Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended
lists.linuxfoundation.org
lists.linuxfoundation.org
k
Edit: Otoh, looks like it's seeing a bit of a drop now, but I doubt it will hit the pre-anticipation levels.
Altcoins are surging at the moment, so I believe that lends some credence to the first group being people trying to move into BTC to get more free coin.
I don't know, only if they did not understand that it's a win-win-win situation... they would have equal amount of coins on both chains so none of the three possible outcomes would be actually losing.
Because if you want anything(like cheese or furnace filters), you'll then search for it on Google.
Just playing devils advocate.
It's rise in price is none-the-less astonishing, and is somewhat a testament to the soundness of the security model.
The whole system does require new money coming in all the time to maintain current price levels, as miners need to sell their bitcoin to get paid. It's less than a zero sum situation, as some of that money coming in goes directly to paying for the mining costs.
Since the overall awareness of Bitcoin is relatively low, in terms of actually knowing what it is, and how to get some, this bubble could run a long time, as there is a lot of money in the world, in need of investing.
Does that mean gold is in a bubble? I mean, who are we to say either way? Bitcoin is arguably more useful than gold and it's supply is known with great precision. You could say that Gold is more speculative in a way since somebody could be sitting on a stockpile that is equal to half of the known supply.
> The whole system does require new money coming in all the time to maintain current price levels
That's only true for the next few years, then no new coins are created.
You can't see how it's not a bubble but frankly, I have trouble seeing how we can say it's in a bubble. Maybe it is, but I don't think anybody knows how to evaluate bitcoin... it's not like anything we've seen before.
When IBM started selling computers, their roadmap didn't include home computers because they didn't think that anyone would ever want a computer in their home. We understand the implications of bitcoin now about as much as IBM understood the impact of computers back then.
The price will simply go up when the whales want it to, and go down when said whales want to cash out. Fees could go up or down, China could do X or Y, the Fed could regulate it or not, and the general opinions of the ecosystem don't matter whatsoever - price is fairly solely dictated by the whims of a few dozen elites nowadays.
Or if they can, then given that it's in their interest for the price to keep rising long-term, why not hold and go along for the ride?
But I guess most whales are in competition against each other, rather than cooperating. And that would be a good thing.
In economics, the Gini coefficient is the standard measure
of how inequitable a society is. This is tricky to
determine for Bitcoin, as it's not quiet a "society" in
the Gini sense, one person may have multiple addresses and
many addresses have been used only once or a few times.
(The commonly-cited figure of 0.88 is based on one small
exchange in 2011.) However, a Citigroup analysis from
early 2014 notes: "47 individuals hold about 30 percent,
another 900 a further 20 percent, the next 10,000 about
25% and another million about 20%"; and distribution
"looks much like the distribution of wealth in North Korea
and makes China's and even the US' wealth distribution
look like that of a workers' paradise
Dorit Ron and Adi Shamir found in a 2012 study that only
22% of then-existing Bitcoins were in circulation at all,
there were a total of 75 active users or businesses with
any kind of volume, one (unidentified) user owned a
quarter of all Bitcoins in existence, and one large owner
was trying to hide their pile by moving it around in
thousands of smaller transactions. (Shamir is one of the
most renowned cryptographers in the world and the "S" in
"RSA encryption")"
I can't find any more recent study specific to the Gini coefficient, however these[1] charts show an improvement over this snapshot[2] from May 2015.
[1]: https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.... [2]: https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/1-bitcoin-community-controls...
If someone were to have monitored IP addresses in the swarm it may be possible to correlate attempts from single users hiding their funds across many wallets. Simply looking at the blockchain balances of single addresses will not necessarily indicate a single person controlling many addresses.
https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses....
Trading on attitude is not the best trading analysis strategy, I'm glad you sold before losing more money
Not really.
If you look at, say, the 2010 to 2013, the first two big bubbles then you get something that looks like
As someone who was there and paid close attention, this is not true. E.g. silk road's closure didn't impact BTC for more than a few days, but everyone universally would've said it'd tank BTC's price.
Even when the news were predictable or already known! Bitcoin has never been connected to any "market fundamentals", just hundreds of day traders trying to predict each others reaction to random scraps of news as they come by.
I think you are looking at the wrong market fundamentals.
People getting into bitcoin right now, buy because it can double their money in 6 months. They do not understand anything about Segwit2x.
They see news about bitcoin, look at the price again, and say "Damn, why didn't I buy it already?", and buy. That's your market fundamental right now. That is the value of bitcoin right now: "double your money in half a year".
I'm not saying bitcoin doesn't have any other value, or that it is overvalued right now.
It was for sure. Where do you get your Bitcoin news?
Pre fork BTC price + risk premium ~ BTC post fork + BCH
Pretend like the fork actually taking place and working successfully as comparable to a company's earning reports. The second that news comes in, it prices itself in almost immediately.
However a rational (impartial?) actor should be willing to take that risk if the premium is big enough. That could mean buying pre-fork or selling pre-fork if there is an obvious opportunity. Which means in an efficient market the risk premium should be zero "on average". It's hard to reason about averages with one sample but that sample was distinctly not zero!
You could view Bitcoin + altcoins = total crypto market cap the same way..
You could also argue that if Bitcoin didn't fork previously, the total price of BTC alone would be higher than both forks now. Who knows?
The uncertainty keeps the price down. People expect a fine, but not how large it will be. I believe there are even cases where a company got the max possible fine and still their stock price went up.
There were many people that sold off a lot of their altcoins for bitcoin, so that they could be positioned for the fork coins. They are buying their altcoins again.
There are many people that can't make any decision in the face of uncertainty, and have shaky confidence in bitcoin to begin with, now the biggest uncertainty is gone and they are able to buy now that this is out the way.
Something bad for bitcoin? And it still can't stop it! Look at how resilient it is!
Something good for bitcoin? TOLD YOU SO to the moon!
Not to use the B-word, but bubbles will continue to inflate as long as there are enough new people to put new money in.
I daresay constant is not great. Goes up is better.
Price going up? PURE SPECULATION, DRUGS, AND MONEY LAUNDERING.
Price going down? I TOLD YOU IT WAS A BUBBLE THAT WOULD CRASH.
Price staying steady? JUST WAIT, IT'S A BUBBLE BEING HELD AT A PRICE ARTIFICIALLY, EVEN THOUGH I'LL NEVER MAKE A FALSIFIABLE PREDICTION ABOUT WHEN IT WILL CRASH.
The fact that is was called off gave temporary relief to the markets. It's hard to predict what will happen now, but at least it avoided tanking the market next week (for now).
[1] https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-bogeyman-cometh-segwit2x-5...
That said - if this is true, they've done the difficult but right thing.
Conversely for those who were following this removes the uncertainty around the fork - the downtime of a couple of days, potential 40-50 minute block times, lost coins, replay attacks, etc.
edit: First three responses to the question all within one minute of each other with all completely different opinions. That's why it's so difficult to predict these things!
After the announcement, the price dropped to $1, and has since rebounded to $200.
Maybe the $1000 BT2 price wasn't really a bet on free money, but on the prospect that BT2 might replace BTC.
If the expectation was that post-fork BTC + BT2 ~= today's BTC, that means that today's BTC price was depressed by this possibility.
Now that BT2 is cancelled, the value flows back to BTC.
The Chicago Mercantile Exchange says they'll start trading Bitcoin futures by year-end.
This is because it is more important what is in the message than who wrote it.
not in this instance
not really. why does it matter that this message is authentic? that 2x _really_ isn't going to happen? it can still happen, and it doesn't matter who posts what online.
> it is more important what is in the message than who wrote it.
That statement actually favors the signing of this textual message, since digital signatures provide integrity control in addition to non-repudiation of origin.
Integrity of the message doesn't matter - if you see a message and it makes sense to you, then that is all that is necessary. You can agree or post a response to argue a point. If it's something stupid, what does it matter that it's signed? And if it is from "Satoshi Nakomoto", how naive would you be to actually trust that?
Another way to illustrate this - in the Bitcoin world it is best to assume all messages are spoofed and never trust signatures. Even a signed message can be fake, it could be a lie or it could be written under duress. The only solution is to not trust signatures.
That doesn't matter, because people can independently look at the design of the crypto. Your point about authentic in this context is meaningless.
> Integrity of the message doesn't matter - if you see a message and it makes sense to you, then that is all that is necessary.
That's exactly why you sign a message, to judge the veracity of the contents according to a trust anchor.
> If it's something stupid, what does it matter that it's signed?
You are fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose of signing messages. You don't sign to check stupidity, but to assert that important yet unsigned messages can be repudiated from the party believed to be the origin.
Another way to illustrate this - in the Bitcoin world it is best to assume all messages are spoofed and never trust signatures.
That's WHY you sign messages. It isn't a reason not to sign messages. You are confusing authentication of origin with identity of sender.
Right, you use your brain to check for stupidity, and once that check is complete, identity, authenticity and consistency of the message does not matter.
Bitcoin is a trust-less protocol, you cannot and should not trust any node, miner, developer, any online or offline post. Trust is not a thing in the Bitcoin world, and the tradition of not signing communications is generally rooted in this concept.
In this case you can get all sorts of sybil attacks to manipulate consensus by sheer numbers, including fake news and so forth.
Imagine HN without reputations or limits on spoof accounts.
Please feel free not to believe me-- you shouldn't, I could be shilling for Craig Wright (ironically the one person who has proven that he isn't Satoshi) ....
At this point Satoshi is a principle and a philosophy and bitcoin needs to survive without him.
The person who used that alias would be offended at the idea that the direction of bitcoin should be determined by him.
Ridiculous.
The "New York Agreement" was a blog post, it was never a legally binding and enforceable contract.
There's a strong argument that the "agreement" was designed to fail, as it's hardly a compromise when party A gets what they want immediately, but party B has to wait.
In future, all "agreements" should be ignored.
More important is that those who signed simply have no power to change Bitcoin.
> There's a strong argument that the "agreement" was designed to fail, as it's hardly a compromise when party A gets what they want immediately, but party B has to wait.
Yeah, especially when party A doesn't even sign any agreement.
"Give me the whip!"
"Throw me the idol! ... No time to argue!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ920fat50M
This is why Bitcoin Cash was forked off from the legacy chain before Segwit was added.
This whole issue has never been about block size- that's the lie they tell to try and take control.
It's all about governance and an attempt for the suits to take bitcoin away from the engineer meritocracy.
I understand that-- arguing with core people is sometimes frustrating-- but at the end of the day, core is doing a fantastic job.
because it's not totally controlled by suits already? Who do think is pouring money into mining this stuff.
A censorship resistant digital cash is being built, and it only took 6 small time CEOs to completely throw everyone off and almost derail the project. When someone like CME Group, who now has skin in the game, also starts pulling their weight, who knows if the bitcoin experiment will survive?
[0] https://twitter.com/arronschaar/status/928316853092433920
Bitcoin as it is now is crippled. There is no reason to block on chain scaling except for the Core maintainers to retain their power and allow their second layer solutions to viable.
Multiple dollar fees doesn't require any more arguments. The lack of arguments against on chain scaling, backed by actual research, is what's lacking.
> but the market is screaming "bitcoin is doing it right".
Have you considered that it's driven by speculation instead of technical merit? When the blockchain becomes unusable due to high fees and congestion the bottom will fall out. It cannot be driven by pure speculation forever.
Anyway at this point you're trying to predict the future and I'm sharing anecdotes so we're not getting anywhere, let's tackle your main point:
> The lack of arguments against on chain scaling, backed by actual research, is what's lacking.
The value of full nodes is widely understood by bitcoin contributors [0][1][2]. Increasing the block size directly increases the amount of resources required to run a full node. Increased bandwidth requirements is especially a problem.
It is up to the candidate (s2x), not the incumbent (core) to show that no, it won't be harder to run full nodes, or to show that you can have just as much security by running an SPV node. Because the candidate has failed to back up their proposal with evidence that security is not harmed, the proposal cannot be allowed to move forward. Makes sense?
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinBeginners/comments/3eq3y7/fu...
There is no credible research done, there are no numbers, yet even the smallest size increase is blocked.
It's also blocked by the same people who have previously supported even larger increases. What made them change their minds? Sure isn't any new research.
But the fundamental issue is that not everyone need to run a full node as long as you can connect to sufficiently many nodes yourself. There's simply no point in engaging in full node fetishism where everyone need to run one where the worst internet connection hamstrings the entire network. Most people run SPV wallets today anyway and the important nodes are the ones run by businesses and wallet services.
> There is no credible research done
That's precisely my point. Contributors have shown that full nodes are necessary to preserve the security of the network (see the links I posted), but the proposal of S2X was executed without ever engaging on a discussion to answer the very questions you are asking now.
They are good questions, and we should discuss them and we should answer them. But Jeff Garzik and the 5 other CEOs did not attempt to do this research and instead steamrolled ahead with btc1/s2x.
This has been a problem for years. For example Gavin thought 16MB would be perfectly safe. There's research being done now examining 1GB blocks and how that would affect propagation time. A lousy 2MB is honestly laughable.
Doing nothing isn't the pragmatic or sane approach, it's the insane one.
As for the 1GB block research you're talking about, it was literally presented 5 days ago. S2X proposal started in May and the fork was planned for next week. The way we want this secure digital money thing to work is that proposals that are controversial or that may affect security are researched and the research is reviewed over many months or years.
I know you want to take the quick approach and just LOWER FEES NOW, but we know -- from experience -- that a cowboy attitude with blockchains makes it trivial to lose a lot of money [3].
[0] https://blog.bitpay.com/bitpay-growth-2017/
[1] https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume-...
[2] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin/#charts
[3] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/08/accidental-bug-may-have-froz...
How about comparing Bitcoin's percentage of total market capitalization [0] which crashed from ~80% down to ~40% when the blocks became full? The last month has regained that quite a bit but you could speculate it's because the promise of long overdue on chain capacity increase.
> I know you want to take the quick approach and just LOWER FEES NOW
It's been years since the limit should have been increased. Yet here we are with no on chain scaling for Bitcoin even remotely close to reality.
> that a cowboy attitude with blockchains makes it trivial to lose a lot of money
You're really comparing apples and oranges if you compare raising the block size with Ethereum's poorly designed smart contracts.
It is overwhelmingly clear that cryptocurrencies in general is in an early phase and that more research is needed on the subject. Especially since it seems like we'll be running these systems on an even larger scale in the future. It does however seem like more energy is spent spreading soundbites on Twitter than anything that has even a vague resemblance to the scientific method.
There's also the fact that Satoshi put a pretty agreesive schedule for the deflationary aspect of Bitcoin. Fees were designed to gradually take over as the miner's reward. You and I may or may not agree with that policy, or the schedule it follows, but it is a policy that was designed in from the beginning.
Furthermore Bitcoin used a soft limit which miners themselves increased. This is now no longer possible.
Satoshi introduced the limit as spam protection and he also explained how it could be phased in using a hard fork (although the term was coined at a later date).
I quote:
It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
No, a way for a few people to get rich has been built.
However, answering the question of “do we have a consensus yet?” is far less precise. Answering “what compromises can we make to achieve consensus,” even less so. All deliberation and conversation must happen offline, in “meatspace” amongst humans and operating outside mathematical principles. For example with the segwit2x fork, there was the New York Agreement, discussion all over the internet, etc. But does anyone have a precise number for the “theoretical consensus” or is all discussion based entirely on estimates?
I’ve always thought the “51% consensus” and the “hard fork” idea were hand-wavy solutions to a problem that can fundamentally only be solved by human cooperation. I also think Satoshi never expected this kind of discontent to be such a common occurrence.
Bitcoin should include a consensus building layer of code that acts as an arbiter for building consensus. It could execute polls, enforce rules of deliberation, etc. This is basically decentralized voting, which is generally seen as a distinct topic from bitcoin. But it seems bitcoin, one of the biggest decentralized networks, could benefit from a consensus building protocol.
The problem of decentralized governance is not going away. Solving it will be a massive technological step forward.
We saw this in practice with the numerous S2X futures that were available. They were all predicting that S2X had about 13% chance of winning. This signal can then be used as substantial evidence in meatspace to retract or push forward a proposal.
Tezos is trying to build more sophisticated on-chain governance mechanisms. https://www.tezos.com/governance oh whoops https://www.coindesk.com/tezos-founders-sued-securities-frau...
Believe it or not this is working well, and bitcoin is moving forward at a very rapid pace (especially given the difficulty of doing blockchain systems right)... people just don't realized it because few people read the release notes.
Those who think bitcoin needs a consensus mechanism to determine its direction usually think that it doesn't have one and that some cabal is in control.
That's not the case.
Remember, Segwit and LN were from outside the community, the LN developers are mostly not part of core, and in fact one of the authors of the paper is an ethereum guy.
They both got support in core quickly because they are good ideas.
Both were announced in the fall of 2015 and cores support was in the code by May of 2016!
I get that there are centralisation risks if the block size increases too much, but it doesn't really seem as though increasing to 2mb really make such a big difference?
Am I missing something?
The main actors against a block size increase are Core developers who are also part of a company called Blockstream. Blockstream's business model is about selling side chains. But why use side chains if you can use on chain transactions instead? Well if you limit on chain scaling users would be forced on to your side chains...
The movement against the Segwit2x upgrade was so fierce precisely because it threatened to offset Core as the de facto Bitcoin client, making them loose their power.
They profit heavily from censorship on the bitcoin mailing list, the "bitcoin" subreddit and bitcoin.org. Their consistent propaganda and abuse has now caused the miners and businesses to back down on the Segwit2x upgrade, which would have been a certainty with 95% hashpower and business support.
Keep these things in mind and you should get a better picture.
Yet there is no attempt to quantify by how much. The damage done to Bitcoin by full blocks is much more than what a potential increase to 2MB would cause. This zero tolerance policy rhymes extremely poorly when the fees makes Bitcoin more expensive to use than to run a full node.
> It would also set a precedent that miners are in control (or alternatively it could be interpreted as no-one is in control).
Miners are in control because the real power lies with them. The problem is that they aren't coordinated and so status quo is favored.
First of all, if Segwit2x did succeed then Core could swallow their pride and simply update Bitcoin Core’s consensus rules to match btc1’s, and I think most users would prefer to continue to run Core.
Second, if Bitcoin is eventually widely used it would need more than doubling of the block size to scale, even with sidechains or LN. Also, scaling isn’t the only use for sidechains.
Third, many of Blockstream’s founders and team are long-time Bitcoiners and cypherpunks. I’d like to believe they would not compromise Bitcoin for the benefit of their company alone, but perhaps that’s naïve.
If you prefer baseball over football, but all your friends are playing football, would you rather join your friends, or play by yourself?
The biggest difference Segwit2x would make in centralization is the fact that block propagation latency is already very slow, and if it gets to over 10 minute for the whole network, the network can split.
Bitcoin is an amazing store of value, and those of us who hold the currency wouldn't accept any risk of increased centralization just because non-holders want low transaction fees (that can be very easily be created by a centralized system)
> The biggest difference Segwit2x would make in centralization is the fact that block propagation latency is already very slow, and if it gets to over 10 minute for the whole network, the network can split.
Yet there's no research to remotely suggest a meager increase to 2MB would have any effect. Compact blocks and Xthin (and recently Graphene) also improves on this immensely.
> Bitcoin is an amazing store of value, and those of us who hold the currency wouldn't accept any risk of increased centralization
Typical black and white thinking. Bitcoin must have a primary use case that's not a store of value otherwise it will crash down when no new money is injected.
> just because non-holders want low transaction fees
Yeah because non-holders are the ones who want to use Bitcoin as was always intended. Pure holders are only in for the speculation.
The title of Bitcoin's whitepaper is "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" not "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Store of Value System".
The last hard fork was on Oct 15, 2017. It did not split the chain, it went smoothly and added great new features. Ethereum has had many hard forks. Only the DAO one was controversial. Using hard forks to upgrade the network is smooth and works great.
why?
The value of full nodes is widely understood by bitcoin contributors [0][1][2]. Increasing the block size directly increases the amount of resources required to run a full node. Increased bandwidth requirements is especially a problem.
It is up to the candidate (s2x), not the incumbent (core) to show that no, it won't be harder to run full nodes, or to show that you can have just as much security by running an SPV node. Because the candidate has failed to back up their proposal with evidence that security is not harmed, the proposal should not move forward.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinBeginners/comments/3eq3y7/fu...
I had understood that SPV nodes store only the merkle root of all the transactions in each block, so as I understand it should be able to verify whether a given transaction is valid or not?
> SPV nodes (such as some mobile clients, and Multibit) place a blind trust in the majority of miners, without checking validity of the blockchain they produce. It still requires a majority of miners to mislead an SPV node, but they can make it believe anything (including "You received 10000000 BTC!"). The reason why this does not happen is because full nodes would not accept such blocks, and assuming a large portion of the ecosystem does rely on full nodes, miners who do this would not see their blocks accepted by the larger economy, resulting in them wasting money.
Further, on this page, you can read about security considerations between light clients and full nodes: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Thin_Client_Security
Basically, a network comprised of only SPV nodes and miners places the SPV nodes at the mercy of the miners. Because of how centralized and state-controlled mining is (see Russia and China), this would be a very easy way for states to attack bitcoin.
Thanks for the links :)
Segwit2X was never about a blocksize increase, it was meant to seize control from the Bitcoin Core developers and switch development from the original Bitcoin repo to the newly created Bitcoin1 repo controlled by Jeff Garzik. It was not open to the Core developers and incompetently run, it was built on an old version of the software and resulting bugs were disingenuously blamed on Core developers.
Had this been a success it would have signaled the transfer of control of Bitcoin from the many developers and contributors to corporate banking and wall street interests. it would have been the end of decentralized crypto network open to many and the start of a corporate controlled network open to only a few.
Segwit is a technical failure as it was implemented in a soft fork as a hack. It's scaling is inefficient. Did you see the capacity increase when it got activated? It was abysmal.
https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-...
It also decreases the security of the network:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoFb3mcxluY
> Had this been a success it would have signaled the transfer of control of Bitcoin from the many developers and contributors to corporate banking and wall street interests. it would have been the end of decentralized crypto network open to many and the start of a corporate controlled network open to only a few.
Now who's pushing conspiracy theories?
In my opinion, the financial motive of miners played a big role in this decision, and that’s exactly what proof-of-work is supposed to achieve: consensus through selfish miners.
Has anyone done the math on the profitability of Bitcoin Cash miners versus regular Bitcoin miners?
The BCH income also seems a lot less stable than for BTC; shooting up to twice as profitable as BTC and then down to half as profitable. I assume there’s quite a lot of variance in the time-between-blocks in the BCH network.
I hope this brings some peace to to the community.
When one of the most popular semi-complex smart contracts fails not once but twice in a matter of months (losing hundreds of millions USD in the process), it is time to look not at the newbie or the contract programmer, but the platform itself.
Bugs in software of various kinds cause billions of dollars worth of damage, deaths too. Yet I don't see people claiming it's the fault of C++.
A major driving force behind the development of Rust is that exact claim.
You must be new here.
Very funny for a currency with no central control that a few people in central control can just call off a hard fork, and make ridiculous amounts of money in doing so.
Personally I was hoping for the 2x fork to succeed, or, barring that, for some kind of miracle switch over to Bitcoin Cash, which has the 8x capacity without the baggage of Segwit. But realistically this is probably the best outcome for Bitcoin for the reasons outlined in the message.
elaborate?
That simply isn't true. It's just a new transaction format.
See this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14866911
That fork (BCH) already happened. You were hoping that the vendors who stated "follow the chain w/greatest difficulty" would land on BCH? The merits just aren't there, and that's likely why miners aren't there either.
> But probably most of them are just trying to develop a functional cryptocurrency. This stuff is very hard
IMO people who haven't actually tried to do that actual development have no idea how hard it is and don't put sufficient weight on the concerns expressed by those who do. The segwit 2x proponents weren't developers.
How sad that people are lured into "money" and selling and buying "money" while not understanding that provision of products and services are the most valuable in the world, and that any money is just a certificate of trust exchangeable for such products or services.
Bitcoin is nothing but speculation and this kind of forks cannot make it better. Basic agreements especially relating to money shall never be changed or people loose trust in it.
Don't have anything against those guys but what was that part about decentralized crypto-currency that no one agency or government oversights?
could it not likewise be "it also shows Bitcoin is controlled by committed minorities which will not allow others to take over its governance" ?
From the outside, this seems the case.
I'd be willing to bet at least a few of the names at the bottom of that message are among them.
If you have insider info about the direction of a market, then you have a much reduced risk. You can move in big, take your bite of the change, and then cash out.
Our goal has always been a smooth upgrade for Bitcoin. Although we strongly believe in the need for a larger blocksize, there is something we believe is even more important: keeping the community together. Unfortunately, it is clear that we have not built sufficient consensus for a clean blocksize upgrade at this time. Continuing on the current path could divide the community and be a setback to Bitcoin’s growth. This was never the goal of Segwit2x.
As fees rise on the blockchain, we believe it will eventually become obvious that on-chain capacity increases are necessary. When that happens, we hope the community will come together and find a solution, possibly with a blocksize increase. Until then, we are suspending our plans for the upcoming 2MB upgrade.
We want to thank everyone that contributed constructively to Segwit2x, whether you were in favor or against. Your efforts are what makes Bitcoin great. Bitcoin remains the greatest form of money mankind has ever seen, and we remain dedicated to protecting and fostering its growth worldwide.
Mike Belshe, Wences Casares, Jihan Wu, Jeff Garzik, Peter Smith and Erik Voorhees
--
Mike Belshe CEO, BitGo, Inc
Mike Belshe mike at bitgo.com Wed Nov 8 16:58:41 UTC 2017 Previous message: [Bitcoin-segwit2x] Require a new Statement from NYA companies Next message: [Bitcoin-segwit2x] Segwit2x Final Steps Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] The Segwit2x effort began in May with a simple purpose: to increase the blocksize and improve Bitcoin scalability. At the time, the Bitcoin community was in crisis after nearly 3 years of heavy debate, and consensus for Segwit seemed like a distant mirage with only 30% support among miners. Segwit2x found its first success in August, as it broke the deadlock and quickly led to Segwit’s successful activation. Since that time, the team shifted its efforts to phase two of the project - a 2MB blocksize increase.
Our goal has always been a smooth upgrade for Bitcoin. Although we strongly believe in the need for a larger blocksize, there is something we believe is even more important: keeping the community together. Unfortunately, it is clear that we have not built sufficient consensus for a clean blocksize upgrade at this time. Continuing on the current path could divide the community and be a setback to Bitcoin’s growth. This was never the goal of Segwit2x.
As fees rise on the blockchain, we believe it will eventually become obvious that on-chain capacity increases are necessary. When that happens, we hope the community will come together and find a solution, possibly with a blocksize increase. Until then, we are suspending our plans for the upcoming 2MB upgrade.
We want to thank everyone that contributed constructively to Segwit2x, whether you were in favor or against. Your efforts are what makes Bitcoin great. Bitcoin remains the greatest form of money mankind has ever seen, and we remain dedicated to protecting and fostering its growth worldwide.
Mike Belshe, Wences Casares, Jihan Wu, Jeff Garzik, Peter Smith and Erik Voorhees
--
Mike Belshe CEO, BitGo, Inc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/... Previous message: [Bitcoin-segwit2x] Require a new Statement from NYA companies Next message: [Bitcoin-segwit2x] Segwit2x Final Steps Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] More information about the Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
The activity starts 11 minutes after the email.