Quote from: deisik on August 31, 2017, 02:13:36 PM

Quote from: marky89 on August 31, 2017, 07:48:37 AM

Quote from: fossilized on August 31, 2017, 12:15:56 AM

Been in bitcoin for years. Each time there is an improvement in protocols there will always be FUD. But it will be good to look above the technical issues and see the basis of how bitcoin works: a community that supports the development and use of bitcoin. And as long as they support and sustain btc, it doesn't matter how many hardforks occur.

Here's the problem. Core developers (most Bitcoin developers) don't see it as an improvement, and actively oppose the fork. So, if the Segwit2x team and the miners/businesses backing them really move forward with the fork, then the FUD is warranted.

This isn't like a soft fork where a simple majority of miners can prevent a split from occurring. A hard fork "upgrade" requires that every user installs new software and joins a new network. That means a split is guaranteed already. Add the fact that Core and many BTC users don't support Segwit2x? Get your popcorn ready.

But now we have Bitcoin Cash

So what's the purpose of the NY agreement conspirators forking Bitcoin (again) provided there is no consensus between them and the Bitcoin Core team (which seems to be the case)?

There is also no consensus to support Bitcoin Cash's 8MB block size (without Segwit). The NYA signatories never agreed to it and never indicated any support for it -- except Bitmain via proxies like ViaBTC. So why would you assume that it could act as a substitute for the Segwit2x fork?

My take is that Bitcoin Cash appeals to the Bitcoin Unlimited camp. They have always been on the extreme end of the "let's break things" mindset. Core and the small block camp remain towards the other extreme, against any hard forks except under very limited circumstances.

The majority of miners (excluding Bitmain) and major BTC services seem to support a "meet in the middle" approach. In that regard, not much has changed since the NYA emerged a few months ago.

Quote from: deisik on August 31, 2017, 02:13:36 PM

Would it make any sense to create yet another Bitcoin when there is already an 8M block Bitcoin? I don't think that two Bitcoins is a good idea anyway but three is certainly an overkill. Could the SegWit2x proponents just abandon the 2x part since it would basically replicate Bitcoin Cash if made into a separate Bitcoin?

Sure, that's one possibility. Another possibility is that they go forward with the hard fork under the assumption that the Bitcoin ecosystem will largely follow (leaving the legacy chain to die). I think that's a bad assumption, but who knows what they'll do?