Segwit2x is NOT a fork…it is intended to supplant the existing bitcoin chain in effectively a hostile takeover

I am seeing many people getting excited about the coming Segwit2x "fork", thinking they will be getting a new batch of B2X coins, similar to what happened with BCH. To be clear, in November, when the miners begin mining larger blocks, there is no replay protection, and your existing bitcoins will effectively be co-opted to become part of the B2X chain. There has been little to no testing on what that means for everyone who does NOT want to adopt BTC1 based code. They have not done any testing because Garzik, Silbert et al are expecting the original bitcoin chain to simply be eliminated. If this does not alarm you, then it should.

submitted by /u/Arct1cF0x
[link] [comments]

The audacity of B2X is that they *know* it’s unbelievably contentious, and that’s their excuse for *needing* to kill the minority chain. Otherwise it “might not work.”

I have now seen on multiple occasions from many of the top proponents of B2X that if they add replay protection the whole thing will die… except they think 90% of the hash means they can do whatever they want.

The fact that they push this in the face of admitting that under conditions of competition their chain will fail miserably, is an admission that there is absolutely, unequivocally, and without question, no way there is consensus for this change.

There just isn't support for this… and the fact that they are simultaneously trying to force this on the network, take advantage of the ignorant money left on Coinbase (essentially pulling the rug out from under 11 million uninformed users), and admitting that it won't work if they just get their supporters on board is seriously unbelievable.

They have even dropped every narrative up to this point. They don't argue about fees anymore, they don't argue about it being a necessity, and they don't even argue scaling. They literally just say "doesn't matter, we agreed, and there is consensus." And yet there is so obviously not any kind of consensus whatsoever that I have a really really hard time believing these people are that dense.

I've slowly come to the realization that they just don't care what users want. I have been directly told this numerous times by r/BTC people, but I'm not one to just take a random comment and apply it to someone totally different.

Now, however, the argument is so often touted that "it doesn't matter what users want, miners have decided" and to go completely unanswered (just upvotes) that I can't help but think that this is their new position.

TL;DR. It totally seems the narrative of this fork has changed. They once attempted reasoned arguments that I disagreed with about severity, critical scaling now, bitcoin will die and so on. Now that all that turned out to be bullshit and we have plenty of scaling, they have just fallen back on "who cares about users, users are stupid, miners made an agreement."

• for those that claim this isn't their stance, I've heard it from many HF supporters that users have no idea what they want, they are stupid, and hash power is all that matters. Literally just ask them, no one is even hiding that opinion.

edit: spelling, a few words, clarity

submitted by /u/Cryptoconomy
[link] [comments]