Segwit2x hard fork cancelled

[roman375]

I've bought bitcoin, and I've sold bitcoin, and I've made a profit from it. Nothing astronomical, but I've gained a few thousand between bitcoin, ethereum, and litecoin. Like everyone else, I wish I would have done things differently, but such is the case with almost all investments, crypto or not.

Do I hope it crashes? No. Is it going to crash? Definitely. Is it a secret that I think it will crash? Absolutely not. Do I feel bad about all the money I could have made? Not for a second. Do I think it's a ponzi scheme? Not at all. Do I think it's a terrible investment vehicle? I sure do. Have I been proclaiming this all along? Yes, I most definitely have. Am I out of my mind? Maybe. Do I think it will drop all the way to $1,000? I very much do.

Will I be on the front lines with a big fat I told you so once it happens? No. Because I know you read this, and I know you will remember, and I could not care less.

​

In all seriousness, I appreciate the honest reply. But I still think you are out of your mind.

 

[Deleted member 46019]

Well, the hard fork only intended to double the blocksize limit. You do not need to change a lot of code to accomplish that.

If with few commits you can solve blocksize limit problem - core btc team would've done that a year ago, nobody is talking about that they already have solution for this with another layer of tiny transactions aggregated into one big transaction, soon it's gonna be out, and all those forks will have nothing new to offer.

 

[tb303]

I've bought bitcoin, and I've sold bitcoin, and I've made a profit from it. Nothing astronomical, but I've gained a few thousand between bitcoin, ethereum, and litecoin. Like everyone else, I wish I would have done things differently, but such is the case with almost all investments, crypto or not.

Do I hope it crashes? No. Is it going to crash? Definitely. Is it a secret that I think it will crash? Absolutely not. Do I feel bad about all the money I could have made? Not for a second. Do I think it's a ponzi scheme? Not at all. Do I think it's a terrible investment vehicle? I sure do. Have I been proclaiming this all along? Yes, I most definitely have. Am I out of my mind? Maybe. Do I think it will drop all the way to $1,000? I very much do.

Will I be on the front lines with a big fat I told you so once it happens? No. Because I know you read this, and I know you will remember, and I could not care less.

Reminds me of some film about moms spaghetti or something, not sure.

 

[roman375]

If with few commits you can solve blocksize limit problem - core btc team would've done that a year ago, nobody is talking about that they already have solution for this with another layer of tiny transactions aggregated into one big transaction, soon it's gonna be out, and all those forks will have nothing new to offer.

You are preaching to the choir. I am well aware of Lightning Network. I am just saying that's what the team behind Segwit2x set out to do - double the blocksize limit. Obviously they went terribly about trying to force it down everyone's throats, not to speak of it not being the solution (if you can even call it that, 2x blocksize wouldn't have meant shit in a couple of months) we need in the long term.

 

[tb303]

You are preaching to the choir. I am well aware of Lightning Network. I am just saying that's what the team behind Segwit2x set out to do - double the blocksize limit. Obviously they went terribly about trying to force it down everyone's throats, not to speak of it not being the solution (if you can even call it that, 2x blocksize wouldn't have meant shit in a couple of months) we need in the long term.

This. Its still only 2Mb per 10 minutes rather than 1MB per 10 minutes. Its the 10 minutes thats the problem not the block size.

 

[Deleted member 46019]

This. Its still only 2Mb per 10 minutes rather than 1MB per 10 minutes. Its the 10 minutes thats the problem not the block size.

Yep, but the whole idea of LN is to serve more users per block, and from what i see 2mb block will go far away. but of course it's not the thread to discuss about on-chain transactions etc shit.

 

[roman375]

Yep, but the whole idea of LN is to serve more users per block, and from what i see 2mb block will go far away. but of course it's not the thread to discuss about on-chain transactions etc shit.

Core developers never said they are against blocksize limit increases per se and it is likely we will see an increase down the road. What almost everyone is against, however, is a blocksize increase being implemented into a $100b market without thorough testing beforehand and no consensus across the board, nevermind the fact that the team behind Segwit2x were literally attempting to sabotage the legacy chain by intentionally not adding a replay protection mechanism into their code.

 

[tb303]

Yep, but the whole idea of LN is to serve more users per block, and from what i see 2mb block will go far away. but of course it's not the thread to discuss about on-chain transactions etc shit.

LN can take the fast transactions off the main chain, allowing it to continue at the same speed.

 

[drogon]

Seems segwit2x may still go ahead: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-November/000689.html

 

[roman375]

Seems segwit2x may still go ahead: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-November/000689.html

LOL them claiming to have 30% hash rate. Last month, this same group, sent an email to this list claiming they have 1.6% hash rate. I bet these guys got screwed trading futures and are now looking for a way to recover their losses.

 

[laur.laurix]

Segwit2x is still on.