SegWit2x - Revision history

Luke-jr at 22:31, 24 February 2019

2019-02-24T22:31:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:31, 24 February 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	:''Not to be confused with [[Segregated Witness\|SegWit]].''<br/>		:''Not to be confused with [[Segregated Witness\|SegWit]].''<br/>
	'''SegWit2x''', (abbreviated '''B2X''' or '''S2X''', and originally called '''SegWit2Mb'''), was a failed contentious hardfork outlined in the [[New York Agreement]] that intended to double the block size limit. The hardfork has been denounced as an attempt made by CEOs and owners of large Bitcoin businesses to introduce changes to the currency's protocol and development cycle with ulterior motives.<ref>{{cite web\|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/ktorpey/2017/10/31/is-bitcoin-facing-a-corporate-takeover-via-the-2x-fork-a-developer-and-a-business-leader-debate/#11a821363bff\|title=Is Bitcoin Facing A Corporate Takeover Via The '2x' Fork? A Developer And A Business Leader Debate\|work=Forbes\|author=Torpey, Kyle\|date=October 31, 2017\|accessdate=November 29, 2017}}</ref>		'''SegWit2x''', (abbreviated '''B2X''' or '''S2X''', and originally called '''SegWit2Mb'''), was a failed contentious hardfork attempt outlined in the [[New York Agreement]] that intended to double the block size limit. The hardfork has been denounced as an attempt made by CEOs and owners of large Bitcoin businesses to introduce changes to the currency's protocol and development cycle with ulterior motives.<ref>{{cite web\|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/ktorpey/2017/10/31/is-bitcoin-facing-a-corporate-takeover-via-the-2x-fork-a-developer-and-a-business-leader-debate/#11a821363bff\|title=Is Bitcoin Facing A Corporate Takeover Via The '2x' Fork? A Developer And A Business Leader Debate\|work=Forbes\|author=Torpey, Kyle\|date=October 31, 2017\|accessdate=November 29, 2017}}</ref>

	Though over 80% of miners signaled intention for SegWit2x and the New York Agreement, it failed to gain any consensus among the community and Core developers. As it became clear that the execution of the fork would lead to a currency split, the address format was deliberately kept identical and no replay protection was implemented, which would have caused many BTC users to inadvertently use B2X. Additionally, code changes were made that allowed B2X nodes to pretend to be BTC nodes in order to connect and use P2P peers from the bitcoin network when synchronizing. Due to these qualities, many users considered B2X to be an outright attack on the bitcoin network, but its designers continued marketing it as an upgrade.		Though over 80% of miners signaled intention for SegWit2x and the New York Agreement, it failed to gain any consensus among the community and Core developers. As it became clear that the execution of the fork would lead to a currency split, the address format was deliberately kept identical and no replay protection was implemented, which would have caused many BTC users to inadvertently use B2X. Additionally, code changes were made that allowed B2X nodes to pretend to be BTC nodes in order to connect and use P2P peers from the bitcoin network when synchronizing. Due to these qualities, many users considered B2X to be an outright attack on the bitcoin network, but its designers continued marketing it as an upgrade.

Taras at 10:31, 2 January 2018

2018-01-02T10:31:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:31, 2 January 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	:''Not to be confused with [[Segregated Witness]]~~, which is commonly abbreviated as SegWit~~.''<br/>		:''Not to be confused with [[Segregated Witness\|SegWit]].''<br/>
	'''SegWit2x''', (abbreviated '''B2X''' or '''S2X''', and originally called '''SegWit2Mb'''), was a failed contentious hardfork outlined in the [[New York Agreement]] that intended to double the block size limit. The hardfork has been denounced as an attempt made by CEOs and owners of large Bitcoin businesses to introduce changes to the currency's protocol and development cycle with ulterior motives.<ref>{{cite web\|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/ktorpey/2017/10/31/is-bitcoin-facing-a-corporate-takeover-via-the-2x-fork-a-developer-and-a-business-leader-debate/#11a821363bff\|title=Is Bitcoin Facing A Corporate Takeover Via The '2x' Fork? A Developer And A Business Leader Debate\|work=Forbes\|author=Torpey, Kyle\|date=October 31, 2017\|accessdate=November 29, 2017}}</ref>		'''SegWit2x''', (abbreviated '''B2X''' or '''S2X''', and originally called '''SegWit2Mb'''), was a failed contentious hardfork outlined in the [[New York Agreement]] that intended to double the block size limit. The hardfork has been denounced as an attempt made by CEOs and owners of large Bitcoin businesses to introduce changes to the currency's protocol and development cycle with ulterior motives.<ref>{{cite web\|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/ktorpey/2017/10/31/is-bitcoin-facing-a-corporate-takeover-via-the-2x-fork-a-developer-and-a-business-leader-debate/#11a821363bff\|title=Is Bitcoin Facing A Corporate Takeover Via The '2x' Fork? A Developer And A Business Leader Debate\|work=Forbes\|author=Torpey, Kyle\|date=October 31, 2017\|accessdate=November 29, 2017}}</ref>

Line 11:		Line 11:
	== References ==		== References ==
	<references/>		<references/>

			[[Category:Block size limit controversy]]
			[[Category:Direct code forks of Bitcoin Core]]
			[[Category:Failed hardforks]]
			[[Category:Contentious hardforks]]

Taras at 21:19, 29 November 2017

2017-11-29T21:19:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:19, 29 November 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	:''Not to be confused with [[Segregated Witness]], which is commonly abbreviated as SegWit.''<br/>		:''Not to be confused with [[Segregated Witness]], which is commonly abbreviated as SegWit.''<br/>
	'''SegWit2x''', (~~also called~~ '''B2X''' or '''S2X'''), was a failed contentious hardfork that intended to double the block size limit. The hardfork has been denounced as an attempt made by CEOs and owners of large Bitcoin businesses to introduce changes to the currency's protocol and development cycle with ulterior motives.<ref>{{cite web\|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/ktorpey/2017/10/31/is-bitcoin-facing-a-corporate-takeover-via-the-2x-fork-a-developer-and-a-business-leader-debate/#11a821363bff\|title=Is Bitcoin Facing A Corporate Takeover Via The '2x' Fork? A Developer And A Business Leader Debate\|work=Forbes\|author=Torpey, Kyle\|date=October 31, 2017\|accessdate=November 29, 2017}}</ref>		'''SegWit2x''', (abbreviated '''B2X''' or '''S2X''', and originally called '''SegWit2Mb'''), was a failed contentious hardfork outlined in the [[New York Agreement]] that intended to double the block size limit. The hardfork has been denounced as an attempt made by CEOs and owners of large Bitcoin businesses to introduce changes to the currency's protocol and development cycle with ulterior motives.<ref>{{cite web\|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/ktorpey/2017/10/31/is-bitcoin-facing-a-corporate-takeover-via-the-2x-fork-a-developer-and-a-business-leader-debate/#11a821363bff\|title=Is Bitcoin Facing A Corporate Takeover Via The '2x' Fork? A Developer And A Business Leader Debate\|work=Forbes\|author=Torpey, Kyle\|date=October 31, 2017\|accessdate=November 29, 2017}}</ref>

	~~== Support rate ==~~		Though over 80% of miners signaled intention for SegWit2x and the New York Agreement, it failed to gain any consensus among the community and Core developers. As it became clear that the execution of the fork would lead to a currency split, the address format was deliberately kept identical and no replay protection was implemented, which would have caused many BTC users to inadvertently use B2X. Additionally, code changes were made that allowed B2X nodes to pretend to be BTC nodes in order to connect and use P2P peers from the bitcoin network when synchronizing. Due to these qualities, many users considered B2X to be an outright attack on the bitcoin network, but its designers continued marketing it as an upgrade.

	Though over 80% of miners signaled intention for SegWit2x, it failed to gain any consensus among the community and the Core developers. As it became clear that the execution of the fork would lead to a currency split, the address format was deliberately kept identical and no replay protection was implemented, which would have caused many BTC users to inadvertently use B2X. Additionally, code changes were made that allowed B2X nodes to pretend to be BTC nodes in order to connect and use P2P peers from the bitcoin network when synchronizing. Due to these qualities, many users considered B2X to be an outright attack on the bitcoin network, but its designers continued marketing it as an upgrade.		== Cancellation and aftermath ==

	== Cancellation ==
	The SegWit2x hardfork was declared cancelled in a joint statement by six individuals.<ref>{{cite web\|url=https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-November/000685.html\|title=Segwit2x Final Steps\|author=Belsche, Mike et al.\|date=November 8, 2017}}</ref> In the following hours, the price of B2X futures (called BT2 on [[Bitfinex]]) dropped to 1% of the price of [[Bitcoin]] (BTC, called BT1 as a Bitfinex future).		The SegWit2x hardfork was declared cancelled in a joint statement by six individuals.<ref>{{cite web\|url=https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-November/000685.html\|title=Segwit2x Final Steps\|author=Belsche, Mike et al.\|date=November 8, 2017}}</ref> In the following hours, the price of B2X futures (called BT2 on [[Bitfinex]]) dropped to 1% of the price of [[Bitcoin]] (BTC, called BT1 as a Bitfinex future).

	Despite the cancellation, some parties intended to proceed with the hard fork.<ref>{{cite web\|url=https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/mysterious-group-bitpico-threatens-to-execute-segwit2x-hard-fork/\|title=Mysterious Group BitPico Threatens to Execute the Bitcoin Hard Fork\|work=Cryptocoins News\|author=Wilmoth, Josiah\|date=November 11, 2017\|accessdate=November 29, 2017}}</ref> However, when the SegWit2x nodes split from the rest of the network on November 17, it was found that they had done so one block earlier than anticipated, at block 494782.<ref>{{cite web\|url=https://www.coindesk.com/no-fork-no-fire-segwit2x-nodes-stall-running-abandoned-bitcoin-code/\|title=No Fork, No Fire: Segwit2x Nodes Stall Running Abandoned Bitcoin Code\|work=[[CoinDesk]]\|author=Higgins, Stan\|date=November 17, 2017\|accessdate=November 29, 2017}}</ref> This was due to an [[wikipedia:off-by-one error\|off-by-one error]] as a result of counting up from the [[genesis block]] instead of from block 1. After splitting off, SegWit2x nodes were then waiting for the first block of >1MB to begin the chain fork. But the protocol rules say that the block size increase does not occur until block 494784, so because block 494783 is both required to be at most 1 MB by the original rules and greater than 1 MB by the new rules, SegWit2x had come to a permanent standstill.		Despite the cancellation, some parties intended to proceed with the hard fork.<ref>{{cite web\|url=https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/mysterious-group-bitpico-threatens-to-execute-segwit2x-hard-fork/\|title=Mysterious Group BitPico Threatens to Execute the Bitcoin Hard Fork\|work=Cryptocoins News\|author=Wilmoth, Josiah\|date=November 11, 2017\|accessdate=November 29, 2017}}</ref> However, when the SegWit2x nodes split from the rest of the network on November 17, it was found that they had done so one block earlier than anticipated, at block 494782.<ref name="cd">{{cite web\|url=https://www.coindesk.com/no-fork-no-fire-segwit2x-nodes-stall-running-abandoned-bitcoin-code/\|title=No Fork, No Fire: Segwit2x Nodes Stall Running Abandoned Bitcoin Code\|work=[[CoinDesk]]\|author=Higgins, Stan\|date=November 17, 2017\|accessdate=November 29, 2017}}</ref> This was due to an [[wikipedia:off-by-one error\|off-by-one error]] as a result of counting up from the [[genesis block]] instead of from block 1. After splitting off, SegWit2x nodes were then waiting for the first block of >1MB to begin the chain fork. But the protocol rules say that the block size increase does not occur until block 494784, so because block 494783 is both required to be at most 1 MB by the original rules and greater than 1 MB by the new rules,{{citation needed}} SegWit2x had come to a permanent standstill.<ref name="cd"/>

	== References ==		== References ==
	<references/>		<references/>

Taras at 20:57, 29 November 2017

2017-11-29T20:57:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:57, 29 November 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	:''Not to be confused with [[Segregated Witness]], which is commonly abbreviated as SegWit.''<br/>		:''Not to be confused with [[Segregated Witness]], which is commonly abbreviated as SegWit.''<br/>
	'''SegWit2x''', (also called '''B2X''' or '''S2X'''), was a failed contentious hardfork that intended to double the block size limit. The ~~attempt~~ has been denounced as an attempt made by CEOs and owners of ~~several~~ Bitcoin businesses to introduce ~~a change in Bitcoin~~ with ulterior motives~~, including the replacement of~~ the Bitcoin ~~developers with [[Jeff Garzik]].~~		'''SegWit2x''', (also called '''B2X''' or '''S2X'''), was a failed contentious hardfork that intended to double the block size limit. The hardfork has been denounced as an attempt made by CEOs and owners of large Bitcoin businesses to introduce changes to the currency's protocol and development cycle with ulterior motives.<ref>{{cite web\|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/ktorpey/2017/10/31/is-bitcoin-facing-a-corporate-takeover-via-the-2x-fork-a-developer-and-a-business-leader-debate/#11a821363bff\|title=Is Bitcoin Facing A Corporate Takeover Via The '2x' Fork? A Developer And A Business Leader Debate\|work=Forbes\|author=Torpey, Kyle\|date=October 31, 2017\|accessdate=November 29, 2017}}</ref>

	== Support rate ==		== Support rate ==

	It failed to gain consensus among community:		Though over 80% of miners signaled intention for SegWit2x, it failed to gain any consensus among the community and the Core developers. As it became clear that the execution of the fork would lead to a currency split, the address format was deliberately kept identical and no replay protection was implemented, which would have caused many BTC users to inadvertently use B2X. Additionally, code changes were made that allowed B2X nodes to pretend to be BTC nodes in order to connect and use P2P peers from the bitcoin network when synchronizing. Due to these qualities, many users considered B2X to be an outright attack on the bitcoin network, but its designers continued marketing it as an upgrade.

	* over 80% of miners by hashare (though they were just signaling, and ~~this has no cryptographic or economical meaning or repercussions)~~
	* just below 20% of users by economy ([https://www.~~bitfinex.com/order_book/bt2btc BitFinex futures market as BT2 token]) (representing actual trades~~ that ~~were executed for money)~~
	* around 0% of ~~Bitcoin developers (Bitcoin Core)~~

	~~== Attack or upgrade ==~~

	~~It was created in a way that~~ would ~~trick users into unknowingly switching~~ to ~~B2X from BTC~~, ~~due to:~~

	* no replay protection
	* simple SPV wallets without special tools to ~~detect the problem would accept~~ B2X ~~blocks as BTC blocks~~
	* same address formats
	* code changes that allowed B2X nodes to pretend to be BTC nodes in order to connect and use P2P peers from ~~BTC~~ network

	~~due~~ to ~~this~~ qualities, many users considered B2X ~~and~~ attack on ~~BTC~~ network.

	~~B2X was marketed by~~ it~~'s creators~~ as an "upgrade".

	== Cancellation ==		== Cancellation ==
	The SegWit2x hardfork was declared cancelled in a joint statement by six individuals.<ref>{{cite web\|url=https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-November/000685.html\|title=Segwit2x Final Steps\|author=Belsche, Mike et al.\|date=November 8, 2017}}</ref> In the following hours, the price of B2X futures (called BT2 on [[Bitfinex]]) dropped to 1% of the price of [[Bitcoin]] (BTC, called BT1 as a Bitfinex future).		The SegWit2x hardfork was declared cancelled in a joint statement by six individuals.<ref>{{cite web\|url=https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-November/000685.html\|title=Segwit2x Final Steps\|author=Belsche, Mike et al.\|date=November 8, 2017}}</ref> In the following hours, the price of B2X futures (called BT2 on [[Bitfinex]]) dropped to 1% of the price of [[Bitcoin]] (BTC, called BT1 as a Bitfinex future).

	Despite the cancellation, some parties intended to proceed with the hard fork.<ref>{{cite web\|url=https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/mysterious-group-bitpico-threatens-to-execute-segwit2x-hard-fork/\|title=Mysterious Group BitPico Threatens to Execute the Bitcoin Hard Fork\|work=Cryptocoins News\|author=Wilmoth, Josiah\|date=November 11, 2017\|accessdate=November 29, 2017}}</ref> However, when the ~~flag day arrived~~, it was found that an off-by-one error in the SegWit2x ~~protocol made it impossible to solve~~ the first ~~required~~ >1MB block, ~~freezing~~ the ~~currency entirely~~.		Despite the cancellation, some parties intended to proceed with the hard fork.<ref>{{cite web\|url=https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/mysterious-group-bitpico-threatens-to-execute-segwit2x-hard-fork/\|title=Mysterious Group BitPico Threatens to Execute the Bitcoin Hard Fork\|work=Cryptocoins News\|author=Wilmoth, Josiah\|date=November 11, 2017\|accessdate=November 29, 2017}}</ref> However, when the SegWit2x nodes split from the rest of the network on November 17, it was found that they had done so one block earlier than anticipated, at block 494782.<ref>{{cite web\|url=https://www.coindesk.com/no-fork-no-fire-segwit2x-nodes-stall-running-abandoned-bitcoin-code/\|title=No Fork, No Fire: Segwit2x Nodes Stall Running Abandoned Bitcoin Code\|work=[[CoinDesk]]\|author=Higgins, Stan\|date=November 17, 2017\|accessdate=November 29, 2017}}</ref> This was due to an [[wikipedia:off-by-one error\|off-by-one error]] as a result of counting up from the [[genesis block]] instead of from block 1. After splitting off, SegWit2x nodes were then waiting for the first block of >1MB to begin the chain fork. But the protocol rules say that the block size increase does not occur until block 494784, so because block 494783 is both required to be at most 1 MB by the original rules and greater than 1 MB by the new rules, SegWit2x had come to a permanent standstill.

	== References ==		== References ==
	<references/>		<references/>

Taras at 20:27, 29 November 2017

2017-11-29T20:27:52Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+:''Not to be confused with [[Segregated Witness]], which is commonly abbreviated as SegWit.''<br/>
-SegWit2x (do not confuse with [[SegWit]]), also called B2X, was an attempt made by CEOs and owners of several Bitcoin businesses to introduce a change in Bitcoin with following goals:
+'''SegWit2x''', (also called '''B2X''' or '''S2X'''), was a failed contentious hardfork that intended to double the block size limit. The attempt has been denounced as an attempt made by CEOs and owners of several Bitcoin businesses to introduce a change in Bitcoin with ulterior motives, including the replacement of the Bitcoin developers with [[Jeff Garzik]].
 == Support rate ==
@@ Line 28: / Line 24: @@
 == Cancellation ==
-Project was canceled, or at least postponed by it's leaders, as announced in mailing list message: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-November/000685.html
+Despite the cancellation, some parties intended to proceed with the hard fork.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/mysterious-group-bitpico-threatens-to-execute-segwit2x-hard-fork/|title=Mysterious Group BitPico Threatens to Execute the Bitcoin Hard Fork|work=Cryptocoins News|author=Wilmoth, Josiah|date=November 11, 2017|accessdate=November 29, 2017}}</ref> However, when the flag day arrived, it was found that an off-by-one error in the SegWit2x protocol made it impossible to solve the first required >1MB block, freezing the currency entirely.
-== Results of the conflict with Bitcoin ==
+== References ==
-{| class="wikitable"
+<references/>

Rfree: Shorter table

2017-11-09T20:46:38Z

Shorter table

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:46, 9 November 2017
Line 35:		Line 35:
	== Results of the conflict with Bitcoin ==		== Results of the conflict with Bitcoin ==
	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"
	~~!colspan="3"\|Date: 2017-11-08~~
	\|-
	!colspan="3"\|Belligerents		!colspan="3"\|Belligerents
	\|-		\|-
Line 64:		Line 62:
	\| Honey badger(s) \|\| - \|\| [[File:Honeybadger.jpeg\|40px\|none]]		\| Honey badger(s) \|\| - \|\| [[File:Honeybadger.jpeg\|40px\|none]]
	\|-		\|-
	!colspan="3"\|~~Outcome~~		!colspan="3"\|Casualties
	\|-
	~~\|colspan="3"\|Unconditional capitulation by B2X~~
	\|-		\|-
	~~!colspan="3"~~\|~~Casualties~~		\| '''Outcome''' \|\| Unconditional capitulation \|\| ''(ignores opponent)''
	\|-		\|-
	\| Ego(s) destroyed \|\| 1+6 \|\| -		\| Ego(s) destroyed \|\| 1+6 \|\| -

Rfree: the honey badger of money

2017-11-09T20:42:10Z

the honey badger of money

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:42, 9 November 2017
Line 62:		Line 62:
	\| Users of web wallet \|\| 20.5 million bitcoin wallets \|\| -		\| Users of web wallet \|\| 20.5 million bitcoin wallets \|\| -
	\|-		\|-
	\| Honey badger(s) \|\| - \|\| ~~yes~~		\| Honey badger(s) \|\| - \|\| [[File:Honeybadger.jpeg\|40px\|none]]
	\|-		\|-
	!colspan="3"\|Outcome		!colspan="3"\|Outcome

Rfree: Table with outcome of conflict - moved to bottom instead

2017-11-09T20:34:17Z

Table with outcome of conflict - moved to bottom instead

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 == Results of the conflict with Bitcoin ==
@@ Line 48: / Line 81: @@
 |-
 |}

Rfree: Table with outcome of conflict

2017-11-09T20:33:06Z

Table with outcome of conflict

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:33, 9 November 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:

			== Results of the conflict with Bitcoin ==
			{\| class="wikitable"
			!colspan="3"\|Date: 2017-11-08
			\|-
			!colspan="3"\|Belligerents
			\|-
			\|colspan="3"\|
			'''Bitcoin (BTC)''' -versus- '''SegWit2X (B2X)'''
			\|-
			!colspan="3"\|Forces
			\|-
			\| \|\| '''SegWit2X''' \|\| '''Bitcoin''' (original)
			\|-
			\| Home base location \|\| [https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/ github btc1] \|\| [https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/ github bitcoin]
			\|-
			\| Structure \|\| agreement between NYA CEOs \|\| decentralized movement
			\|-
			\| Business Leadership \|\| 6 CEOs \|\| -
			\|-
			\| Lead developer(s) \|\| [https://github.com/jgarzik 1] \|\| [https://github.com/orgs/bitcoin/people several]
			\|-
			\| Companies support promised \|\| 58 (located in 22 countries) \|\| -
			\|-
			\| Hashing power promised \|\| '''83%''' (~9 Exahashes/sec) \|\| -
			\|-
			\| Hardware vendors supporting \|\| BitMain / Jihan Wu \|\| -
			\|-
			\| Users of web wallet \|\| 20.5 million bitcoin wallets \|\| -
			\|-
			\| Honey badger(s) \|\| - \|\| yes
			\|-
			!colspan="3"\|Outcome
			\|-
			\|colspan="3"\|Unconditional capitulation by B2X
			\|-
			!colspan="3"\|Casualties
			\|-
			\| Ego(s) destroyed \|\| 1+6 \|\| -
			\|-
			\| Coins devalued \|\| ~25000 BTC (BT2) burned on BitFinex \|\| -
			\|-
			\| Block chains destroyed \|\| 1 (never started) \|\| -
			\|-
			!colspan="3"\|Tribute
			\|-
			\| Coins \|\| - \|\| +10 to +20% Bitcoin gained for some active participants
			\|-
			\|}


	SegWit2x (do not confuse with [[SegWit]]), also called B2X, was an attempt made by CEOs and owners of several Bitcoin businesses to introduce a change in Bitcoin with following goals:		SegWit2x (do not confuse with [[SegWit]]), also called B2X, was an attempt made by CEOs and owners of several Bitcoin businesses to introduce a change in Bitcoin with following goals:

Rfree: General introduction segwit2x

2017-11-09T19:27:05Z

General introduction segwit2x

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:27, 9 November 2017
Line 26:		Line 26:

	B2X was marketed by it's creators as an "upgrade".		B2X was marketed by it's creators as an "upgrade".

			== Cancellation ==

			Project was canceled, or at least postponed by it's leaders, as announced in mailing list message: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-November/000685.html

			This resulted in the price of B2X futures (called "BT2" on BitFinex) to withing minutes drop down from around 12% to 8%, and in following hours to 1% of Bitcoin (BTC, called "BT1" as future).