Quote from: rifiuti on October 05, 2017, 09:01:39 AM

Quote from: marky89 on October 04, 2017, 11:36:51 PM

Quote from: rifiuti on October 04, 2017, 10:37:41 PM

Also, there other big players in this game who haven't said a word about 2x;

Bitmex, Bitfinex, Bittrex, HitBTC, Poloniex, Gdax, Bitstamp. > Their 24hr volume for today is 253.266 BTC(combined).

This exchanges will also play big part in November. They usually talk and decide together. So we'll see how thing will roll at November.

One clarification to be made here: GDAX and Bitflyer are part of the New York Agreement. If you weren't aware, GDAX = Coinbase (the former is their order book exchange interface, the latter is their simplified broker interface). GDAX is the largest US exchange on the market. Bitflyer is the largest Japanese exchange on the market, and fluctuates within the Top 3 exchanges in the world for volume.

That's not an endorsement of 2X by me. I'm just saying that we can't act like major exchanges "haven't said a word about 2X." Shapeshift and several major wallet services like Blockchain, Jaxx and Xapo are also signed onto the deal. That's nothing to sneeze at!

Shapeshift, Xapo, Jaxx, Blockchain, Bitflyer are on the list but GDAX is not there.

That's because GDAX is the same entity as Coinbase. Literally, GDAX is just the liquidity pool for Coinbase. On Coinbase's website, they refer to GDAX as their "product". And Coinbase does appear on the New York Agreement.

Quote from: hatshepsut93 on October 05, 2017, 02:53:35 AM

Miners and some services seem to be forgetting the golden rule of business that the customer is always right - they (NYA signatories) who are supposed to be following the demand instead of trying to dictate it.

I agree, but when it comes to a hard fork, there is no way to predict future demand. It's completely impossible. There has certainly been a perception expressed by some that fees are too high and that block capacity is too low over the past few years. Nobody can gauge how representative that sentiment is of the Bitcoin network, though. And like I said, nobody can know what percentage of the network will switch to the forked network. That's true even if 100% of us were all lining up saying we supported Segwit2x.

This leads to all sorts of questions. Are hard forks ever ethical if they are coordinated with miners? Because miners switching networks deprives legacy network users of a vital resource -- transaction confirmations. That means that users will migrate out of economic coercion rather than free choice. Should this be considered an attack?