Topic: Why SegWit2X is on developement If it's the same as SegWit? (Read 481 times)

maybe you have forgotten but to many this https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...btc1:segwit2x looks like gibberish specially if you are not familiar with bitcoin code like which file to look for to see the changes regarding this, or if you are not familiar with c++
and we are looking at 4,913 additions and 557 deletions

the code is not the same

btc1 includes increasing the base block.. something core refuse to include.

it also pressures the community to activate segwit sooner at a lower threshold which then rejects non segwit blocktemplate blocks to then get to the 95% to then activate the other bip
(80% activation causes a 20% reject/orphan of non segwit blocks, which then activates bip9's 95% activation)

here is the thing though.
pools can false flag the segwit activation to activate segwit without having to care about node counts of nodes actually having segwit code.. but the 2mb blocks part (3 months later) does require nodes to actually have code to accept blocks over 1mb. so code is needed BEFORE activation to start getting to a point where there will be sufficient node counts available to actually accept blocks over 1mb to not cause any orphan drama later

but core dont really care about if nodes(users) do or dont have code for segwit let alone 2mb.. all they care about is getting pools to activate it by any means

the stupid part is that people are false block flagging before actually running the actual code. which means its a false flag sybil activation. no pools or nodes should flag for something unless they are actually running the code to actually do what they are flagging.

even litecoin hasnt bothered much about segwit. even now the pools cant be arsed to even use segwit kypairs for their blockrewards.

but its better for the community to have the code first before activation so that there is no drama..

its worth people actually reading code and stop reading reddit

This they hope to reduce the speed of transactions and reduced fees for their passage. In any case, all updates always scare people even if they are aimed at improving. All people are by nature conservative and therefore draw such apocalyptic scenarios.

It'd be a risk to activate Segwit on a platform that's based on a contentious fork. It'd be possible for the economic majority to see this as an chance to block the 2x part after activation of segwit so perhaps 2x devs are waiting for their fork to be locked in to move forward.

Any piece of code which makes assumptions on the block size is problematic if you want to increase it. If you change one piece of code you better test everything.

probably more stalling. they want to comprehensively break away from core even though it basically uses all their code and install some type of veto.

From what I have read, Segwit uses bit 1 to signal while Segwit2x uses bit 4 and then the hardfork part, weight limit from 4 MB to 8 MB. I guess since there is a difference in implementation between Segwit and Segwit2x changes needs to be made to the existing Segwit code which has been tested and successfully activated in Litecoin while Segwit2x is being developed and would be put to first and last testing within three weeks.

well lol, here the code is exactly the same i think, your comparison is not that good man, if the code it a copy paste just with added 2mb fork, they shoudl activate it like this is a segwit without the block of 2mb, probably just a deadline the 1 august date?

Why would they run multiple checks at every space rocket launch even rockets are the same? Lots of at stake I guess, and they are pros.

I don't understand. I know that SegWit was tested and everything and since SegWit2X is SegWit, just with bigger blocks. What are they testing exactly and why they are on Alpha, they could just take the SegWit code? can't they simply activate it as SegWit since they reached the 80% then after 6 months, they activate the 2 blocks thing?