Debunking TNW: Hard Fork doesn’t understand Bitcoin

Another day, another sad attempt at disinformation. On Monday, The Next Web’s (TNW) Hard Fork came out with an article claiming that as much as 98% of Bitcoin SV’s (BSV) network activity was “from a dumb weather app.”

The story was based on a tweet by a user named Painted Frog, who claimed that WeatherSV—an app that records local weather and climate data on the BSV blockchain—accounted “for 98.4% of BSV transactions over the past 30 days.”

https://twitter.com/painted_frog/status/1143157145204076545

The stats, generated by blockchain visualizer Trends.cash platform, showed that WeatherSV generated the most “actions” in the past 30 days, followed by Memo, Open Directory, B, and Money Button, among others.


The figures don’t lie, but the parties that want to spread FUD often do. Painted Frog, as well as the Hard Fork article, failed to note that the graph didn’t include all BSV transactions. As John Goldberg, CTO of Pixel Wallet, explained to CoinGeek: “This website displaying transactions is purely based on OP_return transactions. This website doesn’t account for wallets and other outlets for broadcasting transactions on chain.”

Bitcoin wallet HandCash, it’s worth noting, isn’t included in the Trends.cash list.

Wrong perspective
The stats make sense—if taken at face value. The Hard Fork article, however, has taken a wrong perspective because, of course, it also makes sense to pounce on a protocol that represents a threat to the future of other cryptocurrencies despite only launching less than a year ago.

According to the article, “It’s still unclear why this [WeatherSV] service is necessary.”

But the app is necessary, not because it tracks “the silly weather,” but because WeatherSV shows the potential of BSV and on-chain transactions. With BSV, the transaction volumes, essentially the key to any network’s success, come from a thriving ecosystem of products built for the blockchain—financial or not.

There is a reason why the recently held CoinGeek Toronto scaling conference’s Developers Day was a well-attended event, with participants overflowing with ideas on how to take the BSV technology to the moon. There’s already a number of developments taking place, and tons of infrastructure being set up—not bad for the past seven months.

More creative projects are following the footsteps of “silly” WeatherSV and choosing to build to BSV. There’s Zweispace, which has started to record Tokyo earthquake data on BSV chain, while Kronoverse has also brought its CryptoFights player battles to BSV. There’s also OpenWifiSV, video platform concept Metaflix, native BSV photo app Bitstagram, along with many other projects.

Encouraging developers to build their “dumb” projects on BSV, and then turn it into well-designed and usable applications, will enable the ecosystem to grow. That’s a no-brainer.

To get the latest updates on the growing BSV ecosystem, check out Bitcoin Association Founding President Jimmy Nguyen’s weekly Bitcoin Vision, where he updates the world about Bitcoin SV wins. Watch the videos and learn more about BSV, and who knows, maybe you’ll get a Satoshi shout-out in the future. For reporting facts correctly.

Ethereum devs plead for hard fork to retrieve lost funds

Ethereum devs plead for hard fork to retrieve lost funds

This feels like the DAO all over again.

The war for EIP 867

Another controversial proposal is sparking a word war within the Ethereum community. Ethereum Improvement Proposal or EIP 867, known as the Standardized Ethereum Recovery Proposal (ERP), seeks to enable the recovery of funds in special cases like hacks, exploits, and loss of funds due to bugs in smart contracts. Deploying the functionality would warrant a hard fork

One of the developers of the proposal is James Levy, a developer who created a smart contract publishing tool called Mintchalk in 2014. Levy was lauded by Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin on Reddit, and he was awarded with 40,000 ETH for his work. But he lost his funds within three weeks after a hacker was able to steal his ether reportedly due to a weak passphrase. Back then, his ether was worth around $35,000. Today, it’s worth over $35 million.

Levy is not alone. In November last year, multisignature wallet Parity suffered a bug that froze around $285 million worth of ETH at the time, simply due to an accidental kill command.

But users are rejecting the proposal, just like they did when the DAO suffered Ethereum’s first historical, big-time heist. Users pointed out that undoing the heist is a violation of the code’s promise of immutability. They believe the DAO should suffer the consequences of their own negligence—some say that the DAO team were made aware of the vulnerability in their smart contract but they proceeded with the ICO anyway because—money.

During the DAO incident, the proposal for a hard fork to undo the heist pushed through, giving birth to Ethereum Classic (ETC) for those who maintained that they should not be bailed out. But the value of ETH plummeted and did not recover the entire year, and the DAO eventually collapsed anyway.

Similarly, users are now pointing out the motto “code is law,” and that deploying Levy’s proposal is a violation of the code’s immutability pledge. And it looks like this hard fork proposal won’t be as lucky as the DAO’s this time around.

No bail-out this time around

Should Ethereum retrieve funds lost due to buggy smart contracts, or should devs be held accountable for negligence—but then leave their investors to suffer the losses? This question has been floating around in the Ethereum community for years now, and it obviously cannot be swept under the rug. It seems hacks and exploits are a regular thing for Ethereum, a downside of its openness to new developers—regardless of whether they actually know what they’re doing or not.

In the realm of traditional businesses, it is not common to launch software to the public unless it’s security is airtight. And in cases where an oversight happens, the company can be legally held liable for whatever damages their customers and investors incur as a result of their error. In the blockchain industry, it being in its infancy stage, these liabilities are not clear-cut.

Nevertheless, even Buterin doubts that any bail-outs will happen this time around.

“Not sure where this meme that ethereum is ‘trying to’ adopt EIP 867 came from; as far as I can tell it’s not going anywhere and most of the community has rejected it,” Buterin commented on a Reddit thread.

He also clarifies that the DAO did not set a precedent to subsequent bail-outs, as demonstrated by the community’s rejection of the proposal, which he Tweeted a link to.

Note: Tokens in the SegWit chain are referred to as SegWit1X (BTC) and SegWit Gold (SWG) and are no longer Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the only true  Bitcoin as intended by the original Satoshi white paper.  Bitcoin BCH is the only public block chain that offers safe and cheap microtransactions.

Bitcoin Cash will scale to be the global currency

The next hardfork for Bitcoin Cash will see a max block size of 32MB, which ends up supporting close to 100 transactions per second. By comparison, Bitcoin Core’s Segwit, can muster 2-3 transactions per second. The scalability roadmap is undeniable. The only deniability comes from those who are either compromised, or from those who are intentionally working to compromise others.

A 32MB max blocksize is one of many stopgaps in the roadmap to reach 1000, 10,000 and eventually 50,000 tps and more.

Often, I find myself debating some who like to falsely claim that “moore’s law doesn’t transcend to other things like bandwidth of communication speed”. Except that it very much does.

The only technology I can think of that doesn’t experience this extreme growth, is battery capacity. Mind you, even that has been increasing over time – just nowhere near as much. But for Bitcoin, batteries are irrelevant.

It’s true that Moore’s law talks specifically about processor speeds, and even more specifically about the number of transistors in a CPU. But the fundamental outlook being, that technology improves over time. It is for this reason, that Moore’s law is often cited for overall technological growth in disciplines related.

We know very well that Moore’s law is a reality. Ironically, when looking at something like HDD space, that grows even more so. This is a little less popularly known as Kryder’s Law.

Not long ago I tweeted the following an image of three graphs, illustrating how Moore’s law, increases over time, exponentially, supporting the BCH roadmap.

These are detailed below:

Source: Wikimedia Commons

First, we have Moore’s Law itself. 120 years of it in fact. Contrary to what some say, Moore’s law hasn’t stopped… The argument that physical limitations will be reached in time is also highly assumptive. If we’ve learnt one thing in the last century, is that technology always finds a way to break boundaries. We know for instance, that quantum computing is a possibility in the future – this alone reaffirms that new ways of doing things, do come into play. Technology evolves, and progresses.

Bitcoin Cash will scale to be the global currency
Source: Wikimedia Commons

The next point of contention looks at storage capacity. This is a non-issue. Some still found it worthwhile to point out that the graph ends at 2010, insinuating that I might be hiding something. Any research into this shows that this is still going up exponentially to this day, without any reason to believe it is slowing down. This growth is what we call Kryder’s law.

Bitcoin Cash will scale to be the global currency
Source: Nielson Norman Group

This leads us to the final point of contention. For years we heard the Core camp spout that bandwidth will not cope with future bigger blocks, and that blocks won’t propagate properly, and that we’ll get orphan blocks… well you get the picture.

The above is known as Nielsen’s law. Nielsen’s law states: “A high-end user’s connection speed grows by 50% per year.” Take out variance, and you have a very accurate measure there.

Today we have over a century worth of data, proving that technology scales, advances, and improves over time. To not at the least, move with Moore’s law, is to actually move backwards. The further technology moves, and one remains stationary, the further behind one is left.

Bitcoin Cash (BCH) embraces scalability, and it embraces technological growth. It doesn’t remain tied to an absolute position. To do so, is to remain in the dark ages.

The last 4 months for Bitcoin Cash have truly been phenomenal. Development has been far more energised in the last 4 months, than Core have been in the past 3 years. Businesses and merchants are being re-engaged, the ecosystem is exploding into growth. Volume and liquidity has been soaring on the charts, and the frightening thing is, this is just the beginning. With the plan to re-enable dormant op_codes, smart contract functionality is on the horizon again, in a very computationally flexible way. Bitcoin Cash can do what Ethereum does, without the scalability woes, and without the gas complexity. The future is bright for BCH, and I cannot wait for 2018.

Eli Afram
@justicemate

Note: Tokens in the SegWit chain are referred to as SegWit1X (BTC) and SegWit Gold (SWG) and are no longer Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the only true Bitcoin as intended by the original Satoshi white paper.  Bitcoin BCH is the only public block chain that offers safe and cheap microtransactions.

Bitcoin Cash will scale to be the global currency

The next hardfork for Bitcoin Cash will see a max block size of 32MB, which ends up supporting close to 100 transactions per second. By comparison, Bitcoin Core’s Segwit, can muster 2-3 transactions per second. The scalability roadmap is undeniable. The only deniability comes from those who are either compromised, or from those who are intentionally working to compromise others.

A 32MB max blocksize is one of many stopgaps in the roadmap to reach 1000, 10,000 and eventually 50,000 tps and more.

Often, I find myself debating some who like to falsely claim that “moore’s law doesn’t transcend to other things like bandwidth of communication speed”. Except that it very much does.

The only technology I can think of that doesn’t experience this extreme growth, is battery capacity. Mind you, even that has been increasing over time – just nowhere near as much. But for Bitcoin, batteries are irrelevant.

It’s true that Moore’s law talks specifically about processor speeds, and even more specifically about the number of transistors in a CPU. But the fundamental outlook being, that technology improves over time. It is for this reason, that Moore’s law is often cited for overall technological growth in disciplines related.

We know very well that Moore’s law is a reality. Ironically, when looking at something like HDD space, that grows even more so. This is a little less popularly known as Kryder’s Law.

Not long ago I tweeted the following an image of three graphs, illustrating how Moore’s law, increases over time, exponentially, supporting the BCH roadmap.

These are detailed below:

Source: Wikimedia Commons

First, we have Moore’s Law itself. 120 years of it in fact. Contrary to what some say, Moore’s law hasn’t stopped… The argument that physical limitations will be reached in time is also highly assumptive. If we’ve learnt one thing in the last century, is that technology always finds a way to break boundaries. We know for instance, that quantum computing is a possibility in the future – this alone reaffirms that new ways of doing things, do come into play. Technology evolves, and progresses.

Bitcoin Cash will scale to be the global currency
Source: Wikimedia Commons

The next point of contention looks at storage capacity. This is a non-issue. Some still found it worthwhile to point out that the graph ends at 2010, insinuating that I might be hiding something. Any research into this shows that this is still going up exponentially to this day, without any reason to believe it is slowing down. This growth is what we call Kryder’s law.

Bitcoin Cash will scale to be the global currency
Source: Nielson Norman Group

This leads us to the final point of contention. For years we heard the Core camp spout that bandwidth will not cope with future bigger blocks, and that blocks won’t propagate properly, and that we’ll get orphan blocks… well you get the picture.

The above is known as Nielsen’s law. Nielsen’s law states: “A high-end user’s connection speed grows by 50% per year.” Take out variance, and you have a very accurate measure there.

Today we have over a century worth of data, proving that technology scales, advances, and improves over time. To not at the least, move with Moore’s law, is to actually move backwards. The further technology moves, and one remains stationary, the further behind one is left.

Bitcoin Cash (BCH) embraces scalability, and it embraces technological growth. It doesn’t remain tied to an absolute position. To do so, is to remain in the dark ages.

The last 4 months for Bitcoin Cash have truly been phenomenal. Development has been far more energised in the last 4 months, than Core have been in the past 3 years. Businesses and merchants are being re-engaged, the ecosystem is exploding into growth. Volume and liquidity has been soaring on the charts, and the frightening thing is, this is just the beginning. With the plan to re-enable dormant op_codes, smart contract functionality is on the horizon again, in a very computationally flexible way. Bitcoin Cash can do what Ethereum does, without the scalability woes, and without the gas complexity. The future is bright for BCH, and I cannot wait for 2018.

Eli Afram
@justicemate

Note: Tokens in the SegWit chain are referred to as SegWit1X (BTC) and SegWit Gold (SWG) and are no longer Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is the only true Bitcoin as intended by the original Satoshi white paper.  Bitcoin BCH is the only public block chain that offers safe and cheap microtransactions.

Bitcoin Cash hard fork goes smoothly

Will this finally hold miners down to the BCH chain?

While the legacy chain’s long-anticipated SegWit2x hard fork was ditched at the last minute, a less politically charged hard fork pushed through smoothly with no issues—in an alternate blockchain universe. Yesterday, Bitcoin Cash (BCH) successfully implemented a hard fork upgrade that would hopefully solve the erratic hashrate supplied by fickle miners.

Throughout the few months since Bitcoin Cash (BCH) came into existence, it has been implementing the Emergency Difficulty Adjustment (EDA), a mechanism allowing it to quickly adjust the mining difficulty in order to attract miners into the pool.

While the BCH blockchain needed EDA to survive in its early stages, it also caused its transaction processing times to fluctuate wildly as miners switched back and forth between BTC and BCH, depending on which chain is easier and more profitable to mine at any given moment.

This caused the hashrate to fluctuate wildly and the instability subsequently caused erratic processing times, ultimately hindering BCH from fulfilling the promise of becoming a reliable and stable payment system—the peer-to-peer electronic cash as envisioned by the Satoshi white paper.

Yesterday’s hard fork is an upgrade to a new difficulty adjustment algorithm (DAA) that would enable the creation of blocks at roughly 600 seconds (10 minutes), and is based on the proposal from Bitcoin ABC lead developer Amaury Sechet. The proposal was chosen after months of deliberation between different proposals from multiple independent developer teams since it had the least risks and was at par with the other proposals in terms of benefits.

The benefits of the new DAA are as follows:

Bitcoin Cash hard fork goes smoothly
Image from Bitcoin ABC

As of last checking, majority of the nodes on the Bitcoin Cash network have upgraded to the new software, which means a split is unlikely.

It will take some time to see the effects of the fork as the rollout continues. But with an ambitious road map ahead, and with contenders falling out of the race, it seems Bitcoin Cash might be shooting up soon. Advocates of big blocks have migrated to BCH since SegWit2x was scrapped; Bitcoin Classic recently endorsed Bitcoin Cash as they closed down, saying they are no longer needed as BCH is already achieving what they set out to do.

Bitcoin Cash hard fork goes smoothly

Will this finally hold miners down to the BCH chain?

While the legacy chain’s long-anticipated SegWit2x hard fork was ditched at the last minute, a less politically charged hard fork pushed through smoothly with no issues—in an alternate blockchain universe. Yesterday, Bitcoin Cash (BCH) successfully implemented a hard fork upgrade that would hopefully solve the erratic hashrate supplied by fickle miners.

Throughout the few months since Bitcoin Cash (BCH) came into existence, it has been implementing the Emergency Difficulty Adjustment (EDA), a mechanism allowing it to quickly adjust the mining difficulty in order to attract miners into the pool.

While the BCH blockchain needed EDA to survive in its early stages, it also caused its transaction processing times to fluctuate wildly as miners switched back and forth between BTC and BCH, depending on which chain is easier and more profitable to mine at any given moment.

This caused the hashrate to fluctuate wildly and the instability subsequently caused erratic processing times, ultimately hindering BCH from fulfilling the promise of becoming a reliable and stable payment system—the peer-to-peer electronic cash as envisioned by the Satoshi white paper.

Yesterday’s hard fork is an upgrade to a new difficulty adjustment algorithm (DAA) that would enable the creation of blocks at roughly 600 seconds (10 minutes), and is based on the proposal from Bitcoin ABC lead developer Amaury Sechet. The proposal was chosen after months of deliberation between different proposals from multiple independent developer teams since it had the least risks and was at par with the other proposals in terms of benefits.

The benefits of the new DAA are as follows:

Bitcoin Cash hard fork goes smoothly
Image from Bitcoin ABC

As of last checking, majority of the nodes on the Bitcoin Cash network have upgraded to the new software, which means a split is unlikely.

It will take some time to see the effects of the fork as the rollout continues. But with an ambitious road map ahead, and with contenders falling out of the race, it seems Bitcoin Cash might be shooting up soon. Advocates of big blocks have migrated to BCH since SegWit2x was scrapped; Bitcoin Classic recently endorsed Bitcoin Cash as they closed down, saying they are no longer needed as BCH is already achieving what they set out to do.

Unknown entity promises to resurrect dead SegWit2X fork

The fight to initiate the November hard fork isn’t over yet for one group, which has vowed to continue signalling for SegWit2X even though the project’s main backers have already cancelled the split event.

On Wednesday, supporters of the SegWit2X project called off the plans for the contentious hard fork event due to lack of support from the community. In a post, BitGo CEO Mike Belshe acknowledged that pursuing the project would only “divide the community” further and would only “be a setback to Bitcoin’s growth.”

However, a group called BitPico responded to Wednesday’s announcement that it will carry out the hard fork event “regardless” of the lack of support, because “everything is set in motion.” The previously unknown entity claimed to be composed of miners that hold 30 percent of the network’s hash rate.

“Backing down the difficulty right now is a strategy,” the group wrote from an iCloud address. “Wonder why 30 percent network hash-rate disappeared? It’s ours; the miners that will continue what is set in motion… A handful of humans cannot stop what they have no control over.”

Rather than comforting the community, BitPico’s message raised suspicions that it could be a hoax. In response to entrepreneur Tuur Demeester’s question if “anyone know who this is,” Twitter user IamNomad did a basic Google search, which showed the group “didn’t exist before September of 2017,” while user @1nacaleon1 claimed BitPico is “the group of people who invested on SegWit2X features.”

Regardless if whether BitPico will push through with their plan, the question remains: What will happen if 30 percent of the BTC network decided to go ahead with SegWit2X?

We cannot discount that there will be a few people, perhaps some of the developers, will refuse to give up. After all, they have already invested a lot of time and energy on the project. In this scenario, that group could end up splitting 30 percent hash from the SegWit1X chain.

This means that the SegWit1X chain gets 70 percent of the BTC hash, and the SegWit2X chain will die a slow death. If this happens, the 30 percent hash will eventually move to Bitcoin (BCH), and BCH will end up being the chain with the most hash.

SegWit2X was initially mediated as the New York Agreement, a compromise between the warring camps of the scaling debate. Instead of building a consensus, however, the project only led to the community becoming even more divided—leaving behind an underpowered SegWit chain and BCH even closer to winning.

Unknown entity promises to resurrect dead SegWit2X fork

The fight to initiate the November hard fork isn’t over yet for one group, which has vowed to continue signalling for SegWit2X even though the project’s main backers have already cancelled the split event.

On Wednesday, supporters of the SegWit2X project called off the plans for the contentious hard fork event due to lack of support from the community. In a post, BitGo CEO Mike Belshe acknowledged that pursuing the project would only “divide the community” further and would only “be a setback to Bitcoin’s growth.”

However, a group called BitPico responded to Wednesday’s announcement that it will carry out the hard fork event “regardless” of the lack of support, because “everything is set in motion.” The previously unknown entity claimed to be composed of miners that hold 30 percent of the network’s hash rate.

“Backing down the difficulty right now is a strategy,” the group wrote from an iCloud address. “Wonder why 30 percent network hash-rate disappeared? It’s ours; the miners that will continue what is set in motion… A handful of humans cannot stop what they have no control over.”

Rather than comforting the community, BitPico’s message raised suspicions that it could be a hoax. In response to entrepreneur Tuur Demeester’s question if “anyone know who this is,” Twitter user IamNomad did a basic Google search, which showed the group “didn’t exist before September of 2017,” while user @1nacaleon1 claimed BitPico is “the group of people who invested on SegWit2X features.”

Regardless if whether BitPico will push through with their plan, the question remains: What will happen if 30 percent of the BTC network decided to go ahead with SegWit2X?

We cannot discount that there will be a few people, perhaps some of the developers, will refuse to give up. After all, they have already invested a lot of time and energy on the project. In this scenario, that group could end up splitting 30 percent hash from the SegWit1X chain.

This means that the SegWit1X chain gets 70 percent of the BTC hash, and the SegWit2X chain will die a slow death. If this happens, the 30 percent hash will eventually move to Bitcoin (BCH), and BCH will end up being the chain with the most hash.

SegWit2X was initially mediated as the New York Agreement, a compromise between the warring camps of the scaling debate. Instead of building a consensus, however, the project only led to the community becoming even more divided—leaving behind an underpowered SegWit chain and BCH even closer to winning.

SegWit2X abandoned: Backers call off November hard fork over lack of support

The highly controversial SegWit2X is officially no more.

Proponents of the SegWit2X project announced on Wednesday they are cancelling plans for the contentious hard fork event, which is expected to activate on Nov. 16. The reason: Insufficient support from the community.

In a post, Bitgo CEO Mike Belshe acknowledged that the scaling project is too controversial to move forward.

“Although we strongly believe in the need for a larger blocksize, there is something we believe is even more important: keeping the community together,” Belshe wrote. “Unfortunately, it is clear that we have not built sufficient consensus for a clean blocksize upgrade at this time. Continuing on the current path could divide the community and be a setback to Bitcoin’s growth. This was never the goal of SegWit2X.”

The post was also signed off by companies that originally supported the project, including Xapo CEO Wences Casares, Bitmain co-founder Jihan Wu, Bloq co-founder and CEO Jeff Garzik, Blockchain co-founder and CEO Peter Smith, and Shapeshift founder and CEO Erik Voorhees.

SegWit2X was initially mediated as the New York Agreement, a compromise between the warring camps of the scaling debate. The plan was to upgrade the SegWit chain to increase the capacity of the network from ~250,000 transactions per day to ~500,000 transactions per day within six months from May 2017, when the consensus was reached.

Companies, however, started dropping out of the New York Agreement after it became clear to them that the fork will only divide the community further. This ultimately led to the cancellation of the November hard fork, although SegWit2X supporters said they are still advocating for a block size increase—one that will pave the way for a “smooth upgrade.”

“As fees rise on the blockchain, we believe it will eventually become obvious that on-chain capacity increases are necessary. When that happens, we hope the community will come together and find a solution, possibly with a blocksize increase. Until then, we are suspending our plans for the upcoming 2MB upgrade,” the group said.

In response to the news, the price of BTC immediately shot up, hitting a new all-time high of $7,900 before consolidating near the $7,700 level.

Great news for BCH

The abandonment of SegWit2X fork is a major victory for supporters of the true Bitcoin as intended by the original Satoshi white paper. With the cancellation, the SegWit asset coin and Bitcoin (BCH) can now go their own way—people can use SegWit coin for storage, then BCH for commerce and transactions.

The SegWit branch, which entails high transaction fees, will stay small as it locks into its non-transactional business model, although they can still be used as institutional value transfer system. BCH, on the other hand, aims to grow bigger and become a worldwide peer-to-peer electronic cash system, able to compete directly with mainstream payment processors.

SegWit2X abandoned: Backers call off November hard fork over lack of support

The highly controversial SegWit2X is officially no more.

Proponents of the SegWit2X project announced on Wednesday they are cancelling plans for the contentious hard fork event, which is expected to activate on Nov. 16. The reason: Insufficient support from the community.

In a post, Bitgo CEO Mike Belshe acknowledged that the scaling project is too controversial to move forward.

“Although we strongly believe in the need for a larger blocksize, there is something we believe is even more important: keeping the community together,” Belshe wrote. “Unfortunately, it is clear that we have not built sufficient consensus for a clean blocksize upgrade at this time. Continuing on the current path could divide the community and be a setback to Bitcoin’s growth. This was never the goal of SegWit2X.”

The post was also signed off by companies that originally supported the project, including Xapo CEO Wences Casares, Bitmain co-founder Jihan Wu, Bloq co-founder and CEO Jeff Garzik, Blockchain co-founder and CEO Peter Smith, and Shapeshift founder and CEO Erik Voorhees.

SegWit2X was initially mediated as the New York Agreement, a compromise between the warring camps of the scaling debate. The plan was to upgrade the SegWit chain to increase the capacity of the network from ~250,000 transactions per day to ~500,000 transactions per day within six months from May 2017, when the consensus was reached.

Companies, however, started dropping out of the New York Agreement after it became clear to them that the fork will only divide the community further. This ultimately led to the cancellation of the November hard fork, although SegWit2X supporters said they are still advocating for a block size increase—one that will pave the way for a “smooth upgrade.”

“As fees rise on the blockchain, we believe it will eventually become obvious that on-chain capacity increases are necessary. When that happens, we hope the community will come together and find a solution, possibly with a blocksize increase. Until then, we are suspending our plans for the upcoming 2MB upgrade,” the group said.

In response to the news, the price of BTC immediately shot up, hitting a new all-time high of $7,900 before consolidating near the $7,700 level.

Great news for BCH

The abandonment of SegWit2X fork is a major victory for supporters of the true Bitcoin as intended by the original Satoshi white paper. With the cancellation, the SegWit asset coin and Bitcoin (BCH) can now go their own way—people can use SegWit coin for storage, then BCH for commerce and transactions.

The SegWit branch, which entails high transaction fees, will stay small as it locks into its non-transactional business model, although they can still be used as institutional value transfer system. BCH, on the other hand, aims to grow bigger and become a worldwide peer-to-peer electronic cash system, able to compete directly with mainstream payment processors.

Bitso president backs out of SegWit2x, says NYA just “divided and caused mayhem”

Things are not looking good for SegWit2x: its lead developer has abandoned the project, and its supporters are falling out.

Tensions build up as NYA signatories express doubt over the upcoming SegWit2x (S2X) hard fork—the activation of which kicks in sometime around November 16. As specified in the New York Agreement (NYA), the second phase of SegWit will increase block sizes in Bitcoin’s legacy chain (BTC) from 1Mb to 2Mb.

As the controversial protocol change draws near, NYA signatories are starting to think twice about the “contentious” hard fork, with some even actively urging the community to back out before it’s too late.

Thursday last week, Mexican bitcoin exchange Bitso’s co-founder and president Daniel Vogel posted a message on the SegWit2x mailing list urging the community to rethink their support of the hard fork: “This is not a blockchain upgrade. This is a chain split.”

I would urge everyone to rethink the S2X code from a technical perspective. The code base was written as an upgrade to Bitcoin. I believe there is enough hard data out there to make it clear that S2X is no longer an upgrade.

He adds that the NYA has failed its ultimate goals—the ones the signatories signed up for. “One of the things that was agreed upon at the NYA was better signaling methods – I have seen none so far. Why is this? This makes me uncomfortable.”

When we were invited to sign the NYA I saw an opportunity to come together as an industry. Although proud to have signed the NYA – it got segwit activated in a coordinated and safe way (no UASF hell!), I believe the NYA has failed in achieving its original goal of keeping the community together and advancing the development of Bitcoin in a coordinated manner.

He went on to list the possible reasons why things turned out to be such a mess, referring to arguments (and possibly the rumoured paid propaganda) in online forums. Throughout Bitcoin’s scaling debacle, the community has been divided, with lots of bickering from opposing parties. Supporters of the initial phase of the NYA, Segregated Witness (SegWit) have been in a hostile standoff against supporters of its second phase, SegWit2x. Instead of serving as a peaceful compromise, the NYA turned into a tug of war between developers and miners, with each pushing for a solution that would best serve their interests, both by profit and power.

Whether this failure is the fault of some loudmouths in twitter, some trolls in Reddit, or very opinionated and principled engineers and scientists is irrelevant. What’s relevant is that NYA has failed to bring the community together and provide a safe mechanism to upgrade Bitcoin as it had intended to do.

I might be stupidly naive or I might just be figuring how decentralized consensus mechanisms work (like many of you, I’d assume), but when asked about signing the NYA I definitely didn’t agree to it in order to further divide and cause mayhem, which is what NYA has achieved.

This is not a blockchain upgrade. This is a chain split and we are failing to address legitimate safety concerns for the users of this network.

Some are hyping up their No2X campaign ever harder; one even wrote an open call to end this madness and support Bitcoin Cash (BCH) instead, citing that it is the most unadulterated and truest Bitcoin based on the Satoshi whitepaper.

Things are definitely not looking well for SegWit2x advocates. Late last month, its lead developer Jeff Garzik announced that he has been working on a rival cryptocurrency to BTC—one that will survive should the Bitcoin blockchain collapse. SegWit2x currently has 83.7% mining pool support; it requires 95.1% support to fully activate, otherwise another split is underway. But with more than a week before activation, a lot can still happen. As you know, ten days is like a year (or so) in Bitcoin time.

Bitso president backs out of SegWit2x, says NYA just “divided and caused mayhem”

Things are not looking good for SegWit2x: its lead developer has abandoned the project, and its supporters are falling out.

Tensions build up as NYA signatories express doubt over the upcoming SegWit2x (S2X) hard fork—the activation of which kicks in sometime around November 16. As specified in the New York Agreement (NYA), the second phase of SegWit will increase block sizes in Bitcoin’s legacy chain (BTC) from 1Mb to 2Mb.

As the controversial protocol change draws near, NYA signatories are starting to think twice about the “contentious” hard fork, with some even actively urging the community to back out before it’s too late.

Thursday last week, Mexican bitcoin exchange Bitso’s co-founder and president Daniel Vogel posted a message on the SegWit2x mailing list urging the community to rethink their support of the hard fork: “This is not a blockchain upgrade. This is a chain split.”

I would urge everyone to rethink the S2X code from a technical perspective. The code base was written as an upgrade to Bitcoin. I believe there is enough hard data out there to make it clear that S2X is no longer an upgrade.

He adds that the NYA has failed its ultimate goals—the ones the signatories signed up for. “One of the things that was agreed upon at the NYA was better signaling methods – I have seen none so far. Why is this? This makes me uncomfortable.”

When we were invited to sign the NYA I saw an opportunity to come together as an industry. Although proud to have signed the NYA – it got segwit activated in a coordinated and safe way (no UASF hell!), I believe the NYA has failed in achieving its original goal of keeping the community together and advancing the development of Bitcoin in a coordinated manner.

He went on to list the possible reasons why things turned out to be such a mess, referring to arguments (and possibly the rumoured paid propaganda) in online forums. Throughout Bitcoin’s scaling debacle, the community has been divided, with lots of bickering from opposing parties. Supporters of the initial phase of the NYA, Segregated Witness (SegWit) have been in a hostile standoff against supporters of its second phase, SegWit2x. Instead of serving as a peaceful compromise, the NYA turned into a tug of war between developers and miners, with each pushing for a solution that would best serve their interests, both by profit and power.

Whether this failure is the fault of some loudmouths in twitter, some trolls in Reddit, or very opinionated and principled engineers and scientists is irrelevant. What’s relevant is that NYA has failed to bring the community together and provide a safe mechanism to upgrade Bitcoin as it had intended to do.

I might be stupidly naive or I might just be figuring how decentralized consensus mechanisms work (like many of you, I’d assume), but when asked about signing the NYA I definitely didn’t agree to it in order to further divide and cause mayhem, which is what NYA has achieved.

This is not a blockchain upgrade. This is a chain split and we are failing to address legitimate safety concerns for the users of this network.

Some are hyping up their No2X campaign ever harder; one even wrote an open call to end this madness and support Bitcoin Cash (BCH) instead, citing that it is the most unadulterated and truest Bitcoin based on the Satoshi whitepaper.

Things are definitely not looking well for SegWit2x advocates. Late last month, its lead developer Jeff Garzik announced that he has been working on a rival cryptocurrency to BTC—one that will survive should the Bitcoin blockchain collapse. SegWit2x currently has 83.7% mining pool support; it requires 95.1% support to fully activate, otherwise another split is underway. But with more than a week before activation, a lot can still happen. As you know, ten days is like a year (or so) in Bitcoin time.