Topic: Segwit2x vs 1 MB - page 2. (Read 1502 times)

They are not tech savvy. They do not understand. They are trying their best.

Those big blockers are nutjobs, irrational and gamblers - accordingly, it seems that they are likely to employ such destructive hard forkening tactics for their own pleasures, asocial and likely destructive goals.

It looks like this may change. I saw someone tweet that Jeff Garzik unilaterally removed the opt-in replay protection from the BTC1 repository (can't confirm at the moment). Apparently, he reopened the discussion regarding strong replay protection utilizing the OP_RETURN function. If true, that means they are preparing for there to be two viable blockchains.


I think there's a chance it won't happen, but it looks like miners and businesses are mostly doubling down. While I think that the legacy chain will prevail in the end, I think that if the legacy chain has minority hash rate, that this will affect the market more than people are currently pricing in.

I think, in the end the Segwit2x will not happen. ... we will see.

Or it will be the same as with Bitcoin CrASH. (dumped as soon as possible)

Yes this will be quite same as it was for BCH in the last fork, they will continue to buy more and more BTC.

This could be best way to get BTC2X coins safely, doesn't matter if this method takes long time for confirmations, the thing matters is that we will get the coins safely.

you can see the pull request from the btc1 developer team here: https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/pull/117
more discussion here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6virdi/jeff_garzik_adds_optin_replay_protection_to_btc1/
and well-known developer and general explainer-for-noobs, jimmy song, wrote a more in-depth tutorial and explanation here: https://bitcointechtalk.com/how-segwit2x-replay-protection-works-1a5e41767103

so yes, i think we can trust the information at this point. whether the opt-in protection is sufficient/ethical is another story. most people don't even know what replay attacks are or why they matter.


i just realized, since there is no replay protection, the thread poll doesn't make sense. no one needs to install segwit2x. it will work with wallets right out of the gate. that's why it's so dangerous.

What is the source of this information? Do you trust it?

I don't consider it totally impossible, as only those who rely on automated systems would be forced to instantly "update" the client. And the others, as I already said, could be persuaded by exchanges to change to the "hard-forking" client.

But this obviously would be much easier if the hard-fork is not "contentious" (has majority approval with businesses and developers) and is planned well in advance - both things didn't happen with Segwit2x. Their only chance to "win" the battle is that really so much hashrate changes to the hard-forking chain that the original one becomes practically un-usable (I guess even 75% would not be enough for that, more 85-90%).


I think that if Segwit2x fails to become "the Bitcoin" it will have not much support from big blockers, as most of them want to scale much faster and so Bitcoin Cash is their option of choice. So Segwit2x will only have one chance.

There is the -walletrbf command line argument (defaults to "false" as this is an "Opt-In" feature... But like all the command line options, you can simply add it to your bitcoin.conf:

Ref: https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.14.0#opt-into-rbf-when-sending

you can always decode the final transaction you made with some tool like https://blockchain.info/decode-tx or any others that you may prefer and check to see if everything is ok before broadcasting the transaction.

you can check this for reference: https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-reference#raw-transaction-format

This is the age-old conundrum of hard forks and why many believe they will inevitably lead to multiple blockchains in a mature currency like Bitcoin. I wouldn't be surprised if most Bitcoin users don't even know/care about the block size debate and various forks. They've just been running Core or Electrum and will continue to do so. Bitcoin is a real, live economy. Businesses run like clockwork on it with scripts and APIs. Every user manually, simultanously installing a new client? In Bitcoin? Give me a break -- impossible. On smaller and/or more centralized networks, this isn't necessarily true, as we've seen with Ethereum and Monero. But clearly hard forks lead to chain splits once stakeholders really dig their heels in.


I think that's what Bitcoin Cash supporters are hoping for, and why they seem generally supportive of 2X. I suspect you're right. I'm not sure which altcoin chain will win out between 2X and BCH, but I think probably BCH. It's the big blocker's bloatchain of choice.


Wow, you learn something new everyday. I'll experiment with some very small transactions.

i couldn't find it either. but i remember something about this!
you can always make the transaction and before signing it, manually change the last 4 bytes of the raw transaction (8 hex characters) to your locktime
a little advanced but not hard.

for example the transaction ends with: "....88ac00000000" for locktime of 0. and last block height now is 488503. you set it to 488504 which is 38740700 in little-endian "....88ac38740700"

My understanding is this:

As there is no replay protection (only the opt-in mechanism described by fluidjax), if you don't mine, you will be using initially both chains with your Core client. That means that if you don't split, you will be using also Segwit2x because your transactions (and the transactions that go to your address and use also both chains) will be written on both chains. The only difference will be that the Segwit2x-only transactions (from Segwit2x chain to you, with coins that are NOT on the Core chain) won't appear in your wallet.

This is, however, a crucial problem for Segwit2x: An user would have to install the 2x client if she wants to receive money from the 2x chain and use (send) it. So after some time - some days, some weeks at most if she doesn't use BTC too much - she must install the 2x/Btc1/Electrum2x/whatever2x client if she wants to use that chain.

The question is now how many users will do this. Exchanges and other companies that support Segwit2x will surely try to promote a Segwit2x client, and they could have some success because from what I perceive, most non-technical users are "apolitical" in the block size debate and would use the client that gives them personally the greatest advantages.

If Segwit2x does manage to hold more than 80% of the hashrate for more than a week, I predict that then the 2x chain will win the battle because enough users would change to the new chain (because they need to sell coins, merchants using BitPay, Coinbase users ...) and the "original BTC" chain will be too slow for them.

This can only work if both BitPay and Coinbase stay with Segwit2x and don't support the original BTC chain for that whole period. If any of those begins to "tumble" and support the original BTC chain - even calling it an altcoin, e.g. "Corecoin" or so - Segwit2x will be an altcoin and can have, at most, the significance of Bitcoin Cash (probably less!).

The most likely outcome is, in my opinion, that the Core chain will "win" the battle, Segwit2x will be marginalized, and big blockers will switch to Bitcoin Cash definitively. That could have as a consequence that Bcash will be stronger than now, although I don't think it can ever be the leading coin.

No I wouldn't. I am with 2MB blocks, but they have to be implemented in the main bitcoin repository by the devteam. No other fork will be able to overcome the first bitcoin.

I don't think it's possible to use nLockTime in Electrum. Not in the standard user interface, anyway. I've browsed through Electrum's command line documentation and I don't see any reference to nLockTime, either, so I'm at a loss for how to make it work.

I also just came across an interesting case where even Segwit2x users are vulnerable because of the way replay protection is being implemented: https://twitter.com/hrdng/status/915967021254414336


The bottom line: be very, very careful after the fork. I would avoid doing anything until some experts release good tutorials on how to properly split coins.

For a non-technical person like me, if ever there is a bitcoin fork, I will always go for the Bitcoin Network, it would be much complicated to know the difference and would be a bigger risk if I chosed the other one.  Honestly, I guess those who keep the old chain when we have already a new improved chain is in only for profit.  Because I do not see any  other reason why they have to keep them alive.

I generally agree with the idea that users matter, not miners. That is, hash power tends to follow price instead of the reverse. But there are interesting game theory implications here that are going largely ignored.

Unfortunately, miners "following the money" is not a fluid, efficient process when we're talking about incompatible forks of a live network. This is a market process and markets are not efficient. Miners will need to make decisions about what they believe users want, and they will do so based on incomplete information. They may very well be wrong. We could easily see a situation where, say, 35% of users support the legacy chain, 15% of users support the Segwit2x chain, and 50% of users don't know what the hell is going on.

But a miner isn't even privy to that information. They can see node counts (are these sybils?), hashpower (should I follow the other miners?), social media (does it really matter to the network what a couple thousand people are saying on Twitter?), the forums (ditto?)..... what should they do?

It's much better to be a user in this situation. Just sit back and do nothing and let the miners duke it out. You'll have coins on both chains (or neither, if you're more interested in hedging your dollar value)...

I think this guy has a pretty good take on what will happen: https://twitter.com/bitcom21/status/915610111174836224

There are miners already rejecting the agreement, the agreement has been broken a million times, the agreement is poorly written, it lacks a lot of details, it included that it would be followed in order to avoid a hardfork (and since the BCash hardfork happened, and miners in the agreement mined the fork to both, another reason why it was broken), the agreement also didn't include the replay protection measures... it is a total mess and any true bitcoiner should be doing whatever is on its hand to stop this.

If the exchanges that should be listing both coins, dont list both coins, I can't wait for the legal consequences, because some people with a lot of money is going to be extremely pissed off at some corporations playing around with their bitcoins.

I will simply keep both of them in hand. Last time with BCH hardfork and choose to dump BCH and keep BTC. But this time is different, it's too risky to make a choice when I can not fully understand the situation.

Does it mean if you buy 1 bitcoin, you will get 1 2x coin for free?