Flawed from the start, Segwit2x is finally getting in its deathbed
bravenewcoin.com/news/segwit2x-forked-from-th...
bravenewcoin.comPosted Oct 26, 2017, 11:32 PM UTC
623
bravenewcoin.comThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot)
Announced on May 23rd, The New York Agreement is the contract between the Bitcoin miners who represent the majority of Bitcoin's hashing power, and a group of over 50 other businesses, to implement the Bitcoin software upgrade Segwit2x.
"Following the fork," said Coinbase communications director David Farmer, "Coinbase will continue referring to the current Bitcoin blockchain as Bitcoin and the forked blockchain as Bitcoin2x."
At OKEx, the Segwit2x's futures token is trading slightly lower at 13%. For those who believe the market is the ultimate decider of which coin is the real bitcoin, the answer is already clear.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Bitcoin^#1 Segwit2x^#2 fork^#3 miner^#4 NYA^#5
1
Changing one line of fucking code to 1/4 the blocksize of bitcoin cash is 'flawed from the start'? Do tell me more.
The fork will happen, and blockstreams shitstorm of reverse psychology will be complete... 4 chains. Bitcoin has been made a shit show, exactly as they planned.
1
If it was "one line of code" Jeff Garzik would be able to do a rebase on 0.15. Instead he now decided to launch another altcoin.
2
Fuck off, you and your cult.
1
The cult of people who can use git and don't launch shitcoins?
1
The cult of bootlicking cunts who worship blockstream and their bullshit.
2
Socialism creates starvation and capitalists.
Capitalism creates wealth and socialists.
1
ancaps b like: secession is great
core b like: anyone forking bitcoin is statist
? ? ?
1
Thank god! I mean, if the network were to begin orphaning blocks with a base block size larger than two million bytes, instead of its current practice of orphaning blocks with a base block size larger than one million bytes, that would obviously represent a "corporate takeover" of Bitcoin. Clearly, the only way to keep Bitcoin "censorship-resistant" is to engage in self-censorship on a massive scale by imposing an artificial, absurdly-tiny, and increasingly-inadequate limit on the number of people who can actually use it. Oh sure, limiting the number of people who can use a network whose value is derived almost entirely from the network effect might sound like a horrifically stupid and counterproductive move -- you could say the same thing about deliberately increasing the transactional friction of a good whose entire purpose is to reduce transactional fraction -- but it actually makes complete sense.
0
Way too soon to call that.