Quote from: achow101 on September 24, 2017, 02:15:50 AM

Quote from: ChromaticStar on September 24, 2017, 02:02:00 AM

Segwit2x is supported by a corporate backed development team and only about money, not bitcoin. They are supporting the fork to divide us and kill Bitcoin. I don't know if this is true or not, but would like more info if someone has a reference.

Segwit2x was produced from essentially a backroom deal of only a bunch of companies. The "New York Agreement" was written beforehand and the signers were invited to just sign it. Some Bitcoin Core developers were invited, but only to sign the agreement. They weren't invited to discuss the proposal at all as it was already written, they were invited to stamp their approval on it. Those Bitcoin Core developers who were invited declined to go and sign the agreement. The agreement was written by companies and completely without any input from the technical community.

Quote from: ChromaticStar on September 24, 2017, 02:02:00 AM

Segwit2x is a hardfork and Core does not like to hardfork. Fair enough, but blocksize can't stay at 1 MB forever. Why would we split the community if we're going to need it down the road anyway.

The block size has already been increased with segwit. We don't know how that exactly is going to effect things and increasing the block size again so soon will probably be detrimental to Bitcoin (note that there are a lot more things to consider than just the capacity of blocks). Changing things now may cause Bitcoin to be worse off in the future.

Quote from: ChromaticStar on September 24, 2017, 02:02:00 AM

Segwit2x code is unreliable and opens up new attack vectors. I didn't think this was anything other than a basic change of block size parameters and nothing else.

Clearly you don't understand the code and how forks have been deployed in Bitcoin. Even for "simple" change, a lot still has to be done for it (deployment code, tests, etc). The 2x hard fork is very rushed and done without much or any review (of both code and technical merits). Furthermore, it is well known to the developers that there are many issues with larger block sizes which 2x does not address. Lastly the Bitcoin Core developers consider hard forks something that should rarely happen. Thus if a hard fork does happen, it should be planned out to happen well into the future and include a lot of things that need fixing via hard fork (e.g the things on the hard fork wishlist).

Thank you. You're right, I'm not a developer/miner/etc. and I don't understand all the code and everything all that well, which is why I'm here trying to learn more before the chain splits again. I do realize that forks are things that need to be thoroughly tested, both soft and hard. Also, I realize that hard forks are much more difficult to plan.

It looks like you're part of Core. This does give me a better idea of why you're opposed to it, though Core probably should voice their reasoning more publicly. To me, Core seems to be rather secretive and little is published about them in the crypto media, which is what most in the crypto community follow and all we hear is that Core is opposed. This fork is much more divisive than BCH, I really hope you're able get more miners/exchanges on your chain.

Could you elaborate on this some:

Quote

it is well known to the developers that there are many issues with larger block sizes which 2x does not address

Who can we expect to be the developers for the Segwit2x chain if Core stays on the old chain?