Form B1x: Fill & Download for Free

Segwit2x is designed as an “upgrade” to bitcoin, rather than as a forked alt-coin the way Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Gold were. So the intention of the fork is for B2X to be “bitcoin” (BTC) going forward.That having been said, there is a significant group who intend to keep the legacy chain alive as BTC, including a majority of the developers of the Bitcoin Core reference client. This creates confusion that ultimately gets resolved by the miners and the market users. Several options are possible.Option 1: B2X winsIn this scenario, a supermajority of mining support stays with B2X. B2X therefore has the longest Proof-of-Work, and by Satoshi’s convention should be bitcoin. With virtually no mining support, the legacy BTC chain seizes up and is unable to process transactions, at least until the next difficulty re-adjustment period. Neutral exchanges and businesses choose to follow the Satoshi convention and the working chain and call it “BTC” going forward. Perhaps the excess mining capacity chooses to mess with the legacy to chain to make it unusable until it dies, or the legacy bitcoin developers choose to hard fork to a different difficulty computation or POW algorithm. Perhaps along the way, Core developers or other B1X advocates launch attacks on btc1 nodes and mining pools, but eventually these fail. This still seems the most likely outcome at the moment. If this happens, expect the BTC price to launch upward after the fork, because the uncertainty will be over. Bitcoin Gold price might also rise, but Bitcoin Cash will take a hit.Option 2: B1X winsIn this scenario, a majority or at least a plurality of miners change their minds, perhaps because user/business acceptance of B2X is low. B1X and B2X duke it out for a bit amidst a fair bit of confusion, but B1X ends up with the longest POW. This will probably take a bit longer to settle out than Option 1 above. Neutral exchanges and businesses stick with “BTC” for the B1X chain. The long list of New York Agreement companies are forced to throw in the towel. Disaffected miners switch to Bitcoin Cash, or refuse to accept Segwit transactions in protest, slowing down Segwit. B2X dies. If this happens, expect the BTC price to launch upward after the dust settles, again because the uncertainty is over. The Bitcoin Cash price will likely also jump, but Bitcoin Gold will fall.Option 3: Chain SplitIn this option, B1X gets enough mining support to stay alive, though perhaps significantly slowed until the next difficulty adjustment. B2X continues, also somewhat slowed. Maybe both groups attack each other. Some business and exchanges call B1X “BTC”, some call B2X “BTC”, some drop “BTC” altogether and just use B1X and B2X. Confusion reigns until the community settles on a new nomenclature. Businesses and wallets eventually start accepting/supporting both versions. This is (IMO) the worst outcome, because the longer-term confusion will affect the market, and the split will likely devalue bitcoin substantially overall. Expect price on both chains to be highly volatile and downward. Bitcoin Cash may take off, though. If the other chains go down in flames, it might even become “bitcoin”.(added) Option 4: No contentious forkSanity may break out on one side or the other. The easiest to achieve, but probably the least likely option of all is for the developers of the Bitcoin Core client to commit the B2X code to Core. Bitcoin continues as BTC with 2x capacity. In this option the bitcoin price absolutely explodes skyward, Core Devs are hailed as saviors committed to the community and continue to lead. Probably the best option overall.Or, option 4B, mining pools, miners, and businesses give up on the 2x notion (sort of an extreme version of Option 2). Bitcoin price shoots upward, a few disaffected people switch to Bitcoin Cash so its price also goes up, maybe Segwit transactions are slowed for a bit by a few miners but not enough to matter. Grumbling in some segments of the community about giving control to a handful of developers continues to only minor consequence.

One way to look at this is that your second model is your first model, but with you prespecifying that you are certain that B2 is exactly zero. Why would you assume that? And, why wouldn’t you test it, which the first model allows you to do?Regardless, if you have not mean-centered your variables, you will risk concluding that there is an interaction when there is not. Suppose you are predicting Weight as a function of Height and Gender (a 0–1 dummy). We know that Weight increases with Height and also with Male vs. Female. Suppose there is no true interaction between these effects. If you run your second model, you may find an extremely strong interaction, because it’s the only way the model can actually account for the gender difference; so, you will come to the wrong conclusion. By contrast, if you had mean-centered, you might get that there is no interaction in either model, because the effects of the omitted binary variable will now go into the error term.

one of the 2 scenario will happen:one of the segwit (either B1X or B2X) dies after the fork and the other slightly drop in value compare to current bitcoin, everything then go back to the rail after a short period of timeChain split with the same support from the community (both miners and bitcoin holders/investors), the two segwit chains attack each other for a while then both die, and BitcoinCash become the legit chain.