
Bitcoin Upgrade in November 2017 at Block 494,784 - mbgaxyz
https://segwit2x.github.io/segwit2x-announce.html
======
RustyRussell
Note: this is not supported by the current bitcoin developers. It is a fork
promoted by Barry Silbert, supported by the large miners and the many bitcoin
companies he has funded.

(I have my opinions, but more important to warn people who may be mislead by
the title)

~~~
modeless
Note: Rusty Russell is an employee of Blockstream. Blockstream employees have
for years been extremely vocal opponents of increasing Bitcoin's block size,
and Blockstream employs many of the "current bitcoin developers" Rusty is
referring to.

~~~
nadaviv
There's a common misconception that Blockstream showed up and started hiring
bitcoin developers. That is not the case: Blockstream was founded by
developers that contributed to bitcoin for many years before starting a
company together.

> Blockstream employees have for years been extremely vocal opponents of
> increasing Bitcoin's block size

Yes, for many years, years before Blockstream even existed!

Edit: note that these very same developers are also pushing for segwit, which
doubles the block size and the on-chain transaction capacity of the bitcoin
network. It's quite odd to say they're "opponents of increasing Bitcoin's
block size" given that they want to double it. What they're really against is
_specific proposals_ for increasing the blocksize, proposals which break
compatibility and introduce a chain-split risk for no good reason.

~~~
out_of_protocol
That was talked over like thousands times already.

1) segwit is not "doubles the block size", effective increase is ~1.7x _AFTER_
full adoption and switching everyone to the new tx format (which is impossible
for next few years). Also, it's one-time bump, can not be repeated if
necessary

2) they're "introduce a chain-split risk" precisely by going against
community. Without this shitshow almost zero risk upgrade was expected

~~~
nadaviv
1) The 1.7 figure is outdated, the latest one from a research by BitFury in
November 2016 is 2.1MB [0]. It's probably somewhat higher now. Yes, it does
require wallets to upgrade - but most of them (and all of the major ones)
already have segwit implemented [1]. In addition, once a few of the major
players that produce lots and lots of transactions upgrade, the fee pressure
will level down for everyone, even these who did not upgrade for SegWit.

Yes, it is a one-time increase, but one that is sufficient for now. Let's
start by doubling the block size first, collect more data, then decide how to
further increase the blocksize as the need arises.

2) I'm not seeing that they're going against the community. The technical,
business and wide bitcoin community are all looking forward eagerly for
segwit's activation.

Edit: also, in the case of a hard-fork, users who don't upgrade gets cut off
the network entirely. is it not preferable to keep them a part of the network,
with somewhat higher fees but a functional wallet otherwise?

[0] [https://www.weusecoins.com/eli-segwit/](https://www.weusecoins.com/eli-
segwit/)

[1]
[https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/](https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/)

~~~
out_of_protocol
1) Still, a lot lower than required. Blocks became full like a year ago (see
[http://i.imgur.com/d7fwVnd.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/d7fwVnd.jpg) ) and after
that moment fitting transactions within 1MB limit means someone's stopped
using bitcoin (me included :( ). +500kB is not gonna change that anyhow (
+1.1MB x 50% adoption). even +1.1MB not nearly enough.

> but one that is sufficient for now

not really - see above.

2) > The technical, business and wide bitcoin community are all looking
forward eagerly

Do they understand segwit activation provides zero benefits at moment of said
activation?

3) Overall, we're in the stage of planned bitcoin deconstruction. Gladly,
there are no way to kill cryptocurrencies - even if bitcoin going to die,
someone else will take it's place (related: see "bitcoin market share" chart)

P.S. We're talking about wrong problem. "How exactly 2MB blocks should be
implemented" is surely wrong direction of talks. Yet we're here for like two
years and counting. Whole ecosystem could be progressed by a lot during this
time

------
xiphias
In my point of view (a strong Bitcoin Core supporter) this is an attack on
Bitcoin by most of the big miners that increases centralization of the miners
even more.

The sad part is that if that if they do what they are signaling, the
difficulty adjustment of Bitcoin will take many months, and only 2-3 blocks
will be mined every day until then.

~~~
r1ch
Not really sure I follow your argument. Bitcoin Core has wanted to push Segwit
and the miners agreed to it as long as a 2MB hardfork was also forthcoming.
The 2MB adjustment is all part of the plan. Segwit has locked in, which while
being a "soft fork", already breaks compatibility with the original "Bitcoin".

The remainder of the miners who don't agree with this plan have likely already
moved to mining Bitcoin Cash, which has no Segwit and 8 MB blocks. I doubt
there will be anyone interested in mining a Segwit/1MB fork, it will be
technically obsolete.

~~~
RustyRussell
It's not true, sorry. The core developers wanted segwit, and refused to agree
to another size doubling as well.

The miners did it anyway. The bitcoin reference client is not supporting this,
and claims that 90% of miners will split are completely unverified (and, to be
fair, unverifiable).

~~~
r1ch
My mistake, I was under the impression Segwit2x was approved by Core.

I still think this is a good thing. The Bitcoin Core developers have
restricted the Bitcoin network for too long. Perhaps this will serve as a wake
up call.

Personally I still think Bitcoin Cash was the right move. Segwit adds a lot of
complexity and technical debt, bigger blocks were really all that's needed as
evidenced by how quickly BCC dealt with the transaction backlogs.
Unfortunately the market didn't agree.

~~~
nadaviv
> I still think this is a good thing. The Bitcoin Core developers have
> restricted the Bitcoin network for too long.

Restricted it how?

~~~
r1ch
By not doing enough to increase network throughput. We could have had a 2-8MB
fork years ago and not had to worry with the transaction backlogs caused by
the 1MB block limit we're now stuck with.

------
nadaviv
The title is misleading. This is not an "upgrade", its a new altcoin that's
being pushed forward without wide community consensus, just like BCash.

Recommended read: [https://medium.com/@morcos/no2x-bad-governance-
model-97b8e52...](https://medium.com/@morcos/no2x-bad-governance-
model-97b8e521e751)

~~~
dwaltrip
This comment represents a rather slanted view on the entire situation. Large,
significant portions of the ecosystem have very different interpretations than
those represented by the Core developers and r/bitcoin moderators. I'm too
tired to write out a summarized overview, but it isn't hard to find evidence
of this (many other comments here give some indication).

~~~
nadaviv
The lack of support among the technical bitcoin community is very glaring:
[https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support#Developers](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support#Developers)

And very few companies signed that New York agreement. Most of the prominent
exchanges and businesses have not agreed to the 2x portion of segwit2x:
[http://nob2x.org/](http://nob2x.org/)

Where is the large portion of the ecosystem that supports 2x? Where it 2x's
community? r/btc had already moved on to Bcash. There's no one cheering for
2x, just an agreement that people signed in the hopes of getting segwit
activated. Segwit is activated now, they're just still stuck with the
agreement for now.

~~~
dwaltrip
My main reason for posting was your description of Bitcoin Cash and Segwit2x
as "just another altcoin", which any sober analysis would find to be a large
mischaracterization of the situation. These forks are a product of many years
of intense, relentless debate on scaling, and as we have seen quite clearly
today, have legitimate economic backing.

The situation is fairly complex, and I'm not completely unbiased. I don't know
exactly what is going to happen. But Bitcoin Cash is very clearly not some
generic altcoin.

------
bigphishy
From another comment on reddit:

This is not an "upgrade", and the Bitcoin project has outright rejected it,
[https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support)

2x doesn't even have an accurate spec and only release 'candidate' software is
released for it, created by basically a single relatively inexperienced
developer.

Unfortunately, the S2X developer is going around posting notices of a "bitcoin
upgrade" and not making any mention of the serious opposition or the major
technical risks.

------
kristopolous
"The November 2017 upgrade to 2MB blocks is a >>hard-fork<<, but necessary
changes are trivial to perform". Pull your coins out of exchanges that day my
friends.

------
jlrubin
@dang/mods, it might be appropriate to re-title this as:

Controversial Bitcoin Upgrade Attempt Planned for November 2017 at Block
494,784

This "upgrade" has not been agreed to nor has it been ratified by the majority
of the community.

edit: adding a source,
[https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support)
which has a column for Segwit2x

~~~
modeless
The original title is fine. This upgrade has been agreed to by >90% of Bitcoin
miners as well as many prominent Bitcoin-using businesses including Coinbase
(YC S12).

There is opposition, yes, led by another company, Blockstream, which employs
the most vocal contributors to the Bitcoin Core project. However as for "the
community", there is no good evidence to support a majority opinion on either
side.

~~~
jlrubin
It's a meme that Blockstream leads opposition; the opposition to SegWit2x is
actually pretty decentralized.

See the Blockstream team[0] and cross reference it with dissenting
developers[1].

Alex Morcos has written a good take-down on why even if prominent companies
like Coinbase are willing to fork, it doesn't really matter[2].

Personally, when Barry emailed one of the organizations I founded the
messaging was as Alex put it, bullying. There was no room for discussing or
changing the proposal, just, "my way or the highway". We opted not to sign the
letter because of that, among other reasons.

My beef with the framing, and hence suggestion to re-title, is because this
type of bullying aims to disenfranchise users. When Facebook rolls out an
upgrade, as a user you are more or less along for the ride. Bitcoin is a
participatory technology where everyone can have a real voice and influence,
every user gets to decide if they want to opt-in to this upgrade attempt or
not.

[0] [https://blockstream.com/team/](https://blockstream.com/team/)

[1]
[https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support)

[2] [https://medium.com/@morcos/no2x-bad-governance-
model-97b8e52...](https://medium.com/@morcos/no2x-bad-governance-
model-97b8e521e751)

~~~
modeless
That wiki page is not independent evidence, as it is maintained by luke-jr (a
Blockstream employee and borderline radical Segwit2x opponent) and hosted by
Theymos, the guy who enforces strict censorship on the largest Bitcoin forums.
Please cite a more independent source.

~~~
jlrubin
That's a pretty serious character attack and insinuation of misbehavior.

I can attest at least that my own entry is accurately represented and I have
not been in contact with any other developer who has expressed that they have
not been able to add their own entry or that luke-jr or Theymos have otherwise
misrepresented their entries.

Have you heard from anyone having such difficulties listing their opinion that
this is not a good source for developer sentiment on fork proposals?

edit: At the very least, it likely suffices for the purpose which I suggested,
which is to cross reference blockstream employees and non-blockstream
employees?

~~~
CyberDildonics
> That's a pretty serious character attack and insinuation of misbehavior.

I guess this is the point where you play the victim. Anyone familiar with
Theymos and Luke-Jr. knows that Theymos engages in excessive censorship of
/r/bitcoin and every other forum he controls.

Luke-Jr. has openly said he believes the sun revolves around the earth and has
proposed that max block sizes actually be REDUCED to be only 300KB, which is
of course ridiculous for any number of reasons.

The OP was being generous, don't try to pretend anything different to confuse
people unfamiliar with these two.

~~~
nadaviv
The censorship claims are pure nonsense being blown out of proportion.
r/bitcoin engages in standard moderation, not different from what I would
expect to see in any other subreddit. Their job is more difficult than normal,
though, due to all the voting robots and narrative manipulation that the
bitcoin community has been suffering from in recent years [0].

[0] [https://medium.com/@shesek/observing-forced-narratives-
and-m...](https://medium.com/@shesek/observing-forced-narratives-and-
manipulation-of-public-opinion-on-r-btc-847f0c65f802#11ea)

~~~
CyberDildonics
This is pure, unadulterated nonsense. Go there and make a post about
increasing max block size, bitcoin cash, or any other obviously relevant topic
that doesn't suit their narrative and see how long your comment lasts. Theymos
was clear from the start that he was going to use heavy handed censorship to
force their narrative to people new to bitcoin.

Their moderation logs also aren't open so they can hide what they actually do
censor. They also reorganize threads that don't go their way by most
controversial, so they can further hide anything that doesn't say what they
want. Claiming there is no censorship on /r/bitcoin is absolutely absurd, and
if you really don't think it is true then you need to educate yourself.

