
Hard Fork, Take Two: SegWit2x Will Return Dec. 28, Says Founder - aaraujo
https://cointelegraph.com/news/hard-fork-take-two-segwit2x-will-return-dec-28-says-founder
======
Klathmon
I'm going to repost here a comment I left on reddit.

This Segwit2X has almost nothing to do with the original "Segwit2X". They are
basically taking what they think is the good parts of all cryptocurrencies,
and are putting it into one monstrosity.

\- X11 based algorithm from DASH

\- 2.5 minute blocktime from litecoin

\- 4mb (closer to 8mb with segwit) blocksize from Bitcoin Cash

\- difficulty adjustment algorithm from Bitcoin Cash

Plus they are promising some pretty impossible stuff in the "future":

\- ZkSnarks from ZCash (which they list on the same line as "anonymous
transactions" in some areas, and on a different line in others...)

\- Lightning Network from Bitcoin

\- Smart contracts from ETH

\- Something called "offline codes" which god only knows what it means

Basically it's a shitcoin that is trying to lure people in with impossible
promises and just taking what they think is the best thing from every major
cryptocurrency and putting it into one disgusting abomination.

Oh, and they chose a loaded name to make sure they'd get some coverage in the
"news".

This "Segwit2X" has literally nothing in common with the previous "Segwit2X"
from november except for the name. Nothing else is the same. How they got any
exchanges to list it under the same name i'll never know... If I was a betting
man, I'd wager that the guy running this lost a bunch of money when the S2X
futures market crashed since the fork never went through, and he is looking to
recoup it by starting the process back up and pumping the futures cost so he
can get out.

But on the up side it's really showing me which "news" sites and exchanges I
should stay away from, because they clearly don't even vet the stories or
coins they are going to be listing.

~~~
illumin8
Another shady thing they are doing:

> The founder also promised that in addition to the common practice of
> crediting BTC holders with equivalent balances of the new coin (B2X), they
> would also receive “a proportional number of Satoshi Nakamoto’s Bitcoins as
> a reward for their commitment to progress.”

This seems pretty bad. Satoshi Nakamoto may not even have access to his coins,
but what if his heirs or family wanted to take ownership of them? They should
be able to do so. Do we just decide that anyone who owns a sufficiently large
number of coins should have to forfeit them at the whim of whoever is creating
the altcoin of the moment?

~~~
Klathmon
Oh yeah forgot about that part, they are just going to rewrite history and
give out a bunch of coins because they can...

------
kuroguro
It's not the btc core team doing this. Someone just took segwit's name and
code and decided to do their own fork.

[https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2595620.msg27008511#...](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2595620.msg27008511#msg27008511)

Team looks dodgy as hell, inconsistencies on the official webpage, premined
coins:

[https://github.com/SegwitB2X/bitcoin2x/commit/08220e2a3c8ba8...](https://github.com/SegwitB2X/bitcoin2x/commit/08220e2a3c8ba8f53801302a8b7b6d6da5a39645)

~~~
o_____________o
Cryptocurrency fanfiction?

~~~
AlexCoventry
The pay is a lot better.

------
modeless
This headline is just wrong. No "founder" of the Segwit2x project is involved
with this scam.

------
aaraujo
Sorry for the fake news... I did do my due diligence and checked the story.
I'll be more careful before submiting soemthing to HN.

~~~
Klathmon
It's not "fake news", it's just a garbage article where the author didn't do
any research (or they did, and the author knows exactly what they are doing).

Not necessarily your fault, and I'm personally glad you did submit it as
whatever the creators of the new "S2X" are doing to get it in the media, it's
working, and the more we can point out how terrible it looks, hopefully we can
limit the damage.

------
chrisallick
Can someone give an opinion on the results or possible results of this fork?

~~~
sp332
Segwit2x is a compromise deal that had two parts: Segregated Witness, which
allows future efficiency extensions such as the Lightning network; and 2x
which doubles the block size. [https://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2017/11/bitcoin-compromi...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2017/11/bitcoin-compromise-collapses-leaving-future-growth-in-doubt/)
Miners signaled their agreement ahead of time, and the Segwit part worked. But
since that took some pressure off, and Bitcoin Cash forked with 8x which
attracted those people who wanted larger blocks, consensus fell apart before
2x was activated. In addition, there were multiple code bugs that would have
kept 2x from working anyway.

Assuming the bugs got fixed this time around, success of the fork depends only
on getting a critical mass of miners on board.

~~~
wereHamster
> […] and the Segwit part worked. But since that took some pressure off […]

Pressure on what? Transaction backlog? Hardly, the fees are higher than
they've ever been and we have 100k transactions in the mempool.

The minority of transactions use segwit, blocksize still remains a big issue,
even if we now have means to cram more transactions into a block, but hardly
anybody uses it.

It took pressure off of the Bitcoin Core team (and blockstream), because
segwit is what's needed to get lightning to work. Then they lost interest in
the second part (increasing the blocksize) and that's (partly) why it fell
through.

