https://cointelegraph.com/news/segwit2x-hard-fork-could-have-devastating-consequences-for-bitcoin
I am still wondering whether the risk of hodling through the fork is worth the nerves
I am still wondering whether the risk of hodling through the fork is worth the nerves
Still waiting for the "experts in technology" of this thread to refute this point:
Quote
Bitcoin’s network is going to work exactly as Satoshi programmed it. At present, miner support for the 2x hard fork is running around 83 percent. Bitcoin developer Jimmy Song made some rough calculations, based on 90 percent miner support for the fork. This is reasonable since statistical variance causes miner support to fluctuate.
Song reasoned that, if 90 percent of Bitcoin’s miners follow through with their current plan to mine SegWit2x, then:
“ Block 494784 splits to 1X and 2X. Initially, 1X has 100 minute blocks, 2X has 11 minute blocks on average. 1X and 2X have the exact same difficulty.”
Legacy Bitcoin (which Song calls “1X”) would have 100 minute blocks. This means a single transaction with a high enough fee to make it into the next block would require 10 hours to receive six confirmations. It would take nearly half a day to fully confirm a transaction on the 1X chain!
How is the ecosystem going to react to a nearly two hour block time? Given the great slowness of the network - an order of magnitude slower than pre-fork--how high will fees rise? If the block size remains the same (on the 1X chain) but there are only a tenth as many blocks, fees will have to rise to monstrous levels since there will be 10 times the competition for space in a block.
This will be no brief inconvenience, either. Song estimates that if the mining split remains as it is today, the 1X chain won’t experience a difficulty drop until Feb. 3, and block times won’t return completely to normal until March 10. Die-hard supporters of the legacy chain will be contending with nearly two hour block times and sky-high fees for about three months!
Song reasoned that, if 90 percent of Bitcoin’s miners follow through with their current plan to mine SegWit2x, then:
“ Block 494784 splits to 1X and 2X. Initially, 1X has 100 minute blocks, 2X has 11 minute blocks on average. 1X and 2X have the exact same difficulty.”
Legacy Bitcoin (which Song calls “1X”) would have 100 minute blocks. This means a single transaction with a high enough fee to make it into the next block would require 10 hours to receive six confirmations. It would take nearly half a day to fully confirm a transaction on the 1X chain!
How is the ecosystem going to react to a nearly two hour block time? Given the great slowness of the network - an order of magnitude slower than pre-fork--how high will fees rise? If the block size remains the same (on the 1X chain) but there are only a tenth as many blocks, fees will have to rise to monstrous levels since there will be 10 times the competition for space in a block.
This will be no brief inconvenience, either. Song estimates that if the mining split remains as it is today, the 1X chain won’t experience a difficulty drop until Feb. 3, and block times won’t return completely to normal until March 10. Die-hard supporters of the legacy chain will be contending with nearly two hour block times and sky-high fees for about three months!
Here is the obvious lack of logic of some developers:
Quote
Bitcoin’s core devs, who unanimously support the 1X chain, have said that in the event of any attacks, they will simply change the proof-of-work algorithm. While this could work, it would require yet another hard fork.
It should be remembered that part of Core’s opposition to SegWit2x is because hard forks are dangerous, yet these same developers propose to foist a risky hard fork on an already unstable 1X network that’s under attack by a larger chain. This seems unwise in the extreme. Not only that, but changing 1X’s proof-of-work algorithm would tend to undermine its assertion that it’s the “true” heir to Satoshi’s original Bitcoin network.
It should be remembered that part of Core’s opposition to SegWit2x is because hard forks are dangerous, yet these same developers propose to foist a risky hard fork on an already unstable 1X network that’s under attack by a larger chain. This seems unwise in the extreme. Not only that, but changing 1X’s proof-of-work algorithm would tend to undermine its assertion that it’s the “true” heir to Satoshi’s original Bitcoin network.
PS: Hoping, as usual, that the trolls in this thread are dedicated to discredit the author instead of discussing their points.
_______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________
On the other hand, I'm surprised by the amount of non-funny stupidity that spreads around here some times. Comparing Bitcoin with Facebook (in a hardfork context), is like comparing bitcoin with tulips. Genius!
