SegWit provokes debates once again

BitPay, one of the most respected payment service providers, has posted some recommendations in its blog regarding the then upcoming code update and what to do with the software the users have. Among other instructions there was one that got everybody’s attention – the users are going to have to download BTC1.

The service did not specify, however, that if some users actually do this, they might lose their funds due to software incompatibility. This even made some powerful and wealthy market participants express their outrage. For example, John Newbery, the contributor to Bitcoin Core, called this recommendation and the post overall “dangerous” and “dishonest”, while Tadge Dryia, the creator of Lightning Network, the P2P micropayment system, compared this to malware, referencing to how dangerously both malware viruses and this recommendation affect user finances.

BTC1, the alternative client nobody wants to download and then hurt funds just because it’s suddenly mandatory to do so, was developed by the very same team that believes that further Bitcoin segregation is somehow useful for miners and plans to introduce the SegWit2x in November. And while SegWit and Segwit2x are different protocols with different teams, it’s amusing how the title “SegWit” is connected with this whole BitPay scandal: the post was created just before the SegWit implementation, the recommendation that outraged everyone was about the client developed by those who will make Segwit2x. But Peter Todd, one of Bitcoin enthusiasts, mentions that BitPay bloggers got confused about these two protocols. Before the implementation of SegWit they make a statement that is more related to SegWit2x, he notes, and adds that the whole post “verges on fraud”.

This all might be just a result of one incompetent social media poster working in BitPay, but if so, he/she should have thought more carefully: now the market is angry at Bitpay and will not forget this post for a long time.