if he developed Segwit 2X? How much time of non activity counts as non-active contributor. I am asking this because the Segwit debate started 2/3 years ago, the NYA was not so long ago. Do you know when he developed Segwit2X?
The drama was never officially over, it just started losing attention because everyone went crazy about the price. But to me this is far more important, because in November some group of businesses and miners will launch a hardfork with the same name as Bitcoin, in attempt to confuse unexperienced users. So, removal of Jeff Garzik from bitcoin repo would be justified even if he was an active contributor, but he wasn't active for the last few years, so it's not a big loss for Bitcoin Core development.
So if that is the case of what is going to happen, would I to assume I need to be worried about the future of BTC in general???
If it keeps splitting every time an update is being talked about, will the market lose confidnce? I really don't understand all the politics of this all. It is getting very obnoxious.... Please lets just have 1 bitcoin protocol
I am worried about the November fork, if it happens it will disrupt the current Bitcoin price trajectory. I agree, we cant be having a fork every year because of egos. This is worrying.
The drama was never officially over, it just started losing attention because everyone went crazy about the price. But to me this is far more important, because in November some group of businesses and miners will launch a hardfork with the same name as Bitcoin, in attempt to confuse unexperienced users. So, removal of Jeff Garzik from bitcoin repo would be justified even if he was an active contributor, but he wasn't active for the last few years, so it's not a big loss for Bitcoin Core development.
So if that is the case of what is going to happen, would I to assume I need to be worried about the future of BTC in general???
If it keeps splitting every time an update is being talked about, will the market lose confidnce? I really don't understand all the politics of this all. It is getting very obnoxious.... Please lets just have 1 bitcoin protocol
The drama was never officially over, it just started losing attention because everyone went crazy about the price. But to me this is far more important, because in November some group of businesses and miners will launch a hardfork with the same name as Bitcoin, in attempt to confuse unexperienced users. So, removal of Jeff Garzik from bitcoin repo would be justified even if he was an active contributor, but he wasn't active for the last few years, so it's not a big loss for Bitcoin Core development.
It looks like the drama has not ended in the crypto world. We live in very interesting times.
https://news.bitcoin.com/segwit2x-and-bitcoin-core-drama-flares-up-community-tension/
On August 17 the bitcoin payment processing company Bitpay published a blog post about Segwit2x that stirred quite a bit of controversy with the bitcoin ‘community.’
Bitpay Sparks Controversy for Promoting the BTC1 Codebase as a Reference Client to Bitcore Nodes
The post called “What Bitcore Users Need to Know To Be Ready for Segwit Activation” gives a detailed explanation to its Bitcore user base about the upcoming consensus process with Segwit2x. However, the post also leaves btc1 software (Segwit2x) as a form of upgrade for Bitcore full nodes.
Immediately a few bitcoin proponents and developers such as Peter Todd, Tuur Demeester, Francis Pouliot, John Carvalho, Rodolfo Novak and others got angry with Bitpay for recommending an alternative to the Core reference code. Developer Peter Todd called Bitpay’s statement “fraudulent” and talked of litigation. Programmer Eric Lombrozo has asked his Twitter followers to openly ban any company that supports Segwit2x. Across forums and social media, the blog post caused relentless debate throughout the entire day of August 17.
Segwit2x and Bitcoin Core Drama Flares Up 'Community' Tension
Drama on the Twitter feeds.
Bitcoin.org Operator Theymos Seeks to Remove Copay Wallet and All Bitpay Services from the Website
Then later on into the day the owners of Bitcoin.org decided to create a pull request to remove Bitpay’s services and the Copay wallet from the site’s recommended wallet section. One of the operators of Bitcoin.org and the lead administrator of r/bitcoin, Theymos, explains that Bitpay is pushing “fraudulent” software.
“Bitpay is fraudulently passing off btc1 as Bitcoin software to which people are required to upgrade,” explains Theymos. “This is highly unethical and a violation of the bitcoin.org hard fork policy.”
Therefore, this pull request removes from bitcoin.org any references to Bitpay and their software/services Copay and Bitcore.
Segwit2x and Bitcoin Core Drama Flares Up 'Community' Tension
Bitcoin developers like David Harding detailed that Bitcoin.org should “proceed slowly and try to get Bitpay to clarify their position before we delist them.” Other developers agreed with Harding’s opinion, but others agreed with the proposal set forth by Theymos. Then btc1 developer Jeff Garzik explains his view stating, “NAK. It is reasonable and practical to follow the blockchain with the most hashpower (thus most secure).” Bitcoin.org operator Theymos didn’t like this statement and replied back to Garzik by saying, “Bitcoin is not and must not be ruled by miners,” and leaves a link to a Bitcoin Wiki site he controls.
Segwit2x Developer Jeff Garzik Removed From Github Repo
Just when you thought the drama would end, it didn’t, as later on that day Jeff Garzik was removed from the Core bitcoin repository as a contributor. This also created quite a stir on Twitter as people who are angry about Segwit2x stated things like, “you brought it upon yourself Jeff, enjoy working on btc1 alone.” While others defended Garzik and called the action “ludicrous.”
According to bitcoin Core contributor, Matt Corrallo, Garzik’s statements in the past would agree with the decision. “As Jeff himself advocated for several times, this is just the removal of people who haven’t been active in the project for years. No need to read too much into such things.” Software developers Peter Todd and Greg Maxwell also confirm the reason why Garzik was removed was due to inactivity. However, there are some speculators who believe the move was far more political, and coincidently done before the second half of the compromise.
Segwit2x and Bitcoin Core Drama Flares Up 'Community' Tension
It doesn’t seem like Segwit2x is off to a good start for the second half of the New York Agreement. Already bitcoiners are talking about the birth of a third bitcoin called “B2X.” Meanwhile, bitcoin cash supporters are telling Segwit2x proponents to join them, as most believe the compromise is a failed attempt. It’s safe to say the quarreling will be very intense over the next couple months in bitcoin-land, and another blockchain split is looking more probable as the days continue.
The Segwit2x Working group (btc1) plans to hard fork the network to increase the block size to 2MB on block 494,784 on the Bitcoin blockchain.
https://news.bitcoin.com/segwit2x-and-bitcoin-core-drama-flares-up-community-tension/
On August 17 the bitcoin payment processing company Bitpay published a blog post about Segwit2x that stirred quite a bit of controversy with the bitcoin ‘community.’
Bitpay Sparks Controversy for Promoting the BTC1 Codebase as a Reference Client to Bitcore Nodes
The post called “What Bitcore Users Need to Know To Be Ready for Segwit Activation” gives a detailed explanation to its Bitcore user base about the upcoming consensus process with Segwit2x. However, the post also leaves btc1 software (Segwit2x) as a form of upgrade for Bitcore full nodes.
Immediately a few bitcoin proponents and developers such as Peter Todd, Tuur Demeester, Francis Pouliot, John Carvalho, Rodolfo Novak and others got angry with Bitpay for recommending an alternative to the Core reference code. Developer Peter Todd called Bitpay’s statement “fraudulent” and talked of litigation. Programmer Eric Lombrozo has asked his Twitter followers to openly ban any company that supports Segwit2x. Across forums and social media, the blog post caused relentless debate throughout the entire day of August 17.
Segwit2x and Bitcoin Core Drama Flares Up 'Community' Tension
Drama on the Twitter feeds.
Bitcoin.org Operator Theymos Seeks to Remove Copay Wallet and All Bitpay Services from the Website
Then later on into the day the owners of Bitcoin.org decided to create a pull request to remove Bitpay’s services and the Copay wallet from the site’s recommended wallet section. One of the operators of Bitcoin.org and the lead administrator of r/bitcoin, Theymos, explains that Bitpay is pushing “fraudulent” software.
“Bitpay is fraudulently passing off btc1 as Bitcoin software to which people are required to upgrade,” explains Theymos. “This is highly unethical and a violation of the bitcoin.org hard fork policy.”
Therefore, this pull request removes from bitcoin.org any references to Bitpay and their software/services Copay and Bitcore.
Segwit2x and Bitcoin Core Drama Flares Up 'Community' Tension
Bitcoin developers like David Harding detailed that Bitcoin.org should “proceed slowly and try to get Bitpay to clarify their position before we delist them.” Other developers agreed with Harding’s opinion, but others agreed with the proposal set forth by Theymos. Then btc1 developer Jeff Garzik explains his view stating, “NAK. It is reasonable and practical to follow the blockchain with the most hashpower (thus most secure).” Bitcoin.org operator Theymos didn’t like this statement and replied back to Garzik by saying, “Bitcoin is not and must not be ruled by miners,” and leaves a link to a Bitcoin Wiki site he controls.
Segwit2x Developer Jeff Garzik Removed From Github Repo
Just when you thought the drama would end, it didn’t, as later on that day Jeff Garzik was removed from the Core bitcoin repository as a contributor. This also created quite a stir on Twitter as people who are angry about Segwit2x stated things like, “you brought it upon yourself Jeff, enjoy working on btc1 alone.” While others defended Garzik and called the action “ludicrous.”
According to bitcoin Core contributor, Matt Corrallo, Garzik’s statements in the past would agree with the decision. “As Jeff himself advocated for several times, this is just the removal of people who haven’t been active in the project for years. No need to read too much into such things.” Software developers Peter Todd and Greg Maxwell also confirm the reason why Garzik was removed was due to inactivity. However, there are some speculators who believe the move was far more political, and coincidently done before the second half of the compromise.
Segwit2x and Bitcoin Core Drama Flares Up 'Community' Tension
It doesn’t seem like Segwit2x is off to a good start for the second half of the New York Agreement. Already bitcoiners are talking about the birth of a third bitcoin called “B2X.” Meanwhile, bitcoin cash supporters are telling Segwit2x proponents to join them, as most believe the compromise is a failed attempt. It’s safe to say the quarreling will be very intense over the next couple months in bitcoin-land, and another blockchain split is looking more probable as the days continue.
The Segwit2x Working group (btc1) plans to hard fork the network to increase the block size to 2MB on block 494,784 on the Bitcoin blockchain.
Jump to: