Quote from: TechPriest on September 26, 2017, 10:13:22 AM

Also, as i calculate Lightning network needed big blocks. There 7 billion of souls on our planet. If everyone will close 2 Lightning channels per year (this number can be less or more, i took average) so we have - 14 billion of transaction. Average number of trasnaction per block now is about 2 thousands. So, per year we have 51840 blocks. 51840*2000 = 103 680 000 transactions. It's not enough as you can see.

Nice made up numbers about possible averages in couple of decades. A lot can happen until 7 billion people use Bitcoin. About half of the world has access to Internet now and that is counting China. Average tx per block says nothing about the limitations of the blockchain, you used the math upside down, plus almost none of them are segwit ones anyway, which is the point of the discussion that S2X is rushed and not well thought out. Also there is no way of knowing how often will people close the channels, it might be never, what do you know? It can end up being only about million people closing a channel every year when they are doing some huge business deals, you can't predict the future that well, no one can. S2X is unnecessary now and will be for a very long time, that is a fact. There is no need to implement it right now with such huge risks without a replay protection, very bad idea.

Quote from: TechPriest on September 26, 2017, 02:19:08 PM

Quote from: hatshepsut93 on September 26, 2017, 11:36:12 AM

it doesn't matter if how many blocks the new chain has

Yes, the point that matter it's hashrate power. If most miners will swith to bitcoin 2x - bitcoin 2x == bitcoin.

Quote from: hatshepsut93 on September 26, 2017, 11:36:12 AM

if people don't start switching to that software it's as if that chain hasn't existed. Miners can't dictate to users what chain is Bitcoin, in fact it's the users who can create incentives for mining by trading coins on open markets.

Who is "people" ? Average user uses online wallet and he don't care how much will be block size.
Who can really affect to miners is business like exchanger nodes. Only they and noone else.

I see that many people here can see problem with miners, but they don't understand reasons of this problem. 'Cause they don't want to learn any technical issues.

Bitcoin is just a word, what the majority chooses to call Bitcoin will be Bitcoin, all the hashrate and financial influence in the world won't help you there.

Average user right now isn't using Bitcoin, because he understands the benefits, but because he want to earn profit from early adoption.
Using an online wallet is completely defeating the purpose of Bitcoin in the first place. When the price rises high enough all those users will either go back to the old fiat system or use Bitcoin as intended and have the benefits of cryptocurrency. If they leave, they are not Bitcoin users anymore and if they stay they will care about the block size and all the other issues. Maybe, who really knows? It is all speculation.

Quote from: acyclic on September 26, 2017, 01:30:32 PM

Quote from: hatshepsut93 on September 26, 2017, 11:36:12 AM

"The longest chain" is a pretty common false argument by forkers as it tries to mix up two concepts - consensus within a protocol and community consensus on what chain is Bitcoin. The first means that the longest chain is the valid chain - this is just the basis of how Bitcoin works and how all nodes are in sync but when there's a fork that changes protocol rules, it doesn't matter if how many blocks the new chain has, if people don't start switching to that software it's as if that chain hasn't existed. Miners can't dictate to users what chain is Bitcoin, in fact it's the users who can create incentives for mining by trading coins on open markets.

I agree that you have a plausibly reasoned theoretical argument on how bitcoin should work but, in the unstructured commercial world, enforcement is an important issue as well. And the key enforcement in Bitcoin is majority hash power. Hence we seem to be increasingly likely to see Core Development running a low hash power alt coin or Core Development "walking away" It seems that Miners (in league with declared hashfollowing exchanges) can indeed dictate what chain is Bitcoin and identified as BTC on the exchanges. If the miners hang together when i say "Hey Google - what is the price of Bitcoin" I'm going to hear what the price of Bitcoin-from-segwit2x is at that moment, regardless of the intelligence, blood, sweat and tears that Core has put into Bitcoin.

"If people don't start switching to that software" - Tons of people buy bitcoin from Coinbase and Gemini leaving them on the exchange or using SPV wallets - the first is an NYA signatory the second is a stated majority hash power follower. Tons of people pay bitcoin to commercial vendors using Bitpay another NYA signatory. I'm not seeing a problem for Bitcoin-from-segwit2x here.

That is exactly why Bitcoin was created in the first place and is now taking over the fiat system. Because sooner or later, people don't won't to be controlled by the few anymore, they want freedom. Bitcoin had a small hashpower once and it survived, there is no big issue if it loses it again.
All you talk about is Google,Coinbase,Gemini, all these corporations. Even Google, as big as it is, will eventually die and it will be taken over by decentralization. They will all die out. They are just a place holder as a simple quick solution to earn some money for their founders until the real solution comes in.

If you really believe in Bitcoin, then go all in. Don't run back to the safety of centralization and big corporations. It is corporations that follow the users not the other way around. Sooner or later this is always happens, this is why we have democracy instead of monarchy in the majority of the world. It is the people who get smarter and make a choice eventually. And you can do whatever you want, pump whatever money in it, sign a deal with as many big companies as you want, Segwit2X does NOT have the user's support, this is obvious in the number of nodes and in the small polls done on this forum.
And don't think corporations won't be running back to where it benefits them more. They went back on their deals before, it wasn't that long when they all agreed to be only running Core. And don't think that these pools will guarantee the hashrate, miners can switch pools in a minute and don't be so sure that they won't when they hear that their profits won't show up in Core, but in some questionable new client.