If people are wondering why there are not more companies supporting big blocks, the recent smear campaign shows why.

[TomZ]

If people are wondering why there are not more companies supporting big blocks, the recent smear campaign shows how dangerous it can be.


As most people I have been wondering why the support for Bigger blocks is mostly a movement by individuals and companies are conveniently staying out of this conversation.

The reason for this is simple, it is dangerous to have a strong position in a very polarized market like Bitcoin is today. We have seen this when Brian supported bigger blocks a year ago, and we saw this again a couple of days ago when Bitmain became the new target.

Should a big company stand up for what it believes is the way forward they risk being attacked via any means possible. We've seen week long DDOS attacks against bitcoin.com and we have seen the people that control the majority of the Bitcoin marketing channels impose bans on certain companies.

This has some implications we should remember.

• It is harder to get our message out there. Because not only are reddit and other forums censored, the companies that could help us are afraid of breaking the censorship too. You can see this by the fact that everyone likes SegWit and nobody actually heard of Flexible Transactions. Ask yourself why that is. Journalists are afraid, thats why.
• The actual support there is will be quite a bit more than you initially think there is. Grassroots support is the most important one, and with Bitcoin aiming to be decentralized this grassroots movement is ultimately going to win out.
• When we do break the pattern of fear and manipulation and get rid of the bad actors in the market there is a very good chance that things will change. Dramatically. In just a very short span of time.

Hang in there. We are in this together and I would not do it without you guys. Thanks for reading!

[Possum577]

So you assume that businesses are for the Fork?

Being for big blocks and being for the Bitcoin Unlimited / hard fork proposal are two different things.

Increased transaction capacity should help businesses that deal with numerous and/or large transactions. But the fact that existing Bitcoin Core balance values are at risk as a consequence to the Bitcoin Unlimited hard fork is simply unacceptable. There must be a way to add capacity to the block size without abandoning the existing blockchain and currency type.

Why has a solution to keep the transactions running from the same source blockchain not been considered?

The reason for this is simple, it is dangerous to have a strong position in a very polarized market like Bitcoin is today.

Should a big company stand up for what it believes is the way forward they risk being attacked via any means possible. We've seen week long DDOS attacks against bitcoin.com and we have seen the people that control the majority of the Bitcoin marketing channels impose bans on certain companies.

Hang in there. We are in this together and I would not do it without you guys. Thanks for reading!

[Rmcdermott927]

The biggest problem is the fear of what could happen in the event of a fork. Having 2 semi supported chains could be disastrous for Bitcoin. You would essentially have 2 currencies for a while until one failed.

[AndrewStone]

Is this response a perfect example of the result of the misinformation campaign?

So you assume that businesses are for the Fork?

Being for big blocks and being for the Bitcoin Unlimited / hard fork proposal are two different things.

Increased transaction capacity should help businesses that deal with numerous and/or large transactions. But the fact that existing Bitcoin Core balance values are at risk as a consequence to the Bitcoin Unlimited hard fork is simply unacceptable.

existing balances are not at risk

There must be a way to add capacity to the block size without abandoning the existing blockchain and currency type.

Bitcoin Unlimited / Classic won't abandon the existing blockchain and currency type, even though the Core PR propaganda machine has attempted to convince you of this by trying to relabel Bitcoin Unlimited tokens "BTU".

Why has a solution to keep the transactions running from the same source blockchain not been considered?

It has. Its called Bitcoin Unlimited

[Possum577]

existing balances are not at risk

I'm glad to hear this! But honestly, just because you said it doesn't make it so. There are a lot of other people in this community like me that see a lot of technical talk about the hard fork and a lot of non-technical fear. I'm rational enough to understand that the truth is somewhere between these two spectrums...help me find that truth.

Why are balances not at risk? What is the misinformation being spread, and why?

If I have a Bitcoin Core balance today, there's a hard fork tomorrow, I'd expect my Bitcoin Core balance to remain intact in number of bitcoin and relative value on the third day. Prove to me and others that this will happen!

[DOGed]

I don't think it is any real secret that Coinbase is a proponent for large blocks. Just before when Bitfinex got hacked last August, around when there was a miner conference with the blockstream core devs, there were numerous reddit threads claiming that coinbase was insolvent, that they had been hacked, among other unsubstantiated claims -- this resulted in the price on Coinbase to be several percentage points below other major exchanges.

Back in the days of XT, any company that publicly supported Bitcoin XT, was threatened with removal from the bitcoin wiki, and with a ban from r/bitcoin under the guise that they were an "altcoin company" even though many companies in question already dealt with *actual* altcoins on a regular basis that accounted for a large percentage of their cryptocurrency transactions/business.