Topic: Will BCH kill BTCSegWit while reinstating BTCSatoshi? - page 5. (Read 5187 times)

So if your BTC ever went through a segwit transaction, even if you are holding it in legacy format address, it would still be vulnerable to this hypothetical attack?

For example you are holding BTC in address 1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (1), then you send this BTC to address bc1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, then you send this to another legacy address 1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (2).

You are holding your BTC in legacy format, but it has a previous transaction in a segwit bech32 format. This means it's vulnerable to the miners stealing it?

Maybe if you send it through a couple other legacy format transactions it becomes unfeasible for them? (im just asking out of intuition since I don't know how this works tbh, but I guess the more legacy transactions in your BTC history after a segwit transaction the better, as in the further you get from it) or it makes no difference? because on that case It would be too much of a mess to survive. If segwit proliferates most people will hold BTC that went through a segwit transaction at some point in time except the BTC you are holding pre-segwit activation and freshly mined BTC from miners that I guess are spawned in legacy format and not bech32.

Also have you run the TRB software? does it do anything special to avoid BTC that has history of segwit transactions? or are they simply transacting with people OTC and never using any exchange?

Also is the HD format from Bitcoin Core considered safe? (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawiki)

I think if you tried to run TRB node with your wallet.dat in HD mode it wouldn't work.

TRB client is probably very slow and resource demanding. Core client loads so fast compared to years ago when I used to run Bitcoin-qt 0.7.0 or something which was my first ever used client I think, so on this department it's an improvement.

I heard but did not verify that Bitcoin was hitting 7+ tx/sec recently.

Big blockers will swarm back into BCH and LTC.

Then SegWit gets killed and they will go bananas into BCH.

My scenario is playing out exactly as I expected. Tada.

Bitmain outsmarted the Blockheads as expected.

P.S. I’m so thrilled that 5 voters think I’m looney. Means I must be close to being correct.

Once we're past this airdrop mania, I guess focus will gp back to fees.

The mempool on bitcoin is rising again, and basically as long as the blocks are full, people will use other coins to move money and transact with.

The mods already deleted it (you’re not allowed to read it). And I am not going to write it again. Try clicking the link in the prior post, but note that archive.is appears to not be functioning properly at the moment.

SegWit isn’t even an altcoin. It is a donation protocol that rides on top of BTC that enables fools to donate their BTC to the miners (in a future double-spend) when ever they use a SegWit transaction. It’s a clever scheme your masters have devised to separate you from your BTC. Yet some idiots support this as if it is some ideologically correct community consensus or some other rapefugee logic.

Core will not tell you this, but the reality will end up vindicating me as it usually does. Did you also disagree with me when I said buy LTC at $6? How about when I said nibble on Byteball when it was $1 million mcap? When I said buy ETH at $45?

---

Following quotes are paraphrased to hide identity.


When the community decides to support a HF, that is also destroying immutability. But the 51% attack to take already confirmed SegWit donations is not even possible if users do not use a brain dead SegWit wallet which issues “pay to anyone” transactions. It is the creation of SegWit wallets which has enabled a booty to pile up which enables a 51% attack. That is why I said SegWit wallets are a security attack on Bitcoin. Yet you somehow think the drunk-on-koolaid community is important.

Your delusions about community are hilarious. You drink your slave masters’ koolaid.

There is no consensus until the whales have voted. The whales have not voted yet, they’re waiting for the SegWit booty to pile up.

There’s no damn way the whales are going to allow that SegWit crap. Absolutely zero. Blockstream is a gimmick to take BTC from fools who are fooled by the concept of democracy applied to cryptocurrency.

You claim you are for immutability but then you talk out two sides of your mouth in a duplicitous manner.

Are you for immutability or not?

The whales are. Go against them at your peril.

Do you really think those whiny faggots at Blockstream are relevant? The devil at Trilema who loves porn is in control (well he and other whales who hate democracy and love immutability). And you hate it don’t you because he is so immoral? Cryptocurrency is not about any one person’s morals. It is about protocol and game theory. Please. Understand. This.


There is no hardfork required for miners to take the SegWit donations ongoing. The hardfork is only to collect and double-spend the SegWit that was already confirmed in blocks. But even this “51% attack” is entirely legal in the protocol. A 51% attack is not an illegal outcome. The protocol is a competitive game theory and there is nothing illegal when adhering to the protocol. Not even immoral. Perfectly just.

You do not seem to understand that what ever is legal in the protocol is just and right and good. The law is the protocol, not your wishy-washy ambiguous idea of what the community decided.

The SegWit that is being issued is “pay to anyone”. Miners taking that while conforming to Satoshi’s protocol is not equivalent to mutating the protocol (in Satoshi’s protocol the SegWit transactions are “pay to anyone”). It is entirely within the protocol. Whereas increasing the money supply limit would change the protocol. So you’re incorrect to equate the two as functionally equivalent. One is protocol legal, the other is protocol illegal.


Incorrect. You can’t equate any fork to Satoshi’s protocol because no fork is ever final. This is why only Satoshi’s protocol can ever be the winner. Nothing else has any certain lasting stability. If the community idiotically approves a new protocol which creates a booty to fund a 51% attack, why are they surprised when their consensus is not stable? Lol. Really you’re smarter than this aren’t you.

You fundamentally do not understand that proof-of-work is never final. It is probabilistic. There is never any final community consensus.

You have some basic holes in your understanding of Byzantine systems. There are systems such as Byzantine Agreement which do reach finality but they have a liveness threshold and can stall. Proof-of-work is probabilistic and can never stall (unless there are no miners at all so we can say the liveness threshold is asymptotically ~0), but it is never final. My new decentralized ledger algorithm is also probabilistic but it is not proof-of-work and it is not proof-of-stake. It is something totally new which scales better, can’t be subverted by the whales, and which does not consume electricity.


No you fail to understand. The SegWit is going to be removed from BTC by miners taking it as donations, because flies go to honey and miners go to profitability of booties.

BCH is only going to benefit in that while BTC is being attacked, it will be a safe haven. And also for big blockers who do not want to return to 1MB as the SegWit scaling lie is totally obliterated.


Lol. Look at the Rube Goldberg machine they’ve created which is all for making donations to the miners and they’ve sold you the users on the idea that it is technologically astute.      


I also told everyone in my private group that BTC would go back up to $5100+ before the alts started moving back up. Which is precisely what happened.

---

Follow-up discussion excerpted only for the most important parts and also again paraphased to conceal writing style:



Well in the case of SegWit is very simple. The reality is that SegWit creates a booty that incentivizes (funds!) a 51% attack. The Bitcoin whitepaper states the security assumption that miners will not have the private keys to most transactions otherwise the security is destroyed. So SegWit is a direct attack on Bitcoin’s original security model.

Other bug fixes to Bitcoin which were apparently accepted by The Real Bitcoin, apparently improved security not weakened it.

My stance is that any other changes are altcoins and should not be marketed as Bitcoin. If we want to improve a cryptocurrency then airdrop it and fork it. But name it something else. Do not cheat like Blockstream did and force a contentious fight which to some extent arguably stalled the entire sector for 2 years.

Cryptocurrencies that have ongoing developers (and able to be exchanged for other currencies not just spent on goods & services so thus having an expectation of capital appreciation) are securities and have to be regulated. See the new SAFT whitepaper which I recently analysed for more on that.


If the initial protocol has not been designed to be secure against 51% attacks, then its not viable. And this is why I explained recently at the inception of this discussion about SegWit, that long-term proof-of-work is not viable.

My point is that the ability of the community to HF is design flaw of proof-of-work. And it will get worse as transaction fees rise relative to block rewards, for the game theory research reasons I recently shared.


SegWit was a HF. Any fork which continues where SegWit forked off, is Satoshi’s protocol. So the former is an altcoin and the latter is Bitcoin.

Actually afaik the “pay to anyone” aspect of SegWit is compatible with Satoshi’s protocol (and allows the miners to take them as donations) and thus really any fork containing SegWit transactions is not a HF, except that SegWit also included other changes which required a HF. In any case, a fork which accepts SegWit transactions as donations is not a fork of Satoshi. Thus no HF ever occurred. SegWit is the only HF here in this case.

Any HF which funds and basically forces economically returning to the former protocol is self-defeating and responsible for its own demise.

So the objectivity here is that the possibility of HFs remove all objectivity. Thus the ability of 51% attacks creates subjectivity and thus the only objective solution is that all HFs should be considered altcoins. No anointing by politics. All dispute is solved economically in free markets when all HFs compete against each other as altcoins.

Any one who wants to create new functionality can airdrop to an altcoin or create an altcoin with an entirely new distribution.

Otherwise all we have is discord. Creating altcoins enables the market to vote with its money. Nobody should be anointed except by the market. Blockstream employed deception and other tactics to try to subvert the free market process, but they are going to have their heads handed to them on a silver platter as they deserve for their inept and corrupt malfeasance.

The free market works.


True only because Rube Goldberg machines self-destruct.

In software adding complexity can never be slowed down (it is like a snowball that requires more and more fixes and changes) except by extricating the cancer. So your assumption was misplaced on the face of it, but you’re rescued by the fact that complexity bloat is complete failure in software engineering and will thus cause immutability by self-destruction.

Can you give is the TLDR of why you think Segwit is 'also an altcoin'?  I think I may have missed that part of your thought process.  And I read your posts from time to time in the past. 

You have like how many accounts on here now...?  5 or so?

I don't agree with some of your opinions but they're fun reads for the most part.  Keep it up.

Well, well, well, somebody understands what time it is:


And you know this was Bitmain’s plan all along to feign support for SegWit, but kill it in multiple steps.

The first step is yes killing 2x. The NY agreement was always a farce that fails in November. That was part of the plan.

The second step is attacking SegWit.

Going to be a lot of shocked people around here when BCH hits $1500, just like when someone said buy LTC at $6 and it hit $85.

Here is a version of the Blockstream koolaid deception and lies:


The above is how a Blockhead would spread disinformation and propaganda.

The truth is that SegWit was a change that violated the immutability of Bitcoin if it is assumed that miners will not treat the transactions as “pay to anyone”. The Real Bitcoin refuses to honor that change because it demands we do not fall down that slippery slope of mutating Bitcoin. So stealing[accepting the donations] from the fools who “pay to anyone” is honoring the immutable protocol of Bitcoin. Yet a Blockhead would try to play politics and equate protecting the immutability with doing the opposite.

In-fucking-credulous!

And for a follow-up it, the propaganda gets even more twisted:


n00bs have no clue.

They want transaction scaling on the reserve currency of crypto which makes no sense because it violates the immutability and sacrifices security which are the key attributes that gives the reserve currency its stature as compared to altcoins.

The transaction scaling is available on altcoins and on exchanges.

That n00bs think SegWit is better because it adds more features exemplifies how they are technologically ignorant sheep who wilfully (boisterously and even belligerently) want to be deceived into to making donations to the miners as I explained in my prior post.

BCH gave the n00bs what they wanted which is an increase in block size (some fixed amount of transaction capacity increase), without destroying the security as SegWit does. It is at a higher stature as any other airdrop, because it has the backing of the large mining cartels. It is probably just a decoy and not superior to the The Real Bitcoin (TRB = no SegWit), but it is certainly better than the SegWit insecure crapola which encourages users to spend their transactions to “pay to anyone” on TRB (aka BTCSatoshi) protocol which will probably ultimately prevail.


That is what they said when LTC was at $6 and they also said “WTF?” when Byteball was $1 million marketcap and I recommended nibbling on it.

How about we wait until the end game to take an accounting? By my book, I am already at 100X gains since the start of this year in terms of my speculation recommendations.

Btw, a phase transition mooning is the time to sell, not the time to buy. But please do buy more BTCSegWit at $8000, lol. (And please tell us about it boastfully while pounding your chest)

P.S. $5600 to $8000 is < 50% increase. $240ish to $1000 would be 300+% gain. Buy low, sell high.


Presuming the community of whales would not accept the TRB, then BCH is the closest to BTCSatoshi of any fork thus far.

SegWit is not even close to being Bitcoin, unless we assume the SegWit transactions are donations to miners. In which case, yes SegWit is Bitcoin and it is a donation system which Blockstream created so that all the n00bs can be stripped of their BTC in the form of donations to miners.

---

SegWit2X is probably deleterious. It splits the SegWit supporters probably causing some of them to fight each other and/or confusion. (getting them to split their mining resources probably helps with any future attack on one of the two forks)

Bitcoin Gold is not Bitcoin at all. It changes the proof-of-work algorithm which means it has no mining cartels of significance behind it.

BCH is the only semi-legitimate airdrop fork of Bitcoin. It provides a counter-correlated hedge against BTC peaking and then declining in price. LTC also provides this, and also offers SegWit for those who still think SegWit is important.

My expectation has been that BTC would moon first, then LTC, and then BCH.

SegWit will die a fiery death. And Bitcoin gold will be insignificant.

Hopefully at the end of all this BTC = TRB (aka Satoshi’s protocol with no SegWit). A block size increase or not is okay with me, but no increase is better for protecting immutability.

---

Wouldn’t that indicate it is the most counter-correlated to BTC  

Aren’t we supposed to buy what is panic sold and sell what is panic bought  


ftfy.

---

I agree all forks of Satoshi’s protocol must eventually die, including BTCSegWit and BCH. But the question is what happens between now and that final outcome.

Dash is a masternode obfuscated centralized controlled scam.

Litecoin is SegWit.

Neither of which have Bitcoin’s airdropped distribution.

BCH is pure Satoshi Bitcoin (no SegWit) except with an 8MB block size and a faster difficulty adjustment. BCH is supported by the largest Bitcoin mining concern.

BTCSegWit is at $5700 nosebleed and is polluted with SegWit, no longer a pure Satoshi protocol unless we assume all the SegWit transactions are to be double-spent as future donations to the miners.

Please be factual in your statements.


Are you going to take profits out of BTCSegWit at $6000+ into LTC, NEO, ETH, XMR which are all near an ATH or into BCH which is near an ATL   Seems like a no brainer decision to me. I like to sell high and buy low.

The best speculators buy when everyone else is panic selling. I’m hoping for one more leg up in BTCSegWit and one more leg down in BCH.

I had written my prior post at ~10pm for me after being awake since 6am which is means I could barely hold my eyes open (recovering from liver disease at age 52 is like this). Upon awaking, I added the following to my prior post (because I was thinking about what I had written while laying in bed) before I read your comment:


Your research (I had not had time/energy recently to go back over the Trilema) seems to indicate that an attack taking BTC back to 1MB with Satoshi’s protocol might still be a possibility. Or as I was thinking recently, maybe such an attack removes SegWit (by stealing it so no one wants to run SegWit clients anymore) while adopting a larger block size. I doubt the TRB supporters would object to a reasonable increase in the block size, if it enabled the destruction of SegWit.

And I can contemplate that Jihan Wu may just be using BCH to gain more TRB (aka BTCSatoshi) in the end game (which was my original theory). When and if BTCSegWit is attacked with a rollback stealing all the SegWit booty (and my theory about possibly double-spending derivatives of BTC that had been spent by the attacking miners for buying BCH but not other BTC spent since ~Aug 4 where they do not have your private key), then presumably BCH will skyrocket enabling the attacking miner cartel to trade BCH for TRB at fire sale prices to reset a new bull market in the future. A pump of BCH could possibly start before any such attack.

My thought/theory this morning is that an illusion of consensus around BTCSegWit is I posit based on the fact that everyone who disagrees has STFU waiting for SegWit to blow up. Why not reap the benefits of the pump in the price first. I’m thinking that community consensus is tenuous and loses any foundation when the security flaws of SegWit become apparent in an emergency scenario wherein talking about community directed paths forward is impractical because that insecure trash would be under active attack. Additionally as I stated, I believe mostly only minnows supported SegWit and any whales who have been hoodwinked by Blockstream will quickly get a re-education about reality, wake up, and adopt a sane strategy that Bitcoin has no lasting value if it continues to fork-off. All contentious forks should fail, which means SegWit, BCH, and everything fails, then TRB wins. Of course those who want transaction volume scaling are appalled by such a proposition, but Bitcoin does not need transaction volume scaling in order for the crypto ecosystem to scale. The altcoins will provide the volume scaling and Bitcoin is the reserve currency and widescale unit-of-account that provides economic scaling. Destroying the security of Bitcoin to add dubious Rube Goldberg-ish offchain volume scaling does not make any sense (other than as a deception to pump up the price and enable the whales to buy back at fire sale prices and steal a lot of BTC from fools).

As I said, I do not have any particular affinity for BCH (or even TRB), but I will not continue to use BTC while that SegWit crap is on it. I will transition to holding a different token as my reserve currency (unless I can find a reliable way to buy and sell BTC without the BTC ever having SegWit nor BTC spent for BCH in its lineage). No way I am going to hold as a reserve currency a coin which an insecure transaction format which creates a massive booty incentivizing miners to fork off and steal it. And which alienates whales who want security to be the first priority. The ecosystem depends on BTC to be secure, as it is used for everything from holding ICO funds raised to being the backing for exchanges, etc.. Blockstream looks to me to be an intentionally planted Trojan Horse (even the devs might be oblivious to their role). Possibly that behind the curtain, the financiers of Bitmain are the same financiers of Blockstream, employing an Hegelian dialectic (aka manufactured crisis or false flag) to achieve their aims of aggregating most of the BTC on the mountain in Israel. (okay the conspiracy angle isn’t required, just a thought)


They expect the miners to steal the SegWit booty once it becomes large enough to finance a long-range reorganization of the BTC chain.

There seems to be some misunderstanding by some n00bs who think incorrectly that this means most BTC will be stolen. No. Only those foolish enough to send or accept SegWit transactions, and per my other theory, perhaps those who purchase BTC which has a BTC -> BCH trade in its lineage (which might possibly mean obtaining Bitcoin from exchanges is risky).

The attacking miners can’t steal that which they do not have private keys for. SegWit is different because ”pays to script hash” which means pay to anyone and the miner decides (if viewed from a Satoshi protocol immutability perspective).

The inability of 51% attack to steal is fundamental to Bitcoin security and SegWit breaks that. That so many n00bs do not understand this is IMO evidence of Blockstream’s deception.

I posit that Bitmain is a likely the player to orchestrate this, but perhaps in a surreptitious (plausible deniability) manner. Tangentially, I note @Dorky wrote he thinks the financiers of Bitmain may be in Israel, based on some news story he read.

Note Trilema is against centralization and they have been discussing a new hash function which employs an unbounded amount of DRAM memory to defeat ASICs, but afaics they are incorrect. That can’t be employed because it can be DDoSed to hell and/or asymmetrical advantage to miners who have more DRAM than other miners. Their technical acumen may not be as high as their boastfulness, although they do have some very smart guys over there. Blockstream apparently has some smart mathematicians, cryptographers and engineers (e.g. more expert than me in their specific areas of focus). But IMO those guys were given the wrong set of goals (e.g. transaction voluming scaling) and they lack adequate peer review on game theory and mechanism design. They’re moving too fast and in the wrong direction and they also do not adopt the K.I.S.S. principle. Bitcoin was designed by uber high IQ individuals with man-decades invested in design and modelling. It was not some Japanese guy in his garage who created Bitcoin.


Hey I appreciate the frank feedback and discussion. That is how we try to arrive at the truth. But sorry I do not see how you can claim you are objective.

BTCSegWit is not the same protocol as BTCSatoshi (aka TRB = The Real Bitcoin). Do you deny this fact?

My understanding is that SegWit creates transactions that when viewed from Satoshi’s protocol are “pay to anyone”. Do you deny this?

Since version 0.5.3, the same key developers who now mostly work for Blockstream have hijacked the protocol and added complexity and possibly insecure experiments without economic feedback from the whales. I argue that the economic feedback (slap down) is coming and it will be very harsh on those who fail to understand that SegWit is an altcoin. Up until SegWit it was apparently basically possible to run a TRB (v0.5.4) client and pretty much side-step the crap that Blockheads have done to basterdize Bitcoin. But SegWit crossed the line of no return in terms of the whales needing to take action. So I think this is why BCH was created as the leverage for what is coming.

Perhaps I am entirely mistaken about the level of immovable whale support for SegWit. And perhaps I am mistaken about the propensity for a mining cartel attack on the SegWit booty. That is why I said, I am not even 80% sure that any of this will transpire. But my popcorn is ready.  


P.S. note what prompted the creation of this thread was a thread in Altcoin Discussion about BCH bleeding to death and I was concerned that n00bs were going to sell all their BCH without having all arguments presented to them. So I decided to create a poll here in Speculation so that we can all collect the community thinking on this issue. Other than those who want to politicize this issue and will use any tactics they can to belittle discussion, I think most readers are interested in open and civil discussions. That is presuming we are mature adults around here. Ban then LTC goes from $6 to $80 as predicted. Ban again then the SegWit attack occurs as predicted?


EDIT: it should be pointed out that miners have an incentive to support a non-segwit chain even if there is no chain reorganization, because they can attempt to take that ongoing SegWit value for themselves, because as viewed from Satoshi’s protocol, this is a “pay to anyone” transaction. A chain reorganization is a way to capture historic booty and lock miners into the fork with the incentive of the booty to jumpstart the consensus around taking SegWit for the miners. So it is not quite accurate to state that SegWit requires a contentious fork. It merely requires that miners act in their best interests to protect Satoshi’s protocol and the immutability and security of Bitcoin for the maximum long-term value of their hardware investment, as well as maximizing their profit in the short-term. SegWit supporters argue that this is an attack on the community, but rather SegWit enemies argue it a protection against the SegWit attack on Bitcoin.

Another very important factor to consider is that I explained why the miners are owned by the whales and others explained that mining is a horrible business to be in unless you have a plan for world domination. Tie that together with my exposition on why proof-of-work has to become run by a mining oligarchy else it fails to converge as transaction fees increase. Then you can analyse who is into mining and why.  

I took a look at the logs and they seem to think that Craig Wright is a joke, same goes for Bitcoin Cash. They also think segwit2x is a joke or don't seem too concerned about anything of what is going on, so im not sure what the deal is.

They seem to be ok with just ignoring segwit transactions with the TRB software. I don't see how they could remove segwit from the main chain and I don't think they are going to align themselves with an altcoin.

I doubt they are just going to sit back and watch how Barry Shillbert kills the main chain so I suppose they are already working to stop NYA somehow (and obviously they probably talk about that privately). I just saw how f2pool is not even signaling intention anymore. So the famous "95% hashrate" is not the case anymore, it will be less. Enough to survive? well we'll see. I hope so because if 2x wins it's going to be a clusterfuck.

B2X futures on Bitfinex are tanking heavily if that is of any guidance.

https://www.bitfinex.com/order_book/bt2btc

1 B2X goes for 0.15 BTC right now.

I'm guessing you're the same person as iamnotback.  You have a similar posting style.
This can be objectively refuted with a simple point:  using SegWit is not on a separate chain or separate cryptocurrency, so it can't be regarded as an altcoin until that is the case.

I would rather that you suggested it's against satoshi's vision and actually backed up your point rather than making a meaningless and incorrect point to exaggerate yourself.

I think I was perhaps putting too much weight on Trilema.com’s million BTC influence. Rather now I am realizing that Trilema probably has to align themselves with other powerful groups such as Bitmain and Craig Wright’s claimed mining cartel. Seems that a moderate increase in block size is not a protocol item that is an anathema to Trilema to the extent that SegWit is. But honestly I have not really tried to figure this out. I’m just guessing.

However, TRB is tracking BTC minus the SegWit transactions, and BCH transactions are not replayable on TRB. So it’s not quite clear technically how these two forces will align themselves. Perhaps BCH is merely a decoy to use when attacking all other forks of BTC which are not TRB, and then Bitmain dumps BCH for TRB in the end game?

I’m not a 100% confident that there will even be a chain reorganization now. But I’m probably just lulled to sleep by the illusion of SegWit’s dominance in the community of n00bs who think SegWit solves scaling and doesn’t bastardize Bitcoin’s security model and Nash equilibrium consensus game theory in numerous ways.


It’s not about what I want in my dreams for a perfect nirvana, but about the reality. Rule by the mob is what you have in countries where the electricity and water doesn’t stay turned on.


I don’t think that people who don’t even understand that the security model of Bitcoin was that miners can’t steal Bitcoins for which they do not possess the private keys, can be trusted to have a vote. So to remove their vote, the whales may possibly take their BTC (or maybe not, we’ll see).

It isn’t like we didn’t try over and over and over and over to explain to them. But they drooled over SegWit any way.

I’m working on that altcoin for dummies. Perhaps they should head over to an altcoin where they belong.

Bitcoin will not scale for transaction volume until it becomes centralized. It will scale for whales until then. An oligarchy in control could decide to increase block size to any size needed. I think the fight for decentralization will remain for a while, so scaling block size may continue to be resisted for the time being.

I hope SegWit is killed else I will have to stop using Bitcoin! No way I will transact with that SegWit security hole that creates a “pay to anyone” booty for a mining cartel to steal.

Realpolitik (PoW is a plutocracy, big money decides, etc) aside, I have problems with this kind of attitude:Do you think most users are ideologues? Do you think punishing the ones who are ideologues is worth this? Maybe regular users don't have political power, but this level of not giving a shit about them on a personal level is baffling to me.

You seemed convinced before that Bitcoin would revert to 1x, what changed your mind on that?

I think the whales who are mostly anti-Blockstream and anti-SegWit, are just waiting quietly because they want to take your BTC, so they rather not alert you to how they are going to do it:

If I follow your drift both segwit and BCH are altoins and Bitcoin has already disappeared.

I hold both BCH and BTC/Segwit and one is losing value fast while the other is climbing. So I don't expect BCH to replace anything anytime soon. When it is mined en masse, it is dumped en masse, it seems very few big players care about that coin.

If SegWit is stolen over and over by chain reorganizations making the miners ever richer, who is going to continue using SegWit  

However, I’m not even 80% sure the miners are going to do that long-range chain reorganization. We’ll see. My popcorn is ready. Could possibly be some months from now though, if ever.

But it’s difficult to imagine Bitmain doesn’t have something up their sleeve (in addition to the undetectable ASICBOOST which they pay no patent royalties on and in theory they with a chain reorganization could undo any protocol attempt by Blockstream to make ASICBOOST detectable). @Dorky pointed out that Bitmain seems to be perhaps affiliated with Israel as well. We also have the million BTC whale (who claims he was the DAO attacker) over at Trilema.com stating he will support the reorganization that steals SegWit. Roger Ver will probably throw his 300,000+ BTC towards BCH. Maybe BCH is folded back into BTC (retaining the larger blocks perhaps) with the chain reorganization, so it’s the official BTC again?

Note the follow up.

I`m more convinced than before that Segwit is an altcoin ,not an bitcoin improvement.
I don`t agree that BCH will kill Segwit,they both will continue to exsit ,but all those forked "bitcoins" are an obstacle for mass btc adoption around the world.How can you explain to a newbie which one is the real bitcoin-Bitcoin cash,Bitcoin unlmited,B2X...

Hey my point is that SegWit is also an altcoin. And that only Satoshi’s protocol is Bitcoin. But please feel free to disagree. However, who amongst you will actually read all the linked discussion and blogs to get an in depth introduction to all of the factors involved?

http://archive.is/yPH9c (formerly https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bch-bleeding-death-2251762)

Follow-up:

http://archive.is/8TEFu#selection-20289.0-20289.23 (formerly https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.22889412)

---