Relax guys, even ViaBTC is now saying that they intend to adhere to the Segwit2x agreement:
https://www.bitcoin.com/public-service-announcementAs suspected, it was just a game theory move (a ridiculous one though) to exercise some pressure to "guarantee" the second part of the agreement (2x blocksize).
I don't even think the drop has been due to this... it's just a minor correction before propeling to new highs early August.
Are you kidding? They propped this BCC altcoin up for one purpose. As the 2X date approaches, they are going to have loads of fun switching their hashrate back and forth from Bitcoin to BCC blockchain, in an attempt to strong arm the core developers/community and FUD the shit out of the market and cause massive amounts of hysteria, fear and price volatility.
Mark my words. Roger and Jihan will be cackling with glee the whole time.
Not kidding, yet you are probabilistically right. That's why I am NOW (after Segwit passed with flying colors) in favor of the FIXED 2MB blocksize increase. It won't do any harm if done right and it will remove any standing argument for their FUD attempts. Win-Win.
Reasonable thoughts, but I am wary of any on-chain scaling solution that makes it harder to run a full node.
My position is: with segwit working, comes the Lightning Network. With the LN, many more people will want to run a full node, if only to have a LN node up. LN routes on Tor, so the more we are, the merrier. Besides, several small channels can help decentralize the LN, should any bank or similar wish to stake serious collateral to open lots of channels.
Additionally, on the LN there's a chance to collect small fees: for channel operation (they will probably be low or zero, at least at the beginning), or for LN watching, ready to issue a penalty transaction if someone tries to cheat. Stifling growth of the number of nodes at this stage seems unwise to me.
