The effects of the Segwit2x cancellation

User avatar
Steve Sokolowski
Posts: 2423
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2014 3:27 pm
Location: State College, PA
Contact:

The effects of the Segwit2x cancellation

Postby Steve Sokolowski » Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:56 pm

Bitcoin was dealt a massive blow yesterday with the cancellation of Segwit2x, and I thought that today might be a good day to share a few ideas.

First, a few days ago I mentioned that the prediction markets for "Segwit2x futures" were rigged to show a lower probability of the chain becoming dominant than actually existed, and that the Core was using the prices as propaganda. If you weren't aware of the issue, it was that the paper Segwit2x coins being traded in these markets would only have value if both the fork occurred and it became the dominant chain. In the real world, of course, holders of bitcoins would also get "Segwit2x value" if the fork didn't occur, because they would still own their original bitcoins.

It seems clear now that the reason the value of those futures markets was so low was because investors placed a high probability on the fork not occurring at all. Myself, I didn't see an outcome where the Core survived if the fork was executed as planned. Most of the mining pools that supported Segwit2x were not profit-switching, and changing software is not easy, so the smaller blocks combined with the lesser hashrate would have made the Segwit2x chain 6 times more capable than the Core chain, causing panic.

The other reason those futures prices were so low was because if the fork did occur, the Core was likely to have been willing to go all-out in an effort to stop it, perhaps by paying huge transaction fees on the 2x chain, or by conducting DDoS attacks, along with their usual unethical tactics like trolling and censoring forums. I think that an immediate post-fork value of bitcoin around $1000-$2000, as many of the markets said, probably was accurate. So what happened here? Money won out, as always. Instead of sticking to their principles, the Segwit2x proponents correctly recognized that while they would win, it would require months or a year of low prices to do so, costing them their personal wealth. I doubt there's any more to it than that. They even admitted they wanted to "protect the industry" from damage caused by the fork - in other words, keep prices high so they can profit.

Now it's worth examining what we're left with. As I stated last month, a rejection of Segwit2x would indicate a permanent end to the blocksize debate for bitcoin, with blocks remaining at 1MB in perpetuity. After two years of continually rejected ideas, there are no believable plans on the table for any solution to the problem. The Core will remain in charge indefinitely, and their behavior will attract like-minded individuals while scaring off honest developers. Another huge winner is Michael Marquadt, who successfully cemented his domination of reddit, bitcointalk.org, bitcoin.org, Coindesk, and a number of other media sites. I see the communities that were initially set up to provide uncensored discussion, like the "btc" subreddit and bitcoin.com, moving away from bitcoin discussion altogether. We can already see that happening by how most posts now discuss bitcoin cash and other coins. Marquadt was handed an unequivocal victory yesterday, and Bitcoin's agenda is now moderated almost solely by a man who has been allowed to get away with a lack of accounting for millions of dollars in "forum donations" that were never spent upgrading his forums.

Despite how catastrophic this outcome is for bitcoin (and the comical outcome of a global financial tool being able to be used as a "settlement chain" with just 4 transactions per second is unquestionably absurd,) I think that overall, it is the best outcome for cryptocurrency as a whole. Segwit2x would have resulted in an environment where the blocksize debate would continue essentially forever, with the Core reneging on their promises to leave Bitcoin and moving the goalposts forward to oppose the next fork. This outcome has removed almost all the uncertainty. The Core will remain in control of Bitcoin and can do what they want with it, and most new users will be introduced to cryptocurrency by using more affordable networks like Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash, or Ethereum. Anticipation of this external growth is likely why prices of these coins have started to rise.

The other key benefit of this outcome is very important: developers of software now know that they need to plan for these other coins being their primary method of payment. The OpenBazaar developers, for example, can now see that Bitcoin is never going to become widely used to purchase goods online. They need to support some other coin or provide an auto-changing wallet. Amazon and Wal-Mart, if they have plans to accept cryptocurrency, can now roll out acceptance of Bitcoin Cash or Litecoin and position one of those coins as the way to get everyday spenders involved in cryptocurrency. If you didn't believe me last month, this outcome has sent a very loud and clear signal: this is going to be a multi-coin world, and if you think people are going to pay $50 transaction fees to buy your goods, your business is going to fail.

Moving forward, there are a few issues to watch.

Will bitcoin continue to be purchased by investors as a store of value? I'd say "yes," because many of the people buying it heard about its prior potential from the news and will invest on name alone. Bitcoin will have value to some people as it becomes more and more centralized due to the Core's actions, as people tend to trust large institutions. They most likely have never heard of Litecoin. That trend will probably abate in the long-term as altcoins become necessary to actually spend cryptocurrency, and therefore, become more valuable and the increases make the news.

Will the Core developers maintain relevance? I'd also say "yes," but only technically. Their political plan for Bitcoin is deeply flawed; for example, they never considered that even if the Lightning Network works perfectly, and somehow there is still enough blockchain space for the settlement transactions, nobody is going to run the nodes because they are clearly defined as "money transmitters" who receive money from one person and send it to a different person. To obtain a license costs millions of dollars. This cost will be impossible to make back by solely running a Lightning node. Remember, the Core ideology is to prevent centralization, but the actions they are taking will cause the exact opposite result: that the only way to profitably run a node is to be an exchange like Coinbase that already has these licenses for a different purpose. This will result in the destruction of their political power.

But despite all the useless stuff they write, and their inability to see the consequences of what they are doing, the Core does produce some interesting and innovative things. As altcoins slowly become the focus, I can see the Core developers slowly losing their current political power, but still being the leaders technically. Their code is extremely easy to copy across many other coins. Bitcoin Cash, for example, will continue to maintain itself as a usable offering despite its (for now) having fewer active developers by simply copying almost everything the Core does. And while the Core stupidly cripples the Bitcoin network, other coins like Litecoin can copy the same Lightning Network they want to develop anyway in addition to being more capable at the protocol level.

Finally, will Litecoin be able to expand its blocksize? On this one, I'm not as confident, but we can do something about it. By virtue of its inclusion on Coinbase, Litecoin is currently the most useful cryptocurrency for transferring value. We send over 1000 transactions per day for an average of 13 cents and will be converting our dollar payouts to be issued through litecoins soon. Litecoin doesn't suffer the difficulty adjustment problems that Bitcoin Cash has, it's API-compatible with the Core bitcoin, it supports SegWit so that those who want to develop for it can use Litecoin as well, its fees are reasonable, and its transaction times are fast enough without producing orphans. But there are two issues that could drag it down: the Core could decide that, having won the Bitcoin debate, it's now time to try to destroy the Litecoin community; and that Charlie Lee spent months as a vocal proponent of the "No2x" side.

I expect Lee to follow through on his commitment to raise the Litecoin blocksize when blocks are half full. Should he not do so, then it should be made clear that we can control 20% of the votes. Unlike the Segwit2x signatories, we will not sit by and allow Lee to renege on his promise. Litecoin has a golden opportunity to succeed where Bitcoin failed, and its community must not allow the Core's tactics to limit its potential as well.

In conclusion, the outcome of the blocksize debate has made the industry stronger overall. For the first time, there is finally certainty in how businesses can proceed with their plans. Unless you've actually dealt with the ridiculous number of new customers that have been flooding into the space recently (and the Core has not), you simply can't understand how there is no time to wait for more capacity. While Bitcoin is no longer the leader, the certainty provided by yesterday's events is going to shift and accelerate the already insane pace at which money is moving into other cryptocurrency networks, businesses, and infrastructure.
Paul_sq
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:19 pm

Re: The effects of the Segwit2x cancellation

Postby Paul_sq » Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:16 pm

Brilliant.
Minermoe
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2017 7:27 pm

Re: The effects of the Segwit2x cancellation

Postby Minermoe » Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:30 pm

Bitcoin will not collapse for at least the next 10-15 years unless the powers turn of the internet or power. This is likely to happen if N.Korea actually go forward with their atmospheric hydrogen bomb. Bitcoin will hit $50k each piece very, soon. I don’t see bitcoin coming to an end any time soon.

I hope Litecoin will hit current bitcoin prices, but the market cap for crypto currencies will need to hit 1 Trillion before many more rags to riches stories will occur. I hope I’m one of those lucky ones. Time will only tell.

Keep in mind crypto currencies have been attacked by prominent and elites. The prince attacked bitcoin, Jamie Demon lol tried too, yet his own daughter invest into bitcoin. All those tryin to attack this space, is because cryptos threaten their criminal fractional reserve banking structures and the wealth they make from this fractional banking. The governments and elites are trying to figure out how to stop this decentralized innovation, and the only way to do that is by instilling fear amongst everyone and going to war.
dog1965
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The effects of the Segwit2x cancellation

Postby dog1965 » Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:16 pm

Minermoe wrote:Bitcoin will not collapse for at least the next 10-15 years unless the powers turn of the internet or power. This is likely to happen if N.Korea actually go forward with their atmospheric hydrogen bomb. Bitcoin will hit $50k each piece very, soon. I don’t see bitcoin coming to an end any time soon.

I hope Litecoin will hit current bitcoin prices, but the market cap for crypto currencies will need to hit 1 Trillion before many more rags to riches stories will occur. I hope I’m one of those lucky ones. Time will only tell.

Keep in mind crypto currencies have been attacked by prominent and elites. The prince attacked bitcoin, Jamie Demon lol tried too, yet his own daughter invest into bitcoin. All those tryin to attack this space, is because cryptos threaten their criminal fractional reserve banking structures and the wealth they make from this fractional banking. The governments and elites are trying to figure out how to stop this decentralized innovation, and the only way to do that is by instilling fear amongst everyone and going to war.


Don't kid yourself they just might sooner than you think. And Please Steve is right this Segshit2 or whatever you call it is all about the money they realized that they were going to lose a lot what do you expect really!!! The whole world is greedy and runs on money since the days of Jesus Christ and Judas with the money box. Really Come on why do you think Donald trump is still president wake up people! Oh yea the new world order A secret government or Society Just for the Rich google it NWO. One government one currency one president.
micca410evo
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:55 am

Re: The effects of the Segwit2x cancellation

Postby micca410evo » Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:42 pm

Steve what is your obsession with bigger blocksizes? Your altcoin pump statement is wrong.. the only reason it got back up is because the b2x fork has been called of and there is no free money to grab (people with alts where going btc for the free fork money) and people return to alts.. imo you're are thinking way to much considering this statement.

Another point is your statement about nodes and money transmitters, totally wrong imo, you would argue that some secretary of bookwork/administration would be a money transmitter (for the IRS) (as this seems to be the right comparison) node/secretary.

Also you mentioned by this action bitcoin gets more centralized (i think by all the forks there were more opportunities to centralization instead of keeping the original btc). The same reason people should avoid Bitmain/Antminer/Bitcoin Cash (to keep their market share small instead of growing some oversized crypto company what it already is)

I just consider this outcome as a win for everyone instead of more FUD coins popping up trying to attack the system (even in backrooms behind closed doors). People should still have debate's and argue over scaling solutions, but not act on it with hardforks as it brings more dividing actions than it brings the community together.
pavvappav
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:19 am

Re: The effects of the Segwit2x cancellation

Postby pavvappav » Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:51 pm

I'm unsure if the collapse of bitcoin will be in 10 years or 10 days. The possible use of Teather to artificially inflate the price of bitcoin (and other coins, LTC included) could, in the end, lead to the same unwinding that we saw with the asset backed securities. At that point block size scaling on bitcoin will be a solved problem.
Jakeg5280
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2017 1:09 am

Re: The effects of the Segwit2x cancellation

Postby Jakeg5280 » Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:55 pm

micca410evo wrote:Steve what is your obsession with bigger blocksizes? Your altcoin pump statement is wrong.. the only reason it got back up is because the b2x fork has been called of and there is no free money to grab (people with alts where going btc for the free fork money) and people return to alts.. imo you're are thinking way to much considering this statement.

Another point is your statement about nodes and money transmitters, totally wrong imo, you would argue that some secretary of bookwork/administration would be a money transmitter (for the IRS) (as this seems to be the right comparison) node/secretary.

Also you mentioned by this action bitcoin gets more centralized (i think by all the forks there were more opportunities to centralization instead of keeping the original btc). The same reason people should avoid Bitmain/Antminer/Bitcoin Cash (to keep their market share small instead of growing some oversized crypto company what it already is)

I just consider this outcome as a win for everyone instead of more FUD coins popping up trying to attack the system (even in backrooms behind closed doors). People should still have debate's and argue over scaling solutions, but not act on it with hardforks as it brings more dividing actions than it brings the community together.


i agree with this guy...
Your bias is showing Steve and you are over thinking peoples thoughts on this. it was all about free fork money.. now that its over alts are getting back to where they were before and hopefully beyond
centar
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 12:47 pm

Re: The effects of the Segwit2x cancellation

Postby centar » Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:59 am

Steve, this is bordering on delusional ramblings. The way you talk about "The Core" makes you sound like a religious puritan fighting a holy war against the evil heretics. The fact that you can implicate Core as a centralizing body while ignoring the fact that S2X was called off by SIX individuals is ludicrous.
fugju
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2016 6:09 am

Re: The effects of the Segwit2x cancellation

Postby fugju » Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:29 am

micca410evo wrote:blabla.


Try to understand the words, before writing "false" without any arguments.
User avatar
Steve Sokolowski
Posts: 2423
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2014 3:27 pm
Location: State College, PA
Contact:

Re: The effects of the Segwit2x cancellation

Postby Steve Sokolowski » Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:02 am

centar wrote:Steve, this is bordering on delusional ramblings. The way you talk about "The Core" makes you sound like a religious puritan fighting a holy war against the evil heretics. The fact that you can implicate Core as a centralizing body while ignoring the fact that S2X was called off by SIX individuals is ludicrous.


I understand that some people genuinely support 1MB blocks, but "you're waging a holy war" isn't a valid argument as to why the blocksize should be small. It's possible that I hold the opinion I do simply because the Core focuses on personal attacks rather than logical reasoning.

Therefore, I ask a simple question. Without saying my name or referencing my beliefs, what scientific reason can you provide that doubling the blocksize will result in a negative outcome for the bitcoin network? In addition, if not directly caused by the Core's actions, why is the price of bitcoin falling and bitcoin cash rising?

Return to “Prohashing Blog”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest