@Zarathustra, oh some of the actors certainly don't represent the miners, to say it lightly. But I think what is happening here is that the miners made a deal with DCG (and maybe this also includes some legal stuff in the background) where at least the repo and jgarzik is bound to actually implement the spirit of the S2X agreement.
Look at how Jeff is very politely but also firmly declining when the assholes beg him to hand him the deadly weapon that is replay protection against the miners.
I think part of what we see now is the bad actors (and I suspect that might include the DCG, but see below) trying to bail from the second part of the deal through their
other, usual propaganda channels and Blockstream - see all the NO2X astroturfing bullshit.
Someone is
clearly financing that.
There's also the angle that folks behind the DCG might now be loaded enough in Bitcoin and are thus now wanting to set the beast free - and what better way is there than to just let Blockstream burn itself up in a fight against the rest of the ecosystem - look at how bullish this will look if the bad actors are finally failing (but only because the ones behind them, pulling the strings, let them fail - because they loaded up...). And from the DCG's POV, this might be merely sacrificing a pawn in the game.
In that case, the 1MB limit and the bullshitting you could create around it was a perfect opportunity for huge, long-term investors into Bitcoin to suppress the price while loading up. November is the time when that loading is done.
So yeah, these are the two interpretations that are floating in my mind: It is a case of arm wrestling with the miners and the miners actually do have the upper hand when they go through with the 2x part (also with BCH outside the DCG's control as a threat looming), or it is a case of temporary price depression and now it is time to drop the tools (Blockstream) and let the beast free.
Another, more conspiratorial angle is some kind of arm wrestling between the US and China going on.
The three month delay between SF and HF might have also been seen as a win by both sides: Bitcoin's enemies think that it gives them time to contain the HF - and Bitcoin itself (the miners) sees it as time to let the enemy show its true face, show that LN is vaporware and so forth - and thus let the propaganda fall apart this way.
In any case, 2x needs to happen, or I see the whole value proposition of crypto in deep trouble.
But I am bullish: It strongly looks like this is a fight that
Bitcoin will win.
[doublepost=1507113010][/doublepost]
Without the new interpretation of anyonecanspend as 'look over here' (i.e. the hack that The Segwit Omnibus Changeset employs to make their abomination a 'soft fork'), an anyonecanspend transaction becomes a transaction that anyone can spend.
In such an environment, all miners will naturally at block t=0+ be including transactions that spend as much value as can fit in a block from such anyonecanspend addresses to private addresses that they control.
I know of no mechanism that suggests once value is bound up in anyonecanspend, it can be transferred only to anyonecanspend.
Of course, once any anyonecanspend transaction is reclaimed in such a manner -- no matter how deep in the chain it is -- then all child transactions will be instantly rolled back.
But that would mean that the miners orphan a lot of blocks and a lot of block rewards that they earned in the mean time - I don't see that happening. That's just a normal 50% attack. You can't rip up any anyonecanspent that
has been spent - without ripping the whole chain apart.
