Thoughts on this? I read somewhere like if it's below 8

>>2803506
The truth lie is that BTC will wont fork. Open your short long positions.

File: download.jpg (5KB, 225x224px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 225x224px

>>2803513

>>2803506
>https://coin.dance/blocks
1. miner signaling was first implemented so miners and devs could co-ordinate software upgrades
2. it has since been coopted by jihan and his chink orcs to to wage political war against you
3. you'll notice that segwit2x support comes out of nowhere this is because it was drafted (hastily) in reaction to the User activated soft fork bip 141
4. segwit2x was written in private and the core devs were not given proper time to test and vet the code. (They would need months of testing.) it was written for the miners by the miners so they can continue to fleece the entire network up until the very last block. you made about high transactions? it's because of jihan and the chink miners stalling upgrades and even spamming the network to create the LIE that bigger blocks are needed (they are not)
5. segwit (which makes ltc so fast) is and has been our opportunity to face fuck the chink miners and this is why they have been stalling for 2 FUCKING YEARS. so they can continue to rob you.

>>2803563
what the fuck. should i kill him????

>>2803506
I'd recommend you faggots actually spend your time reading up on this rather than looking at price charts like a bunch of idiots.


Segwit2x should be successfully implemented if and when it's formally implemented for enough blocks by 80% of miners. Basically 90% of miners have signaled their INTENTION to adopt Segwit2x- but they still have to ACTUALLY signal for it to be implemented. And this all needs to be done well before August 1st.

Just a few minutes ago the alpha release candidate for Segwit2x was released: https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/releases/tag/v1.14.4

GOOD FUCKING NEWS. Because if it hadn't been released you'd be looking at a veritable shitshow. Next hurdle will be getting the final release available before 7-21- if it doesn't get released by then the whole market will tank.

File: e143a8511c224fd353d5c9fd9942affc.png (326KB, 388x510px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 388x510px

>>2803656
That's what I'm trying to do anon, i'm trying to read about why this is happening instead of pulling my hair out over prices

>>2803563
>segwit2x was written in private

Derp, it's publicly edited as an open source and put together on github. Anyone can see it. Everyone knows what's in it.


>the core devs were not given proper time to test and vet the code. (They would need months of testing.)

Lol it doesn't take months of testing for a 2MB blocksize increase. It's literally a handful of lines of code. The core developers promised EXACTLY this years ago in the Hong Kong agreement which they subsequently welshed on. The feasibility of 2MB blocks has been well-research already.


>the chink miners and this is why they have been stalling for 2 FUCKING YEARS. so they can continue to rob you


Uh no, Core promised to deliver Segwit+2MB HF to the miners years ago and flubbed on that shit.


> so they can continue to rob you


Lol nope. Miners are the one pushing for the 2MB hard-fork. Those larger blocks are going to accomodate even more transactions than core has proposed, resulting in lower fees. This makes Core angry, because so many Core developers are on Blockstream's payroll. Blockstream is totally reliant on off-chain transactions becoming popular in order to monetize them. Larger blocks delay the need for off-chain transactions. This is also why Core opposed Bitcoin Unlimited as well- anything that delays demand for off-chain transactions is going to rile up Core.


For those not sure who to believe- it's pretty simple: remain skeptical of every argument, including my own. Question pieces that don't make sense. When you follow points through well enough it'll become which ones are full of holes and which ones aren't. The actions of particular groups will simply not be consistent when evaluated in their totality. You'll see the weaker side start to resort to appeals to emotion, or just dodging your questions.
If you start trying to post and hitting on weaknesses of arguments your comments will be shadow censored, deleted and you'll be banned from forums controlled by Blockstream.

>>2803677
Good job bro. These developments are what affect the fundamentals of Bitcoin. If the fundamentals change, that should determine whether you buy or sell, not the present price.

>>2803656
>GOOD FUCKING NEWS. Because if it hadn't been released you'd be looking at a veritable shitshow. Next hurdle will be getting the final release available before 7-21- if it doesn't get released by then the whole market will tank.
This is not good news at all. this means the devs have limited time to analyze the code. segwit has been tested for years and is ready. 2x was written by literally whos and you would trust them? you have no idea who they are but you trust them with all your money? who the fuck are you?

File: 23454523453.png (66KB, 877x629px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 877x629px

>>2803741
I trust the core devs over you mr redditor. fuck you.

Not a Single Bitcoin Core Developer Has Approved SegWit + 2 MB Hard Fork Yet
https://cointelegraph.com/news/not-a-single-bitcoin-core-developer-has-approved-segwit-2-mb-hard-fork-yet

This is really simple to understand. upgrades must be thoroughly tested and vetted. 2x was written behind closed doors and this is clearly a power play by the miners to continue to fuck the network for their own personal gain. I cannot let your non sequiturs confuse and mislead newfriends when something so great is at steak

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support

the only people who support segwit2x are jihan, chink miners, bitmain internet defense force, useful idiots, and cum guzzling faggots such as yourself.

>>2803825
When he said "good fucking news" he didn't actually mean that those news were really fucking good. Read more attentively.

>>2803825
There is no singular set of bitcoin developers- who do you think wrote Segwit2x. If you're talking about the Core developers (most of which are on Blockstream's payroll, look it up) there's no particular reason they can't analyze the code. A 2MB hardfork has been in the works for literally years and requires a relatively minor set of changes.

What evidence do you have that a long-discussed 2MB hard fork is so complex that it can't be evaluated in a matter of days?

I absolutely trust the market, the miners and the collective network over a bunch of Core developers, who have a direct incentive through Blockstream to cripple the blocksize to monetize sidechains.

>you have no idea who they are but you trust them with all your money?

I and you have no idea who Satoshi Nakamoto is either- but I don't need to! I trust the open-source code, which I can read and determine the merits of myself. That's the beauty of Bitcoin. It's a trustless platform for the future of money. It's not based on my trust in any particular person or government to make sure my money has value- it's based on the belief that an uncensored network can align itself to maximize value for all stakeholders.

>who the fuck are you?

Watch this fellow /biz/zers. The argument becomes increasingly emotional, and instead of responding to the merits of my argument, the poster instead becomes enraged. How many points of my previous argument went unanswered?

To your question, it simply doesn't matter who I am- just as the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto or any other Bitcoin contributor. All that matters is the content of the argument I'm advancing.

Bump because this is interesting and should be looked at more instead of everyone panicking

>>2803886
>I trust the core devs over you mr redditor. fuck you.

Guess what, it's not about trust. That's the point. You shouldn't need to trust me. The code stands by itself.

>Not a Single Bitcoin Core Developer Has Approved SegWit + 2 MB Hard Fork Yet

Sure, but as I've pointed out, Bitcoin Core developers have been actively resisting any blocksize increase, outside of (arguably) Segwit itself, which is necessary to activate the lightning network and the sidechains which Blockstream (paying most of the Core developers) needs in order to start making a profit. The Core developers agreed to Segwit+2MB long ago in the Hong Kong agreement- which effectively introduced a timeline for implementation for this. Miners held out deliberately in order to accomodate Core- but Core broke their trust and did not implement such a protocol according to schedule. This absolutely infuriated the miners. That's when you had a number of scaling proposals come online, including Bitcoin Unlimited. While that gained significant traction, it wasn't overwhelming enough to fork safely. Hence you had the NY agreement brokered between miners to basically do what core had promised eons ago.

And Core is pissed about it! It represents a loss of control for them, it lowers fees longer and delays the profitability of offchain transactions for Blockstream.

If you've got actual details about weakness in the code the Core developers have mentioned, do share and we can discuss the merits.

>2x was written behind closed doors

It's open-source, anyone can read it. Is there something wrong with the code?

> this is clearly a power play by the miners to continue to fuck the network for their own personal gain

Explain. You have ~4x more transaction space- this means transaction fees fall- how does this fuck over the network?

>... chink miners...useful idiots, and cum guzzling faggots such as yourself.

The proposal has about 90% of hashpower support currently. You want to keep calling names?

>>2803886
What's wrong with Chink miners? If you really hate them Chink miners, buy your own hangar and get enough hashpower to show that you're right.