Incorrectly-listed S2X companies

[theymos]

Bitcoin.org will (soon) have a list of companies that will default to S2X. If there is solid info indicating that a company is incorrectly on or off the list, post here.

[eumartinez20]

Crypto Facilities may need to be removed from the list. Email seems to be from Timo, could be the co-founder.

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/timoschlaefer/en

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/740son/nya_signer_uk_company_crypto_facilities_pulls/?st=j8fr55w3&sh=83321dbe

EDIT: But of course, confirmation of support removal would be nice

[prusnak]

@eumartinez20 They have not announced the withdrawal publicly, yet.

[AdvancedStyle]

Please can you add us to the list of Segwit2X companies: https://bx.in.th/ (Thailand)

We are already listed here: https://coin.dance/poli

[piotrnar]

I really believe that at the end of the day it is the miners that control the protocol. It all comes down to security and I could explain it to you with a few very simple examples, but my understanding is that you don't want to hear about this.

Anyway, since it is quite possible that the miners will choose to upgrade the block size, starting from block #494784, I am going to modify the consensus part of my gocoin project to allow up to 2MB big blocks, starting from that block. The node will choose as active whichever branch will have more proof-of-work, without discriminating any of the two "implementations".

Therefore please feel free to label me the enemy of bitcoin and include my project in your funny list.

https://github.com/piotrnar/gocoin

[seweso]

Are only businesses allowed on your list? I guess a lot of people implicitly follow the longest chain, with most people using SPV wallets and all. I think we should add all those millions of users also on the list. That's only fair.

Thanks for the list!! That's for sure.

[ghost]

Add me to the list too please. Also, Coinbase, Bitpay, Poloniex, Gemini,... You know, better just add the whole Bitcoin community to the list of "attackers".

[kryptan]

@kbenzle Coinbase and Bitpay are already on the list. Can you please provide proof that Poloniex and Gemini support Segwit2x?

[zander]

Its not a company, but Bitcoin Classic added re-org protection to only follow the SegWit2x chain. I would be happy if you can list me on your page.

Thank you!

[PiscisSwimeatus]

/r/btc should be added as well since most of the pro 2x users seams to be there after getting banned from /r/bitcoin

[addisdev]

Can I be added to the list?

[achow101]

Please stop trolling this thread. Individuals are not being listed. This list is only for companies and services who have stated support for or against Segwit2x.

[PiscisSwimeatus]

Should we add a twitter poll to gauge if the nakamoto consensus agrees that individuals should be added?

[creativecuriosity]

@PiscisSwimeatus,
You seem to think this situation is some type of joke.
People will lose extremely large amounts of money in this fork.
Money that was intended to send their children to college, care for their parents, and other life changing purposes.
This isn't a drill, and it isn't a joke.

[x-ETHeREAL-x]

@creativecuriosity That seems highly unlikely and hyperbolic. In reality, it is unlikely that a minority chain will survive without a POW algorithm change, like BCH EDA, or a difficulty change. When one of those happens, its an altcoin on a different chain than the heaviest POW chain and so it's not bitcoin's problem. Even if both chains persist after a difficult trudge, then personal responsibility demands people assume responsibility for their coins on either chain and prevent replay attacks.

Even for those uninformed users that do make replayable transactions, as we saw from the ETH/ETC chain split (where replays were constant for weeks), the fallout is not an existential crisis.

[eumartinez20]

It seems not even Segwit2X has an updated list of signatories as no response has been given to their last email.

It will probably be quite difficult to get an updated list here (not just because of trolling but because I would expect some companies may never get here if they dont even respond on the S2X mailing list) so it may be a good idea to publish as is and update if issues later?

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-October/000321.html

[apezio]

Please add: Fork Networking . We support Segwit2x. https://twitter.com/ForkNetworking/status/916369565730316288

[Coinfucius]

We would be happy to have our support for 2x displayed on your site. Please add Coinfucius ATM Operator to your list. Thanks!

Verification: https://twitter.com/CoinfuciusSay/status/916384742643322881

[nyaaB]

@apezio, you can't say you support something and at the same time state that you are not supporting it. There is no Segwit2x without segwit. So stating that you support Segwit2x is wrong when you don't support that part of it.

@Coinfucius, you should then declare support FOR it and not simply post childish comments on twitter.

@oojr, spam like yours can still be removed.

[tenthirtyone]

I support 2x & Bitcoin Cash. I would consider it a point of pride to be added to this list. Please add me.

Cryptocurrency offers a means of escaping the type of coercion and shame culture we are seeing in this post - and that is common among fiat currencies and their regulators. I support the people who have the most invested having a greater say than those who do nothing but talk and throw tantrums.

Blockstream is becoming synonymous with bureaucracy. At least that seems to be what they are offering at this point.

[chrisrico]

@theymos I am not a Core contributor, though I truly support their efforts in scaling Bitcoin. I would however suggest change to the wording of point 1.

The company will not under any circumstances list “Segwit2x” as “BTC” and/or “Bitcoin”.

While I reject 2x and believe that most feel the same, I do think that if a vast majority of the ecosystem were to call 2x chain "Bitcoin", then it would be correct. Just like how ETH hard forked but ETC took a new name. That is the only acceptable reason to list Segwit2x as BTC, but to demand that every company agree to never list it as such under any condition is unreasonable.

[snavsenv]

what is the point of this? it seems like it will just create more unneccary drama

[tyler-smith]

what is the point of this? it seems like it will just create more unneccary drama

Creating unnecessary drama is the point. It's all they know how to do in the face of losing their own project.

[bitcoinstore]

Bitcoin.com will proudly list S2X, and we will list it as the default version of Bitcoin and will use the ticker BTC. (Along with 95% of the rest of the ecosystem)

[Cobra-Bitcoin]

and will use the ticker BTC. (Along with 95% of the rest of the ecosystem)

@bitcoinstore https://i.imgur.com/NVPeTRz.gif

[instagibbs]

@bitcoinstore that's going to really confuse your users when "BTC" suddenly loses 80% of its value

[Seccour]

@bitcoinstore If you're going to use the ticker BTC for B2X... What are you going to do with your lovely altcoin Bitcoin Cash (BCash :*) ?

[theymos]

This issue is getting raided, so I'll lock it temporarily. If you want to make a serious post, come back later.

[Cobra-Bitcoin]

Coinbase put out a statement saying they'll support both blockchains. Their statement isn't really helpful though since they don't specify how they will name these chains. Coinbase must immediately clarify that they will continue to call the current Bitcoin blockchain "Bitcoin" with the ticker symbol "BTC". It's absolutely unacceptable to rename people's BTC to something else, because this is likely to confuse them and lead to loss of funds. The fact that Coinbase haven't even figured out how to name these chains is concerning.

@barmstrong If you intend to call the Segwit2x chain "BTC", then please tell us now. The community needs to know as soon as possible so we can warn users to not naively sell their actual Bitcoin, and so we can explain to them what you have done to their money.

[seweso]

The fair way to solve this whole debacle is have Exchanges 1) Continue to list Bitcoin as the combined token, thus if you deposit coins which are replayed you get Bitcoin (replay is a feature in this case). 2) Offer the ability to split Bitcoin's into BT1 and BT2, and allow trade. 3) Be super clear what will happen if you withdraw "Bitcoin" vs. "BT1" vs "BT2".

Only if there is a clear "winner" can BT1 or BT2 be regarded as "Bitcoin".

[ojanssens]

Simply list the chain with the most proof of work as Bitcoin, it's not rocket science, it's in the whitepaper. Knowing that 90%+ miners are going to support 2X, there's no reason to confuse customers. If Bitcoin Core and bitcoin.org would truly care that much about Bitcoin, they would accept that. If they want the 1MB chain to survive, I'd recommend to make haste in finding sufficient mining power or implement a POW change + add replay protection. Otherwise the minority chain will not stand a chance and it will be extremely detrimental and confusing for end users to keep fighting something which is already clearly decided.

[chrisrico]

@ojanssens Proof of work says nothing about which incompatible chain is Bitcoin, that is entirely a social question not an algorithmic one. Your backwards view leads to the eventuality that miners entirely dictate the rules of Bitcoin, which they clearly do not and should not.

[piotrnar]

@ojanssens, exactly!

What kind of "favour" is bitcoin.org website doing to these poor people, telling them that their bitcoins will be safer on the branch that'd have like ten times less hashing power than the "competing" one?

[chrisrico]

If a commitment to NYA ensures that the fork will have a majority of hash rate, why did Bitcoin Cash get up to 50% of hash rate when it was more profitable? Clearly miners will do whatever makes them the most profit, and early futures markets are putting the price of Bitcoin higher than SegWit2x.

[ojanssens]

@chrisrico If miners would do something completely unacceptable, pretty much everyone would reject it. A 2MB increase is wanted by many, and clearly not controversial enough for most companies and users in the ecosystem to reject it. In fact, most companies and users have been begging for this for years. The simple fact remains that Blockstream and Core, together with the websites and forums controlled by a handful of the same people (bitcoin.org, bitcointalk, /r/bitcoin) can just not accept the fact that they are in the minority. It is now their responsibility to accept proper defeat and move on, or they risk hurting Bitcoin tremendously and creating a huge amount of customer confusion.

[ojanssens]

@chrisrico are you referring to this manipulated futures market? https://medium.com/@olivierjanss/why-bitfinexs-chain-split-tokens-are-completely-biased-towards-the-small-block-side-again-698395bae619

[chrisrico]

What is your non-biased source of the claim that most of the Bitcoin ecosystem supports a SegWit2x takeover? Also, why do you even care now that you have your precious Bitcoin Cash? To me it just reads like you're trying to sabotage Bitcoin for the benefit of Bitcoin Cash.

[x-ETHeREAL-x]

@chrisrico Mining profitability is not strictly a function of the current price, but of the expectation of the future price and the risk in getting there. Miners cannot spend mined coins immediately, they must wait 100 blocks before they can spend mined coins. This introduces more into the calculus than the current price/current difficulty. I don't think the fact that an instantaneously more profitable BCH chain lacks 100% of mining capability implies some benevolence in the miners who will save a minority 1x chain.

[chrisrico]

@x-ETHeREAL-x That's not what I was getting at. The fact that miners abandoned Bitcoin to mine Bitcoin Cash after they had signed NYA is indicative that they will mine whatever coin is most profitable. They've only agreed to launch the fork, not exclusively mine it. People claiming that SegWit2x has a majority hashrate just don't understand how Bitcoin works at all. Miners follow the money, not the other way around.

[x-ETHeREAL-x]

@chrisrico I understand that. But, I also understand Bitcoin is not designed to support minority chains. The question is whether the initial hash rate switch will be enough to signal a winner quickly, rendering the minority chain all but stagnant. Recall when ETH forked, the original chain was essentially dead for a couple of days, then when Polo listed the coin, miners instantly flocked to it and gave it new profitable life as ETC. That probably won't work for bitcoin (by design) because the difficulty will not adjust without significant time/hash power. Bitcoin needs hash power before it can even have transactions and possibly be useful/valuable.

While you're right that miners can switch to a more profitable chain, what are the prospects of a minority bitcoin chain being more profitable (or even usable) after an initial massive switch?

[chrisrico]

Your mistake is assuming that just because miners put "NYA" in their coinbase that means they will mine SegWit2x.

[x-ETHeREAL-x]

It certainly is not binding, but what incentive do they have to false signal? Miners have the most capital invested as compared to most actors, they are heavily incentivized to do what will make the price the highest. I don't see how false signaling helps them, it would just introduce massive uncertainty and market instability for them to switch last minute. It's not really that I trust them to do what they signal, but I don't see the incentive for them to false signal.

That said, I do see incentives for them to force 2x. Many supporters of 1x (and the UASF) have suggested that miners are the enemy and there have been numerous articles about how miners don't really control bitcoin. I don't see the incentive for them to back 1x and prove right those who say they are the enemy/powerless. From their perspective, "bitcoin" will go on after they assert their power and force the fork, and they likely (correctly) believe that if they do, users will buy their coins (because there won't be any more 1x chain). Interesting times we live in, it'll be interesting to watch.

[Seccour]

@ojanssens - "Simply list the chain with the most proof of work as Bitcoin, it's not rocket science, it's in the whitepaper. "

Sure. So if an attacker with more hashing power fork off then his chain automatically become Bitcoin right ?

"I'd recommend to make haste in finding sufficient mining power or implement a POW change + add replay protection" - You are forking off. Which is something we didn't ask for. So if you care that much about users you should by default add replay protection. There is no reason for the people that doesn't want the change to add replay protection to their chain and legitimate the fork. And then regarding the PoW change i will not even let that happen even in your dream and you know why ? Because it will just mean that we will give as being Bitcoin and let you be it.

"something which is already clearly decided." - Sure. It's not what i'm seeing everyday when talking to users.

"A 2MB increase is wanted by many, and clearly not controversial enough for most companies and users in the ecosystem to reject it." - Numbers ? Figures ? Anything that would prove that most companies and users in the ecosystem don't reject it. For the number of companies if i take coin.dance as a source, more companies are against it that in favor. (And no being prepared for it isn't an endorsement) Regarding the users there is no figures. And taking the number of users companies that support 2x have doesn't reflect the reality of it since nobody did ask them.

"In fact, most companies and users have been begging for this for years." - So why not everyone did follow Bitcoin Cash then ? Why you didn't all fork off way before we did got SW if it's the case. Like if we're reading you, most companies, most users and pretty much the largest of the community in general love your plan and want to follow it. So why it wasn't done before ? Why did we waste 8+ months before SW got activated ? While you were just able to fork off with the majority and have bigger blocks on Bitcoin.

"It is now their responsibility to accept proper defeat and move on, or they risk hurting Bitcoin tremendously and creating a huge amount of customer confusion." - You did try XT... Didn't work. You did try Classic... Didn't work. You did try Unlimited... Didn't work. You did try Bitcoin Cash... Didn't work. And you're going to try B2X and it will not work. You should read your own advice and use them. Move on.

So as you can see... If we really were the minority here, you would have won already.

[seweso]

@Seccour

So if an attacker with more hashing power fork off then his chain automatically become Bitcoin right ?

No, not immediately. Just like a few orphaned blocks are not Bitcoin. In reality what Bitcoin is will be determined by popular opinion, and that will most likely follow the longest chain of work. So it could take some time before it is clear which is which (probably within a few hours, but could take a few days).

You are forking off. Which is something we didn't ask for.

And we didn't ask for the blocksize-limit to be kept. If you are in the shitter doing nothing doesn't keep your hands clean. Let's agree to disagree on this one.

For the number of companies if i take coin.dance as a source, more companies are against it that in favor.

Are you actually just counting businesses? You think they all have an equal vote?

Coin.dance own weighting puts it at 97% for SW2X.

So why not everyone did follow Bitcoin Cash then ?

NYA predates Bitcoin Cash. Weird question Seccour.

Why you didn't all fork off way before we did got SW if it's the case.

Bitcoin Classic was underhandedly destroyed through the HK agreement. Furthermore the NYA agreement was designed to have as little disruption as possible. Activating SegWit first made sense in that regard. Even activating it before UASF made sense (although I think letting UASF face-plant was better).

Why did we waste 8+ months before SW got activated ?

Again, that would be the HK agreement. Which states SW + HF. No HF means no SW.

You seem to be surprised by people holding unto agreements.

And you're going to try B2X and it will not work. You should read your own advice and use them. Move on.

Usurping the status quo is not akin to winning. The HK agreement was a disgrace, if that's what you need to win. As are all the censorship/attacks/propaganda/politics.

There has not been an honest vote until now. Core didn't win, and XT/Classic didn't lose in a fair fight.

Now Core has 97% of businesses 95% of miners against it. And you keep talking about you not being a minority? It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

You do sybills, go promote exchanges like Bitfinex, go hold twitter polls. Let us vote with the best tool Satoshi gave us: miners & the free market.

[Seccour]

In reality what Bitcoin is will be determined by popular opinion

Thank you. Popular opinion doesn't seem to go in your direction so you can have as much hash power as you want.

And we didn't ask for the blocksize-limit to be kept.

So fork off in a clean way instead of putting people's money at risk with such an unclean HF.

Coin.dance own weighting puts it at 97% for SW2X.

I will not took it into consideration as long as i don't know how they proceed to calculate it. And it's 30% not 97%.

You seem to be surprised by people holding unto agreements.

We don't need those agreements in the first place. If you want agreements between CEOs to be signed behind close door for Bitcoin, you did choose the wrong project.

As are all the censorship/attacks/propaganda/politics

It come from both side.

There has not been an honest vote until now. Core didn't win, and XT/Classic didn't lose in a fair fight.

There is no fair fight. Do you think it's fair for us to have to fight against a bunch of CEOs that own big companies and a few miners that would mine anything that could make them money even if it harm Bitcoin (Hi to all miners that did play with Bitcoin Cash EDA)

Oh they were fair. Nothing were blocking miners and companies to adopt either XT / Classic or Unlimited if they wanted to.

Now Core has 97% of businesses 95% of miners against it. And you keep talking about you not being a minority? It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

What about users ? Just forget them ? And no it's not 97% of businesses.

Let us vote with the best tool Satoshi gave us: miners & the free market.

Glad that you cite the free market. Because as you can see on Bitfinex, this attack is loosing. And don't say the same thing as ojanssens that Bitfinex way of doing thing is unfair and that's why it's not representative because it's not unfair. You have 95% of the miners and a majority of the businesses if we're listening to you guys. So there is no reason for you to not buy those tokens in your positions.

If you believe that much in what you are saying, not buying those BT2 tokens is first, irrational, and secondly it will be the biggest mistake of your life if you're right.

So continue to make fun of our Twitter polls, NO2X stickers, and everything. But that will not change the fact that in the end, Bitcoin will survive this, what i consider to be, an attack.

@seweso

[luke-jr]

Mike Belshe (CEO BitGo) was today peddling dishonest 2X propaganda: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-October/000369.html

[x-ETHeREAL-x]

@luke-jr I really don't understand why you're against 2x as a technical matter? You signed the HK agreement, which contemplated a 2x hard fork with a 5 month projected gap in 2016. So it doesn't seem like that aspect is inherently unsound. I understand the fight to maintain the reference client control, but if core just merged 2x, there would be instant consensus, no one would use BTC1 and core would retain the reference client. The messaging could be easily controlled to prevent blow-back about giving in or anything else. Playing chicken with this winner-take-all 1x vs 2x fork seems non-ideal for all involved.

[luke-jr]

@x-ETHeREAL-x For most answers, see this reddit comment. Note that HKA was only to develop a recommendation for a 2 MB hardfork, not an 8 MB altcoin (which is what 2X is). Even 1 MB blocks are demonstrably harmful to Bitcoin; 8 MB is just outright insane.

[x-ETHeREAL-x]

@luke-jr Can you point me to calculations that give 8mb, even in theory? That's not in your comment, and I would agree 8mb could present problems. That said, I remember there was a single block on the segwit testnet that did 1.7mb filled with 1->1 p2pkh transactions, and I remember hearing theories for how it could get up to 2.1mb, but I don't think anyone ever got that to work in practice. The HKA said "an increase in the non-witness data to be around 2 MB, with the total size no more than 4 MB" which is what BTC1's implementation sounds like. What am I missing?

[achow101]

@x-ETHeREAL-x

The base block size is 2 million bytes (2 1000 1000). The maximum block weight is then defined as 4 times that, so it is 8 million weight units. The weight is defined in BIP 141 as block base size * 3 + total size in bytes of a block (witnesses are considered part of a block).

Lets assume that we have two transactions in a block, the coinbase transaction and a very large one input transaction which spends a native P2WSH output, creates a P2PKH output, and has a very large witness. The block header is 80 bytes and the coinbase transaction of 251 bytes (average of the last 20 blocks' coinbase transactions rounded up). The non-witness size of the other transaction is 81 bytes.

We can now solve for the largest size in bytes for the witness. Let X be the size in bytes of the witness. Our equation is

3(80+251+81) + (X+80+251+81)=8000000
1236 + X + 412 = 8000000
1648 + X = 8000000
X = 7998352

Therefore the largest size the witness of this transaction can be is 7998352 bytes. Thus the total largest theoretical block size is 7998352 + 412 = 7998764 bytes. This is ~8 MB. It can be even larger if the coinbase and the non-witness part of the large transaction were smaller (which is entirely possible, just not secure).

[x-ETHeREAL-x]

@achow101 I see, thanks. Isn't the P2WSH witnessScript limited to 10,000 bytes? The BIP141 spec. seems to indicate that unless I'm misunderstanding. In any event, I can see how you could get use 10,000 byte witnessscripts and get to be in the ballpark of 8mb.