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]

Is Segwit2x the real banker takeover?

DCG (Digital Currency Group) is the company spearheading the Segwit2x movement. The CEO of DCG is Barry Silbert, a former investment banker, and Mastercard is an investor in DCG.

Let's have a look at the people that control DCG:

Three board members are listed, and one Board "Advisor." Three of the four Members/advisors are particularly interesting:

Glenn Hutchins: Former Advisor to President Clinton. Hutchins sits on the board of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he was reelected as a Class B director for a three-year term ending December 31, 2018. Yes, you read that correctly, currently sitting board member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Barry Silbert: CEO of DCG (Digital Currency Group, funded by Mastercard) who is also an Ex investment Banker at (Houlihan Lokey)

And then there's the "Board Advisor,"

Lawrence H. Summers:

"Chief Economist at the World Bank from 1991 to 1993. In 1993, Summers was appointed Undersecretary for International Affairs of the United States Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration. In 1995, he was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin. In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury. While working for the Clinton administration Summers played a leading role in the American response to the 1994 economic crisis in Mexico, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the Russian financial crisis. He was also influential in the American advised privatization of the economies of the post-Soviet states, and in the deregulation of the U.S financial system, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act."

Seriously….The segwit2x deal is being pushed through by a Company funded by Mastercard, Whose CEO Barry Silbert is ex investment banker, and the Board Members of DCG include a currently sitting member of the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the Ex chief Economist for the World Bank and a guy responsible for the removal of Glass Steagall.

It's fair to call these guys "bankers" right?

So that's the Board of DCG. They're spearheading the Segwit2x movement. As far as who is responsible for development, my research led me to "Bitgo". I checked the "Money Map" And sure enough, DCG is an investor in Bitgo.

(BTW, make sure you take a good look take a look at the money map and bookmark it for reference later, ^ it is really helpful.)

"Currently, development is being overseen by bitcoin security startup BitGo, with help from other developers including Bloq co-founder Jeff Garzik."

So Bitgo is overseeing development of Segwit2x with Jeff Garzick. Bitgo has a product/service that basically facilitates transactions and supposedly prevents double spending. It seems like their main selling point is that they insert themselves as middlemen to ensure Double spending doesn't happen, and if it does, they take the hit, of course for a fee, so it sounds sort of like the buyer protection paypal gives you:

"Using the above multi-signature security model, BitGo can guarantee that transactions cannot be double spent. When BitGo co-signs a BitGo Instant transaction, BitGo takes on a financial obligation and issues a cryptographically signed guarantee on the transaction. The recipient of a BitGo Instant transaction can rest assured that in any event where the transaction is not ultimately confirmed in the blockchain, and loses money as a result, they can file a claim and will be compensated in full by BitGo."


So basically, they insert themselves as middlemen, guarantee your transaction gets confirmed and take a fee. What do we need this for though when we have a working blockchain that confirms payments in the next block already? 0-conf is safe when blocks aren't full and one confirmation should really be good enough for almost anyone on the most POW chain. So if we have a fully functional blockchain, there isn't much of a need for this service is there? They're selling protection against "The transaction not being confirmed in the Blockchain" but why wouldn't the transaction be getting confirmed in the blockchain? Every transaction should be getting confirmed, that's how Bitcoin works. So in what situation does "protection against the transaction not being confirmed in the blockchain" have value?

Is it possible that the Central Bankers that control development of Segwit2x plan to restrict block size to benefit their business model just like our good friends over at Blockstream attempted to do, although unsuccessfully as they were not able to deliver a working L2 in time?

It looks like Blockstream was an attempted corporate takeover to restrict block size and push people onto their L2, essentially stealing business away from miners. They seem to have failed, but now it almost seems like the Segwit2x might be a culmination of a very similar problem.

Also worth noting these two things, pointed out by /u/Adrian-x:

MasterCard made this statement before investing in DCG and Blockstream. (Very evident at 2:50 – enemy of digital cash watch the whole thing.)

Blockstream is part of the DCG portfolio and the day after the the NYA Barry personal thanked Adam Back for his assistant in putting the agreement together.

So segwit2x takes power away from core, but then gives it to guess who…Mastercard and central bankers.

So, to recap:

DCG's Board of Directors and Advisors is almost entirely made up of Central Bankers including one currently sitting Member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and another who was Chief Economist at the World Bank.

The CEO of the company spearheading the Segwit2x movement (Barry Silbert) is an ex investment banker at Houlihan Lokey. Also, Mastercard is an investor in the company DCG, which Barry Silbert is the CEO of.

The company overseeing development on Segwit2x, Bitgo, has a product/service that seems to only have utility if transacting on chain and using 0-Conf is inefficient or unreliable.

Segwit2x takes power over Bitcoin development from core, but then literally gives it to central bankers and Mastercard. If segwit2x goes through, BTC development will quite literally be controlled by central bankers and a currently serving member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Did we just spend so much time fighting and bickering with core that we totally missed the REAL takeover of Bitcoin, happening right before our eyes, by the likes of currently serving Federal Reserve Bank of New York Board Members?

In my opinion, this really points to the cash fork being the real Bitcoin.

EDIT: I should clarify that it is not the 2x part only that I see as the takeover. I think somewhere my wording indicated I thought a block size increase part was bad, but that's not what I meant. Segwit2x is the trick that was used to get segwit on the chain, IMO, but the 2x part seems like the nail in the coffin, taking control of the protocol from Core, giving it right to bankers.

EDIT: Let's not forget that Blockstream is also beholden to the same investors, DCG.

By: u/poorbrokebastard

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

Why Segwit2x would be a government takeover of bitcoin

Because a small group of corporations subject to full government financial regulations will have taken over the project.

This sets a dangerous precedent.

It sets the precedent that this well regulated group of corporations now 'control' the bitcoin software with cooperation of a group of miners.

Having set this precedent once, governments can then legally compel them to add full AML/KYC, blacklists, and whitelists, to the network.

They can no longer claim 'we can't do that'!!

If they demonstrate they directly control bitcoin just once, that means they own it forever. It is a bell that cannot be 'unrung'.

This is irrefutable and anyone who has read the history of PayPal (which originally intended to be much more like bitcoin) can see it is true.

For those who don't know:

  • AML stands for 'anti-money laundering'
  • KYC stands for 'know your customer'
  • Whitelists are pre-approved users of the network who get preferential treatment (corporations and banks)
  • Blacklists are people the government suspects of being a bad actor and are blocked from using the network. This includes entire nation states like North Korea, China, Venezuela, Iran, etc. Corporations would face criminal charges if they do not comply. Again, just read the history of PayPal. This isn't 'FUD' this is history!

Realize that most of the signers of the NYA are already subject to these regulations which they must apply to their customers.

However, since currently they can claim 'no one has control' over the bitcoin network itself they cannot be compelled to censor transactions.

Once Segwit 2X activates that will no longer be true.

I strongly urge everyone in the bitcoin community to read the book 'PayPal wars'. People need to know the history here!

submitted by /u/jratcliff63367
[link] [comments]