Quote from: Silberman on October 23, 2017, 09:14:24 PM

Quote from: thecodebear on October 16, 2017, 12:55:11 PM

Quote from: Silberman on October 16, 2017, 04:32:55 AM

Quote from: thecodebear on October 15, 2017, 12:49:36 PM

So most people agreed to segwit2x, though core never did and now some people who agreed are dropping out. But still the vast majority as far as I'm aware are still supporting the 2x upgrade. And I can't understand why people are so against it, as obviously more scaling is needed and a 2x of block size if just simply a good thing. Unless people think there needs to be more time to test it, though I can't imagine why so much testing and development would be needed since it is simply changes one very small thing. The contention of this issue baffles me, seems to be a very straightforward good second step in scaling bitcoin, the negativity towards it shows the unreasonable toxicity of the bitcoin community and the refusal to prepare the technology for mass market acceptance.

Anyways, which do you guys think will be considered Bitcoin after the hard fork, the original chain or the 2x chain? I'm hoping 2x takes over since it can do twice the transactions with no downside so that is obviously better for bitcoin. Either way I will just be holding my bitcoin and won't move any bitcoin until this whole mess is over and we have a clear winner. But what do you all think?

Mistake, most miners agreed to that fork, people are still supporting overwhelmingly bitcoin core and no other coin, there is no question which is the real bitcoin, segwit2x is just another altcoin that has nothing new to offer, the 2MB fork is not necessary at all and I see as a good sign that support is slowly diminishing for such a useless coin.

Well thats not true at all. Bitcoin is going to need A LOT MORE SCALING in the future, so an increase to 2MB is just the second step on what will no doubt be a lot of steps toward scaling to meet a global mass market demand. Sure it doesn't need the 2MB fork in November, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if segwit blocks are full within a year, at which point it will need larger blocks, so why are you people against it so much when it is obviously needed for the future?

And my first sentence wasn't a mistake. Not only miners but many many bitcoin companies agreed to segwit2x. Only after that did miners jump on board leading up to the segwit upgrade.

So why do some of you people refuse to want bitcoin to be able to scale?? Are you intentionally hoping for its demise and wanting to sabotage it? Or are you just very shortsighted and refuse to look into the future to see that more solutions are needed to scaling. When segwit blocks are full and transaction fees have skyrocketing again and wait times have skyrocketed again will you only then start to think oh maybe we do need 2MB blocks or more!?

The poster directly above this post even said he would want the fork that is better to win, and he claimed it is the original chain hahaha. That is straight up delusion. Current chain can do half the transactions as 2x can, thats the only difference. It's black and white, 2x is twice as good as current chain. I'm sure there will need to be additional hard forks in the coming years to increase the block size further, why are you people making this very obvious upgrade so contentious? The question is do you want bitcoin do be able to do the current amount of transactions, or double the amount of transactions?

It's pretty simple: if you want bitcoin to eventually fail to meet demand then obviously you want to hinder its progress and keep the current chain, if you want bitcoin to handle more transactions and scale better and its price to rise then you support 2x as well as other scaling solutions.

Seems to me this irrational denial of needed scaling is some misguided attempt to pay homage to Satoshi and not hard fork away from his code. You'd rather see Satoshi's dream for bitcoin fail than fork from his code.

We do not need 2MB blocks right now, we may need them in the future? Of course, but in a month? Of course not, and even if some businesses support the fork it does not matter, all of those entities are powerful but they do not get to decide what people want, it is like designing a video game no one wants and then expecting that it sells well, that is not going to happen, they can fork if they want, but they cannot force people to follow them.

But the whole point of having a scalable technology is to not wait until the network is all jammed up to do the scaling! Why would you want to wait until the network is jammed to do anything about it?! That's what we had earlier this year and it sucked, you would have thought the bitcoin community would have learned their lesson but apparently not, since as you say, may as well not improve bitcoin now when we won't reap the rewards until a later date. Awful backwards thinking!

Going by that logic Satoshi should have originally made like 0.05 MB blocks and then only once it got congested, and not before, the community could have hard forked to 0.1 MB, then let it get jammed again, and fork again and so on on the way up only creating solutions to problems you know will arise in the future once they start hurting bitcoin, instead of ya know doing the obvious thing and scaling before it becomes a huge problem!