Quote from: Itty Bitty on June 18, 2017, 08:21:50 PM

Quote from: itooam on June 18, 2017, 08:04:55 PM

I am surprised there has been no mention of Segwit2X, this has a planned release for July 21st, and so if this gets acceptance, this will be the defacto bitcoin (imo this is the best compromise, larger blocks and segwit activation). With my understanding, if this is successful before August 1st then 148 is moot, as it is already activated within Segwit2X.

Maybe someone with a better understanding can explain this better?...

I think if you give the maximum benefit of the doubt you can possibly give the miners, they are behaving the way they are behaving because if Segwit alone is all that's implemented, they believe, rightly or wrongly, that the future for them will be collecting fewer main chain fees because of Lightning network, and only dust-like fees from actual Lightning network transactions.

Combine this with ever diminishing block rewards, it's possible they see their financial future as dimmer and dimmer in bitcoin. So really they need to see something positive from their future fee collection standpoint, and a bump to 2Mb blocks is something they can point to as a "life line" for their future.

That's the absolute most benefit of the doubt scenario I can come up with, and if it's close to reality (doubt it's the entire story) then your scenario may come to pass. It's just that this hard fork to 2 MB is going to be so difficult and so contentious....could get nasty.

+1
This is the exact same conclusion I have come to.

I see this situation as being the choice between a chain split (bip148) or a hard fork Segwit2X. Whatever happens there is going to be a split/fork (otherwise bitcoin will not be able to handle the current scaling issue and will die due to much competition) so imo it is a choice of choosing the best of a bad situation. The markets will ultimately show who was correct (lightning vs bigger block sizes) if segwit2x is activated.

Logically, it seems Segwit2X will be the winner in this fight because it resolves both opposing views. If segwit2x does get miner support i.e., > 80% total network hash power, then I can't see this being a bad fork, the remaining hash would be too small to deal with the current difficulty level of mining the next block (on the "old" chain). In this scenario, an Ethereum classic vs Ethereum situation is not possible (?). Though happy to be proved wrong as I am still considering my options as a hodler, and consideration for adding to my position during this speculation, as I expect some wild fluctuation of the bitcoin price these coming months.

~~A point worth noting is that holders of bitcoin should be concerned with transactions after and including July 21st (not August 1st).~~
Edit: the 21st July would be the Segwit2x signalling date i.e., segwit could go live this date (+) however the activation of the 2mb hard fork would be delayed until September 21st or 3 months after segwit.

itooam

Posts

Merits