there's a lot of misinformation going around about segwit

>>3125823
ok thank you for the post that was very informative

>>3125823
thanks OP just bought 100k

>>3125823
Bought 100k of both BTC and BCH because you post didn't clear anything up.

tl;dr buzz words, ponzi scam, idgaf

>>3125823
Literally every bitcoin payment system in existence will switch to segwit 2x.

https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77

And along with that they have 80% hashpower. All the things that I can buy currently with btc uses one of those companies.

If 80% hashpower leaves then the chain get crippled and unusable for weeks.

It's sad but Segwit2x will win.

>>3125823

>$0.002 shekels deposited in your account goyim

>>3125823
Do you not think that this provides a feasible scenario for the "flippening" though?

BTC fees and transaction times go up, and the fix that caused such a clusterfuck was not even enough to cover scaling until the end of the clusterfuck that resulted.

People begin to doubt BTC, because what happens if there are subsequent forks every few months? And if the Core devs fold and increase block size drastically in one fork, BCH will have been proved right.

Do you really think they can get smart contracts and/or another fork going quickly enough and without creating a FUDstorm?

I'm not a BCH evangelist type, but I'm curious about your opinion

>>3125881
For ETH maybe. No industry leader/exchange is going to support BCH since it's a violation of NYA.

>>3125858
sorry, what part was not clear? the smart contracts? bitcoin can do simple middleman stuff without having to trust a third party. it has to be very simple though. the difference between btc and eth is that with btc you can't have a for loop. this is by design because once you add for loops you lose the ability to predict computational bounds.

>>3125864
bitcoin is not a ponzi scam. it's a very risky investment though, i'll give you that. all bleeding edge tech is a risky investment.

>>3125867
that agreement was tossed out like a prenup by a female judge

>>3125867
>>3125905

to elaborate further, there were 2 different agreements and both times the agreements fell through because of disagreements about if 2-3 weeks for an on chain transaction is acceptable or not.

personally, i like big blocks, and think everything should be on chain. even if the chain grows to petabytes you only need a few gigs to download and store it using some known crypto tricks.

>>3125905
What? Bitpay just posted this https://blog.bitpay.com/bitcore-segwit-activation/

They say they will make a seg2x fork called btc1

>>3125939
Block pruning doesn't work properly for BTC and prevents you from joining the network as a full node.

>>3125888
NYA?

>>3125944
that will result in 3 different bitcoin chains competing to be the king. both core and the bitcoin cash team are not happy at all about it. i'm not sure how much adoption it'll get though.

>>3125944
>our instructions follow this version of Bitcoin because over 95% of Bitcoin miners have adopted Segwit2x. If you are not running Segwit2x, your node will be on a dysfunctional minority chain when the base block size increases to 2MB.

>>3125961
95% of miners and every payment service is quite some adoption

>>3125953
it's evolving technology. you'll need pruning eventually... think about 1000 years in the future. the whole hard fork debate has more to do with the billions invested in developing the lightning network and less to do with block sizes.

>>3125823
nice, just shorted 100k.

>>3125955
The New York Agreement, aka what started this shitshow for the 2nd time.

Industry leaders like Coinbase are attempting to revolt against the "Bitcoin Core" developers as a powergrab. Bitcoin Core is the development team which develops the protocol of Bitcoin, but the businesses built on top don't really like their approach to solving problems, so they're trying to launch a new development team with Jeff Garzik, a man who happens to be very involved with a company whose purpose is to provide surveillance tools of the BTC blockchain.

Basically, either liquidate or just dump all your money into ETH when BTC starts to tank. This one won't be pretty.

>>3125988
>>3125965
we might get 3 different bitcoin versions then! exciting times.

File: flat,800x800,075,f.jpg (18KB, 248x189px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 248x189px

> here's a lot of misinformation going around about segwit and segwit2x

> first, segwit2x isn't happening

>>3126000
it's not happening on the chain we currently call "bitcoin" and core doesn't support it. there's going to be a third fork apparently.

>>3125994
Interesting. I hope ETH goes up, I'm already holding most of my portfolio there, because once this bickering shit hits the normie fan things are gonna get really interesting.

>>3126027
> core doesn't support it

Doesn't matter. Bitcoin is not Core's property.
90%+ mining power support it, along with the biggest exchanges and other bitcoin companies. Corecoin lost.

>>3126033
I plan on doing the same, although I moved 10% into LTC on the off-chance that memetomic swaps/LN give LTC a 20-30% boost during the SW2x drama.

ETH has a potential to double over the next year, but I'm waiting on a more favorable price to move back into ETH. Metropolis looks like it's going to create a lot of hype as we move into the 'ice age' and should be easy to make money off of

>>3126039
the problem there is that if core loses, all the normies who ate their propaganda will be bagholding at a 90% loss. that's most of this board right now. do you really see that happening?

>>3126122
> the problem there is that if core loses, all the normies who ate their propaganda will be bagholding at a 90% loss.

And why is this a problem exactly?

>>3126147
because there's not enough entropy in the universe to encode the amount of BTFO that bitcoin maximalists would experience if their exponential chart stops rising forever.

if something's too good to be true it's probably not.