If we isolate ourselves for a moment of screaming that has replaced the debate in Bitcoinlandia and attend the various proposals to pave the way for scalability , we see that no more that three competing, each of which represents a different view of Bitcoin:
1- A group ( Bitcoin Cash ) has planned a hard fork for August 1 . This branch will remove the limit on the size of the blocks and will not accept Segwit . Although we do not know how much computing power will count, there are pools willing to support it and sharing sites willing to facilitate negotiations. His supporters aim to eliminate arbitrary ability to block the chain, in order to realize the vision of reality restrictions Satoshi Nakamoto: "A peer-to-peer Electronic Cash System" .
Another group 2- ( UASF : soft fork activated users) plans reject any hard fork and activate Segwit via "soft fork" and the limit to the size of the blocks in 1MB regardless of computing power capable of appealing. Supporters aim to restrict the ability of the chain blocks to take the most transactions to a "second layer" mounted on Bitcoin.
3- A third group ( Segwit + 2X ), composed in principle by which signed the agreement New York, has planned a hard fork mid-November would raise the limit to the size of the blocks 1 to 2 MB, having Segwit accepted . At the moment this is the initiative's mining support, although the computing power necessary to sustain it until mid-November (more than 80% of the total) is not insured. His supporters hope to maintain unity among the members of the other two groups who are willing to partially give up their claims, thus avoiding contentious hard fork.
In short, it would be correct to say that either 1 (Bitcoin Cash) as 2 (UASF) are asking for a divorce, while 3 (Segwit + 2X) seeks to prolong the marriage, even in bad terms.
Before proceeding, it is important to know a factor that might influence the final result of this "clusterfork" the mere possibility that the economic most runs adopting Bitcoin Cash or free alternative Segwit in the near or distant future, you could discourage the use of this function, since all transactions Segwit will wear in the alternative string as coins obsequiadas miners. In other words, use Segwit is betting that this new format will be accepted transaction and will remain always accepted by the chain block is winning-which no one can garantizar-, risking it all "segwitcoins" ever sent ( not only the past). A real leap of faith.
Then clarified the current situation, see what could happen in the coming weeks and months .
If the second part of the agreement Segwit + 2X (increasing the limit of 1 MB to 2 MB) is effective in November , we will have freed us from the centralized control of Blockstream / Core , and it will demonstrate that, contrary to what they tell us from this organization, a hard fork to lift the limit on the size of the blocks is no more than a simple and necessary software upgrade (which anyway several altcoins have already shown). 2X could then be the first step towards a chain adaptable and functional blocks. In the short term, it could bolster confidence of investors and consequently boost the price of bitcoin. However, in the longer term could stretch the conflict between fundamentally incompatible visions, which fill uncertainty these same investors. Is the debate begin again once we encounter the limit of 2 MB?
If the New York agreement is met and quickly turn to hit the centrally planned (in this case 2 MB) limit , but instead of being the limit to the market this is adamant 2MB as the conflict threatens to eternalize, Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Unlimited could become more and more attractive to users and investors, and therefore also for mining, businesses that accept Bitcoin, sharing sites, purses, and all those who can benefit from the economic activity that takes place outside the chain under centralized economic planning. The same could happen if radical changes involving the incorporation of Segwit end up causing more problems than benefits, regardless of the size of the blocks.
If the New York agreement is not met and in the second half of November the limit on the size of the blocks continuing existence in 1MB , rates continue to rise in the chain limited to 1MB blocks and this will be reduced to a record large settlements accessible only to large financial intermediaries. But it is difficult to conceive of a Bitcoin so severely disabled without overwhelming competition from other branches. Much of computing power most probably, judging by what I have said representatives of some of the largest ones pools, will undermine an independent chain that supports blocks of more than 1 MB, perhaps using Bitcoin Unlimited ( customer "agnostic" which follows the emerging consensus where you drive) or Bitcoin Cash. It is also difficult to conceive the feasibility of a "second layer" mounted on a system unusable, because the second layer would be as useless and worthless as the first.
If investors strongly underpin Bitcoin Cash , they could force the signatories to the agreement to leave New York Segwit2X to get to mine bitcoins "cash" if these currencies widely exceeded in value to those of the other branches. Today it seems unlikely, but remember that a few years ago also seemed unlikely that the bitcoin, based on the incentive system devised by Satoshi Nakamoto, reach parity with the dollar.
We will have therefore a fork on August 1, and the possibility of another 3 months. Which side will be most of the computing power?
Eventually, computing power will be required to support the initiative that has been chosen by the most economical . But relax, you do not have to guess which of the above initiatives will be the preferred market. All current owners of bitcoins (ie, those who control their private keys) will next month owners of the same amount of bitcoins "cash" in the corresponding to the fork of Bitcoin Cash chain, and eventually bitcoins "Segwit + 2X "in the Segwit + 2X.
There is nothing to fear; you will be automatically invested in all chains . And do not do anything but wait , except you're a trader in search of emotions.
It becomes apparent that one of the chains competition has won the favor market sustained and irreversible way, the value will flow to her in an increasingly mighty stream. Then decliners chains converge toward winning or fall into a downward spiral while bitcoiners dump their bad exchange for good coins, and those who were waiting for a solution from the outside also invest in the winning chain, widening further gap.
Thanks to hijack the repository founded by Satoshi Nakamoto, the expulsion of the original developers of the project, disinformation campaigns and tight monitoring of the main communication channels Bitcoinlandia, Blockstream / Core, with the support of institutions parastatal financial terrified by the Bitcoin progress has led capitalization Bitcoin 95% to 40% of the total capitalization of criptomonedas. It does not seem unreasonable to predict that this trend will continue in the controlled Blockstream / Core branch, while the draft Satoshi Nakamoto is finally released from their chains.
1- A group ( Bitcoin Cash ) has planned a hard fork for August 1 . This branch will remove the limit on the size of the blocks and will not accept Segwit . Although we do not know how much computing power will count, there are pools willing to support it and sharing sites willing to facilitate negotiations. His supporters aim to eliminate arbitrary ability to block the chain, in order to realize the vision of reality restrictions Satoshi Nakamoto: "A peer-to-peer Electronic Cash System" .
Another group 2- ( UASF : soft fork activated users) plans reject any hard fork and activate Segwit via "soft fork" and the limit to the size of the blocks in 1MB regardless of computing power capable of appealing. Supporters aim to restrict the ability of the chain blocks to take the most transactions to a "second layer" mounted on Bitcoin.
3- A third group ( Segwit + 2X ), composed in principle by which signed the agreement New York, has planned a hard fork mid-November would raise the limit to the size of the blocks 1 to 2 MB, having Segwit accepted . At the moment this is the initiative's mining support, although the computing power necessary to sustain it until mid-November (more than 80% of the total) is not insured. His supporters hope to maintain unity among the members of the other two groups who are willing to partially give up their claims, thus avoiding contentious hard fork.
In short, it would be correct to say that either 1 (Bitcoin Cash) as 2 (UASF) are asking for a divorce, while 3 (Segwit + 2X) seeks to prolong the marriage, even in bad terms.
Before proceeding, it is important to know a factor that might influence the final result of this "clusterfork" the mere possibility that the economic most runs adopting Bitcoin Cash or free alternative Segwit in the near or distant future, you could discourage the use of this function, since all transactions Segwit will wear in the alternative string as coins obsequiadas miners. In other words, use Segwit is betting that this new format will be accepted transaction and will remain always accepted by the chain block is winning-which no one can garantizar-, risking it all "segwitcoins" ever sent ( not only the past). A real leap of faith.
Then clarified the current situation, see what could happen in the coming weeks and months .
If the second part of the agreement Segwit + 2X (increasing the limit of 1 MB to 2 MB) is effective in November , we will have freed us from the centralized control of Blockstream / Core , and it will demonstrate that, contrary to what they tell us from this organization, a hard fork to lift the limit on the size of the blocks is no more than a simple and necessary software upgrade (which anyway several altcoins have already shown). 2X could then be the first step towards a chain adaptable and functional blocks. In the short term, it could bolster confidence of investors and consequently boost the price of bitcoin. However, in the longer term could stretch the conflict between fundamentally incompatible visions, which fill uncertainty these same investors. Is the debate begin again once we encounter the limit of 2 MB?
If the New York agreement is met and quickly turn to hit the centrally planned (in this case 2 MB) limit , but instead of being the limit to the market this is adamant 2MB as the conflict threatens to eternalize, Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Unlimited could become more and more attractive to users and investors, and therefore also for mining, businesses that accept Bitcoin, sharing sites, purses, and all those who can benefit from the economic activity that takes place outside the chain under centralized economic planning. The same could happen if radical changes involving the incorporation of Segwit end up causing more problems than benefits, regardless of the size of the blocks.
If the New York agreement is not met and in the second half of November the limit on the size of the blocks continuing existence in 1MB , rates continue to rise in the chain limited to 1MB blocks and this will be reduced to a record large settlements accessible only to large financial intermediaries. But it is difficult to conceive of a Bitcoin so severely disabled without overwhelming competition from other branches. Much of computing power most probably, judging by what I have said representatives of some of the largest ones pools, will undermine an independent chain that supports blocks of more than 1 MB, perhaps using Bitcoin Unlimited ( customer "agnostic" which follows the emerging consensus where you drive) or Bitcoin Cash. It is also difficult to conceive the feasibility of a "second layer" mounted on a system unusable, because the second layer would be as useless and worthless as the first.
If investors strongly underpin Bitcoin Cash , they could force the signatories to the agreement to leave New York Segwit2X to get to mine bitcoins "cash" if these currencies widely exceeded in value to those of the other branches. Today it seems unlikely, but remember that a few years ago also seemed unlikely that the bitcoin, based on the incentive system devised by Satoshi Nakamoto, reach parity with the dollar.
We will have therefore a fork on August 1, and the possibility of another 3 months. Which side will be most of the computing power?
Eventually, computing power will be required to support the initiative that has been chosen by the most economical . But relax, you do not have to guess which of the above initiatives will be the preferred market. All current owners of bitcoins (ie, those who control their private keys) will next month owners of the same amount of bitcoins "cash" in the corresponding to the fork of Bitcoin Cash chain, and eventually bitcoins "Segwit + 2X "in the Segwit + 2X.
There is nothing to fear; you will be automatically invested in all chains . And do not do anything but wait , except you're a trader in search of emotions.
It becomes apparent that one of the chains competition has won the favor market sustained and irreversible way, the value will flow to her in an increasingly mighty stream. Then decliners chains converge toward winning or fall into a downward spiral while bitcoiners dump their bad exchange for good coins, and those who were waiting for a solution from the outside also invest in the winning chain, widening further gap.
Thanks to hijack the repository founded by Satoshi Nakamoto, the expulsion of the original developers of the project, disinformation campaigns and tight monitoring of the main communication channels Bitcoinlandia, Blockstream / Core, with the support of institutions parastatal financial terrified by the Bitcoin progress has led capitalization Bitcoin 95% to 40% of the total capitalization of criptomonedas. It does not seem unreasonable to predict that this trend will continue in the controlled Blockstream / Core branch, while the draft Satoshi Nakamoto is finally released from their chains.