Topic: SegWit2x seriously losing support? - page 2. (Read 3130 times)

Explain why.

(exchanges where there is any ambiguity as to which symbol means which coin will see their business suffer, the problem solves itself really)

I agree on the part where you say that Bitmain is taking a risk but I think it's a risk they can afford. If it doesn't work out they will make some sort of loss but that won't ruin their business. The question really is, which chain will get the BTC ticker? If the legacy chain gets it we're good otherwise things could get ugly.

You can check SegWit2X support from another point of view: The point of view of the Market.
I discovered that Bitfinex let you trade with what they call Chain Split Tokens (CST)
I let you their blog post here: https://www.bitfinex.com/posts/221

If you see the graphs the CST for SegWit2X is going down so the market is not really buying the new SegWit2X. I am not saying it will fail , I am just highlighting the market position about it.

peace

I wouldn't think about it like that. The miner takes all the risk with a fork in a proof-of-work economy. Sure, fork shenanigans and playing games with hashpower distribution could affect the markets in the short/mid term. But Bitmain would be the one taking the risk, because they are expending the energy to mine the coins. If no one wants to buy their forked coins, they've flushed a lot of money down the toilet. Users just need to be able to hold through all the shenanigans and price swings. They won't lose anything.

Now, if Bitmain and the major services/exchanges succeed in pushing most of the user base into a fork, we've got problems. Then I might start looking into other coins to invest in long term. But I think users will stay on the legacy chain, for the most part.

I don't think all of these forks: BCH, BTC and BC2 are good for Bitcoin or the crypto industry long term. It creates confusion in the minds of investors and businesses on which chain is the "real" bitcoin. For better or worse Bitcoin remains the #1 crypto asset benefiting from network effects. It is my sincere hope that Bitcoin avoids the fork and that the industry focuses on increased crypto adoption by consumers and businesses rather than more bitcoin forks. Have any of you attempted to send BTC with a Segwit enabled Ledger Nano S? Transaction costs are at least 50% to 80% lower than they were before the August fork.

In november or early in 2018 the fork will happen.
Its just a matter of time.

A way to monitor support of the fork is to see how traders are betting on BT2/BTC futures.

The same way he changed his miners to mine BCC when he initiated the last hard fork?!

It looks like the support is dwindling as we get closer to this mid-november hard fork deadline. Let's wait and see.

I really think that the Fork is gonna happen but maybe it will not be exactly november but who knows

The fact that Bitmain and Jihan Wu can single-handedly decide to go through with the segwit 2x fork is everything that's wrong with bitcoin at this moment. The community is clearly against the fork but seemingly Mr. Wu doesn't care.

It was weak anyways, they could barely help you with anything

Hope so - so that the community can unite and move bitcoin forward to next level. No an expert here, just wondering why increase block size to 2MB. Is it better to reduce block time and block reward in half? This way - 
 1. Miners will get same amount of reward (half amount per block, but double amount of blocks in same time period)
 2. Bitcoin network will process double amount of transactions
 3. Confirmation time will reduce in half - faster transaction

You are forgetting about Bitmain. They control or influence enough hashpower to ensure the fork happens mid November. Jihan Wu has always said in public they will change to mining with btc1 no reason to doubt his committment so far.

I am not sure how accurate this still is but from the NYA agreement:

NYA Agreement

Yea things are pretty weird for bitcoin at the moment because there are essentially 2 different major groups at the moment, one for and one against. I know Coinbase played a huge role in the NYA agreement for Segwit2x, it was another reason why they chose not to support BCC.

Good news is pricing is reaching $6000 for a bitcoin. But the fork adopted by most players will eventually go to the one with the highest number of hash power.

We'll I hope, in that case, the support will  keep dropping the next couple of days and we'll hopefully end up avoiding a fork. Because I feel like this one is going go get very ugly if it goes through. It's not going to be as uneventful as the bitcoin cash one.
I saw the statement of coinbase on 2x and I must say I wasn't surprised. After the bitcoin cash outrage they felt like they had to do support the fork from the start. Still the wrong decision though.

Thanks for actually being thoughtful, though I think it is a little more subtle than you suggest:  BIP148 would have been backwards compatible IF and Only if hashrate became compatible with it.  The people arguing that it was compatible were not, I think, trying in any way to be dishonest but rather were pretty convinced that hashrate would be compatible with it when it activated (regardless of this view being justified) and to whatever extent they had doubts any failure they would attribute to hashrate not doing what it was supposed to do (regardless of this view being justified...).

I think this is an unreasonable risk and to this day I don't understand why quite a few other people thought it was an acceptable one.  But, on the other hand, they were right that hashpower would (effectively) go along with it.

Every other point I agree with, in particular your comments on the timeline of it.  I think though that I would conclude that they took a gamble and won, elsewhere we might applaud them with tremendous foresight as we often do for people successful primarily through chance...   OTOH, what they were gambling with was the safety and stability of a shared resource that we all count on...

The intervention of 2x unfortunately substantially eliminated one of the main payoffs proponents of BIP148 probably anticipated:  Rejecting the notion that miner forced capacity hardforks were something we needed to respond to on an immediate basis, thus allowing us to make more progress with less drama.  Maybe we'll be there after November.

I think the thing we should worry about isn't recriminations about BIP148 but what are reasonable expectations for consensus upgrades to Bitcoin.  I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to happen, generally, on a time frame of less than years.  It certainly isn't the case for internet infrastructure protocols like BGP, which are easier to upgrade than Bitcoin...  If a chance is well understood and widely supported, then sure Bitcoin can deploy them faster, but I think our base expectation should be years.   I think this is the fundamental disconnect that fed a lot of fuel to the short timeframe of BIP148.

There's two separate issues here, and I think one of them is unfortunately being glossed over. The first is obvious: no user who understands how Bitcoin works is interested in backroom deals that alter protocol rules.

But the other issue that won't be solved by a Segwit2x failure is the matter of economic coercion, and the tendency for forkers on both sides of the debate to engage in it.

Unfortunately, much of the #NO2X crowd still doesn't seem to understand backward compatibility. Many of them continue to repeat the falsehoods that "soft forks are backward compatible" and "BIP148 was backward compatible." The reality is that soft forks can be incompatible and that BIP148 was very likely to be incompatible.

The reason this issue is important to me is that the UASF crowd was leveraging the possibility of wipeout and replay attacks to force other users (e.g. BIP141 node operators) to change their consensus rules. They did so knowing that the vast majority of the network would not be enforcing BIP148, as it was incompatible with Core (if not enforced by majority hash rate). I was especially disgusted by the lack of concern for peoples' funds that BIP148 supporters had. And unfortunately, due to the manipulative rhetoric used at the time ("BIP148 is Bitcoin", "If miners don't run BIP148 they are 51% attacking the network", "all soft forks are backward compatible") we now have quite a lot of people continuing to repeat falsehoods about the safety of contentious soft forks.

I understand why these falsehoods were spread, and I can maybe even sympathize with the reasoning from a practical standpoint. But now we are in a situation where future contentious soft forks are even more likely to cause network splits, because people have been so misinformed about what soft forks are and why they might be incompatible.

A BIP148 split would have been indistinguishable from a hard fork, and it would have been carried out on a ~ 2-month timeline. I really resent Luke and others for pushing it, as such. And I really respect the Core developers who spoke out against it. It seemed really reckless, and it's a bit upsetting that people seem able to acknowledge that Segwit2x is contentious/risky/ethically wrong, but unable to acknowledge the same of BIP148. To boot, contentious soft forks expose users to additional wipeout/reorg attack risk that doesn't exist in hard forks. The issue is compatibility (not whether you wanted Segwit). I was supporting Segwit almost 2 years ago. Doesn't mean I was willing to split the chain over it -- on a ~ 2-month timeline no less.

Speak out against backroom deals -- yes. But don't underestimate the cost of threatening peoples' money and coercing them into changing consensus rules. That goes for both sides of this debate. I absolutely don't feel like a member of the Bitcoin community anymore -- it's hard for me to accept that a community even exists now. I still believe it will remain the top cryptocurrency; in that sense, I am a Bitcoin maximalist. But my decision to hold bitcoins vs. innovative altcoins is purely a matter of financial speculation now. If Bitcoin were co-opted by the corporate Segwit2x movement, I'm not sure I would even really care anymore. I'd just pick up the pieces and move onto the next project worth believing in, and try to help to build a culture that doesn't sacrifice consensus because of one side's impatience (BIP148) or business interests (2X).

This is what happens when people go behind close doors on decentralized stuff.

All of sudden you want to control bitcoin? Chinese miners are unstoppable so good luck. I support the developers who been working on Bitcoin when no one even know it existed.

Signalling at this point doesn't mean anything. It's unlikely that any miners are actually running the 2X software anyway. And it's certainly possible that the fork may be avoided entirely if it keeps losing support. I was glad to wake up today to considerably lower NYA signalling (under 80%) over the last 144 blocks. Apparently, F2Pool has finally stopped signalling in support of it. So that's a big start.

But my main concern there is that Bitmain alone might control a majority of the global hash rate. It's still seems like things could get very messy if companies like Coinbase, Blockchain, Bitpay and Xapo -- in addition to Bitmain -- follow through on the fork.