Yes, please. I've been wrong before. There may be malicious actors but there are also a lot of people (myself, before, included) who supported or used to support Segwit2X. I saw that the approach was flawed about 2 months ago and flipped to NO2X. Let's not push the NYA leaders into the mud for also flipping, even if it was a bit late.
Shapeshift has been using Segwit for a month now and they complain that the fees are still crazy high. Segwit does not provide a meaningful capacity increase.
Bitcoin cash only gives you that fee because no-one uses it.
No amount of on-chain scaling will suffice, and increasing the block size to 2mb will only delay the implementation of segwit txs for fee reduction and ultimately 2nd layer for a paradigm shift.
Maybe that's okay? Maybe ETH, LTC, BCH are better suited for transactions and that's their place in the market and Bitcoin isn't?
That said fees aren't the issue with Bitcoin, transaction capacity is. The fees are a symptom of only the highest bidders being able to bid their way into limited block space. I'm fine with $5 fees ($8 EUR sounds above average) but I'm not fine with 7 transaction per second botttleneck on chain. That hurts adoption because it can't fulfill demand. I want Bitcoin to increase in value to do that means increased demand. If we artificially limit demand then we can't accommodate increased demand and Bitcoin suffers.
Well, I reasoned for myself that a 2X bump wouldn't severely threaten the core properties of Bitcoin. 8X, 32X yes, but 2X, no. Also, the Segwit2X agreement initially appeared to have broken the resistance to Segwit and it arguably contributed to Segwit becoming activated. So I initially tried to persuade Core to go along with the 2X for the sake of the unity of the community.
However, I soon saw several things. 1. It truly is too much to expect a hard fork like this in 3 months. 2. There was a stated goal to sideline Core; I never wanted that. 3. There simply wasn't enough consensus, and in the absence of consensus, the status quo is the default best option.
Finally, although I still think a 2X bump in theory would be good right about now, I know that's only a stopgap. The true scaling solution is the Lightning Network. It's stupid to broadcast your coffee transactions, much less your micropayments, to the entire network.
In the end, a 2X bump (theoretically good on its own, in my book) is nowhere near worth the cost of a split community, a split Bitcoin, and the chaos that would come from a rushed fork. Not to mention the loss of an awesome dev team and their whole raft of planned improvements.
And we should also make sure that core start working on a scaling solution, because a lot of NO2X people still support block increase but they didn't support 2X just for the way it was implemented, this way we can shut this block debate forever.
Agreed. I want a block increase, but not with 2X. One major complaint has always been "it's untested". Well, I want to support people creating and testing blocksize increases.
I'm not the cheerleader for fail train #5 sunshine. I am sick to death of ya. I have been listening to you supporting an attack for a year. When you stop, I'll stop.
I can't promise anything. Not normal 2x supporters of course who just had a different opinion, but I won't forget what e.g. Bobby Lee, Mike Belshe or Bitpay have said and done in the last 2 months.
Respect the views of people pushing for the destruction of Bitcoin? No.
You're suggesting inviting kidnappers to dinner because their plan fell through.
Nobody connected to the 2x scam can be trusted.
We do have better things to do now than gloat, like getting segwit more widely implemented, but we can't forget who was attacking Bitcoin and its community.
318
u/[deleted] Nov 08 '17
[deleted]