Twitter | Search | |
Omar Bham (Crypt0)
Unpopular opinion(?): BTC would have a higher price, and more network demand, if Segwit2x had gone as planned. BCH/BSV wouldn't exist, BTC would have bigger blocks, and Segwit still would have happened. IMO BTC has become crippled through Blockstream/Lightning hubris.
Reply Retweet Like More
NasAnd1 Nov 27
Replying to @crypt0snews
maybe I'm wrong but I thought we opted to avoid 2x because it was do give advantage to the larger miners and increase centralization... segwit on the other hand opens the gates for scaling and other cool stuff?
Reply Retweet Like
Omar Bham (Crypt0) Nov 27
Replying to @NasipeW
That's the common narrative from the small-block side (but only one half of the discussion....hence why I closely followed both r/Bitcoin AND r/btc)
Reply Retweet Like
Marius Kjærstad Nov 27
Replying to @crypt0snews
BCH forked before SegWit activated. The point was to avoid SegWit.
Reply Retweet Like
Omar Bham (Crypt0) Nov 27
Replying to @MKjrstad
Fair enough. There were serious concerns about what implications moving the witness data would do.
Reply Retweet Like
I'm a believer. Ⓥ Nov 27
Replying to @crypt0snews
If segwit2X would have gone as planned Bitcoin would be dead because of the fatal bug in the code
Reply Retweet Like
Omar Bham (Crypt0) Nov 27
Isn't the fatal bug just a myth? Either way, Bitcoin has had fatal bugs in the past, and resolved them rather quickly using emergency measures. did a great video about them before, including talking about the "overflow incident". is versed in that too.
Reply Retweet Like
Lee_Baumer Nov 27
Replying to @crypt0snews
The fallout of segwit2x was the most successful attack on bitcoin ever accomplished. Not technical, but political. Divide and conquer
Reply Retweet Like
Omar Bham (Crypt0) Nov 27
Replying to @baumer_lee
Agreed. It was pretty cunning a ploy, to the ends that people still are unaware of how it transpired.
Reply Retweet Like
Joel Valenzuela Nov 27
Replying to @crypt0snews
Exactly, and I knew this at the time. It would have even more demand/price if it had simply done 2x without the Segwit... then 4x... then 8x, etc., without forking off to smaller chains.
Reply Retweet Like
Omar Bham (Crypt0) Nov 27
Replying to @TheDesertLynx
The compromise was something that looked so mature to me, until one side played very dirty, by staying quiet until after Segwit passed (this first part of the compromise). If you want to talk about a scam in crypto, here is a major one.
Reply Retweet Like