
Bitcoin.org to denounce “Segwit2x” - xgil
https://bitcoin.org/en/posts/denounce-segwit2x
======
koolba
> The company will not under any circumstances list “Segwit2x” as “BTC” and/or
> “Bitcoin”. Note that Bitcoin is not ruled by miners, and miner actions
> cannot be used as a justification to redefine Bitcoin.

I thought it specifically _is_ ruled by it's miners. They control what the
neck block looks like, they control what goes into blocks, and they control
what's considered consensus.

~~~
Rallerbabs
There's one helluva lot more users than miners. The users determine the
consensus. And the consensus looks like this:

[https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/kycpoll/answers.php](https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/kycpoll/answers.php)

~~~
riffraff
350 answers does not look like a helluva lot users.

------
CyberDildonics
This is the last gasp by blockstream who has sought to control the github
repository and heavily censor /r/bitcoin to fit their narrative. They've done
everything they can to restrict the throughput of bitcoin to 1MB per block so
that their off chain solutions are seen as a neccesity. They pitched to VCs as
'invest in the company that controls bitcoin'.

With this, they will start to lose control of bitcoin, thus their company will
be even more worthless than it already is. They have spent all their energy on
propaganda campaigns and censorship to restrict bitcoin scaling, which has
always been technically trivial. Bitcoin.org is controlled by the same people
and should not be taken as any sort of an authority.

~~~
RandVal30142
>Bitcoin.org is controlled by the same people and should not be taken as any
sort of an authority.

Not sure if many people here are aware, but r/Bitcoin mod Theymos and others
in the Core/Blockstream circle proposed and supported editing Satoshi's
bitcoin whitepaper[1].

They did this under the reasoning that they control the bitcoin.org domain
where it has been historical hosted and want to treat it as a living document.
Obviously people didn't like this but the issue has not been resolved, it was
only put "On Hold."

------
wakamoleguy
The footnote got me curious about Segwit2x replay protection, so I went to
find how it works[1].

Essentially, strong replay protection would work automatically but force
wallets and other software to upgrade to use the forked chain. Opt-in replay
protection allows existing wallets to be used with the fork immediately.

Whether this is good or bad really depends on who you ask, I suppose. From
Bitcoin.org's perspective, they see this lack of strong protection as a way
for the Segwit2x chain to steal coins from the 'real' chain. From the Segwit2x
perspective, they see this as maintaining compatibility under the assumption
that they will become the main (essentially only) chain.

Opt-in protection seems like a negative if the chains continue to coexist for
a long time, since both chains will be vulnerable. It only makes sense if you
think it one chain will die off. And yet, I could see Opt-In replay protection
encouraging the chains to merge, as users are slightly incentivized to pick a
chain rather than deal with replay protection indefinitely.

The beauty of the blockchain is that we will see this all play out publicly,
and learn from the results [citation needed].

[1] [https://bitcointechtalk.com/how-segwit2x-replay-
protection-w...](https://bitcointechtalk.com/how-segwit2x-replay-protection-
works-1a5e41767103)

------
JoshTriplett
To quote the tweet that first led me to this post:

"In which bitcoin.org is used to fool users into refusing an upgrade we all
voted on/approved months ago" \--
[https://twitter.com/deanpierce/status/916301905097142278](https://twitter.com/deanpierce/status/916301905097142278)

------
xgil
The outcome of the Bitcoin hardfork is highly unpredictable.

