{"id":23050,"date":"2017-10-28T15:06:55","date_gmt":"2017-10-28T15:06:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ci027cfe6710032697"},"modified":"2017-10-28T15:06:55","modified_gmt":"2017-10-28T15:06:55","slug":"b2x-or-not-b2x-how-exchanges-will-list-segwit2x-coin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/technical\/b2x-or-not-b2x-how-exchanges-will-list-segwit2x-coin","title":{"rendered":"To B2X or Not to B2X: How Exchanges Will List the SegWit2x Coin"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>
<\/figure>\n

Update: The main organizers behind the SegWit2x project have suspended<\/a> the hard fork. While this technically does not mean SegWit2x itself won’t proceed, it’s extremely unlikely to be considered “Bitcoin” or “BTC” by anyone.<\/em><\/p>\n

The SegWit2x<\/a> hard fork is drawing closer by the day. Within little over two weeks after the publication of this article, a group of Bitcoin companies and miners plans to double Bitcoin\u2019s block weight limit as per the New York Agreement<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But it currently seems certain that not everyone will adopt this incompatible protocol change. As such, the SegWit2x fork would result in two different blockchains and two different currencies. For the purpose of this article, these two blockchains will be referred to as the \u201coriginal chain\u201d and the \u201cSegWit2x chain,\u201d with their respective coins.<\/p>\n

The big question, right now, is which of these two blockchains would be considered the \u201creal\u201d Bitcoin, with the currency ticker \u201cBTC.\u201d Since no single individual or entity is really in charge of this decision, Bitcoin exchanges play a major role: they list the currencies that are traded under specific names.<\/p>\n

To find out which coin is likely to earn the ticker \u201cBTC,\u201d here\u2019s an overview of the 20 largest Bitcoin exchanges based on trading volume according to data from Bitcoinity<\/a>, and their stance on this naming issue.<\/p>\n

1. Bitfinex: original chain is \u201cBTC\u201d, SegWit2x chain is \u201cB2X\u201d<\/h2>\n

Hong Kong\u2013based cryptocurrency exchange Bitfinex<\/a> is the largest Bitcoin exchange in the world by trading volume.<\/p>\n

Interestingly, Bitfinex also offers a futures exchange, on which claims on the future versions of the coins on both chains are already traded. These futures are currently labeled as \u201cBT1\u201d for coins on the original chain, and \u201cBT2\u201d for coins on the SegWit2x chain.<\/p>\n

In Bitfinex\u2019s announcement<\/a> of these futures, published on October 5, as well as the accompanying terms and conditions<\/a>, the exchange also reveals that \u201cthe order books for the BT2 trading pairs will become the order books for the B2X pairs.\u201d Meanwhile, the BT1 futures will be settled into BTC. <\/p>\n

In other words, the coins on the original chain will be listed as \u201cBTC\u201d, while the coins on the SegWit2x chain will be called \u201cB2X.\u201d<\/p>\n

Update, October 30th:<\/em> It was pointed out to us that in a separate hard fork statement<\/a>, Bitfinex does leave open the possibility of changing the tickers if “market forces suggest an alternative, more appropriate, labeling scheme for one or both chains.”<\/p>\n

2. BitMEX: original chain is \u201cBTC\u201d<\/h2>\n

BitMEX<\/a>, a cryptocurrency exchange officially based in the Republic of Seychelles, is the second-largest Bitcoin exchange in the world based on trading volume.<\/p>\n

In a blog post<\/a> published on October 13, BitMEX announced it would continue to list coins on the original chain as \u201cBTC.\u201d<\/p>\n

Moreover, because SegWit2x will not implement strong replay protection<\/a>, BitMEX will not list coins on the SegWit2x chain at all, nor offer any other type of support. <\/p>\n

3. Bitstamp: unknown<\/h2>\n

Bitstamp<\/a>, which is officially based in the United Kingdom but operates from several European countries, has not yet made any public statements concerning the SegWit2x fork. The exchange also did not respond to inquiries from Bitcoin Magazine<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Bitstamp did sign a hard fork statement<\/a> insisting on consensus and strong replay protection for hard forks earlier this year, though that statement referred to a potential Bitcoin Unlimited<\/a> hard fork \u2014 not SegWit2x.<\/p>\n

Update, October 30th:<\/em> After publication of this article, Bitstamp CEO Nejc Kodric told Bitcoin Magazine<\/em>:<\/p>\n

\u201cHard forks are a challenge for everyone in the cryptocurrency field. They cause a lot of confusion and uncertainty for consumers, making some people hesitant to get into the field. At their worst, they can have a negative impact on the industry. At the same time, there are upsides to the forks, as they\u2019re happening because of innovation and efforts to make the transaction process potentially faster. Bitstamp takes neither a positive or negative view of the forks; we simply adjust our operations accordingly and do a tremendous amount of research on their impacts to come up with solutions and address the issues directly with our customers.\u201d<\/p>\n

4. GDAX: hash power decides which chain is \u201cBTC\u201d<\/h2>\n

U.S.-based cryptocurrency exchange GDAX<\/a> is effectively the exchange-arm of Coinbase. And Coinbase is a signatory of the New York Agreement<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Regardless, it\u2019s not certain that Coinbase (and therefore probably also GDAX) will list coins on the SegWit2x chain as \u201cBTC.\u201d In fact, the company could well list the coins on the original chain as \u201cBTC\u201d \u2014 but public statements have been somewhat contradictory.<\/p>\n

The company initially put out a statement<\/a> saying that the coins on the original chain would be listed as \u201cBTC,\u201d and the coins on the SegWit2x chain as \u201cB2X.\u201d However, this initial statement was effectively withdrawn the very next day, as the company put out a new statement<\/a> \u201cclarifying\u201d that Coinbase will actually list the coins with the most accumulated hash power backing it as \u201cBTC.\u201d And on Twitter<\/a>, company CEO Brian Armstrong suggested that it\u2019s not just hash power but also market cap that will decide which coin will be listed as \u201cBTC.\u201d<\/p>\n

5. bitFlyer: unknown<\/h2>\n

bitFlyer<\/a> is the biggest Bitcoin exchange in Japan. <\/p>\n

bitFlyer is also a signatory of the New York Agreement<\/a> in support of the SegWit2x hard fork, which suggests that the exchange will at least support the coin on the SegWit2x chain. bitFlyer has not yet made any public statements concerning the naming of the coin(s), however, and did not respond to inquiries from Bitcoin Magazine<\/em>.<\/p>\n

6. Kraken: unknown<\/h2>\n

U.S.-based Bitcoin and cryptocurrency exchange Kraken<\/a> has not yet made any public statements concerning the SegWit2x fork, either.<\/p>\n

In response to inquiries from Bitcoin Magazine<\/em>, the exchange also refrained from commenting on the naming issue and instead stated:<\/p>\n

\u201cKraken makes no promises\/guarantees\/warranties on the outcome of the fork. We will make our best effort to handle things in a way that benefits the most clients, but clients should manage their own wallets\/coins if they want perfect control.\u201d<\/p>\n

7. HitBTC: original chain is \u201cBTC\u201d, SegWit2x chain is \u201cB2X\u201d<\/h2>\n

Like Bitfinex, cryptocurrency exchange HitBTC<\/a> is already offering a futures market<\/a> where the two future coins are traded.<\/p>\n

And in an announcement<\/a> published on October 17, the exchange said it will list the coins on the SegWit2x chain as \u201cB2X.\u201d The coins on the original chain will continue to be listed as \u201cBTC.\u201d<\/p>\n

However, HitBTC does note that the \u201cBitcoin community might encourage \u2018BTC\u2019 title being relocated to the SegWit2x token.\u201d They added: \u201cWhatever happens, we will proceed with the decision that will be the most convenient for our traders.\u201d<\/p>\n

8. Bitcoin.de: unknown<\/h2>\n

The German Bitcoin exchange bitcoin.de<\/a> has not yet made any public statements concerning the SegWit2x fork. The exchange also did not respond to inquiries from Bitcoin Magazine<\/em>.<\/p>\n

9. CoinsBank (formerly known as BIT-X): original chain is \u201cBTC\u201d<\/h2>\n

United Kingdom\u2013based cryptocurrency exchange CoinsBank<\/a> (formerly known as BIT-X) has not made any public statements concerning the SegWit2x fork.<\/p>\n

In response to inquiries from Bitcoin Magazine<\/em>, however, the exchange indicated that it will list coins on the original chain as \u201cBTC\u201d and will not support the SegWit2x chain.<\/p>\n

They stated:<\/p>\n

\u201cWe inform you that we are proponents of the BTC core and not planning to support other branches.\u201d<\/p>\n

10. CEX.IO: original chain is \u201cBTC\u201d, SegWit2x chain is \u201cB2X\u201d<\/h2>\n

United Kingdom\u2013based Bitcoin exchange CEX.IO<\/a> will list coins on both chains. In a blog post published on October 20, the exchange announced<\/a> it will list the coins on the SegWit2x chain as \u201cB2X.\u201d It also states in the announcement that coins on the original chain will continue to be listed as \u201cBTC.\u201d<\/p>\n

11. itBit: unknown<\/h2>\n

U.S.-based Bitcoin exchange itBit<\/a> has not yet made any public statements concerning the SegWit2x fork. The exchange also did not respond to inquiries from Bitcoin Magazine<\/em>.<\/p>\n

12. Gemini: hash power decides which chain is \u201cBTC\u201d<\/h2>\n

In an October 24 blog post<\/a> written by Cameron Winklevoss, one Gemini<\/a>\u2019s founders, the U.S.-based Bitcoin exchange explained that it \u201cwill be measuring total cumulative computational difficulty of the blockchain to determine what we will call Bitcoin and BTC and on the Gemini platform.\u201d <\/p>\n

In other words, Gemini will give the name \u201cBTC\u201d to the coin that has the most hash power attributed to it.<\/p>\n

It may also list the coin that does not attract the majority of total hash power, but the exchange has not given any guarantees yet, nor did it mention a name for this coin.<\/p>\n

13. Coinfloor: unknown<\/h2>\n

U.K.-based Bitcoin exchange Coinfloor<\/a> has not yet made any public statements concerning the SegWit2x fork. The exchange also did not respond to inquiries from Bitcoin Magazine<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Coinfloor did sign the hard fork statement<\/a> insisting on consensus and strong replay protection for hard forks, which originally referred to the potential Bitcoin Unlimited hard fork.<\/p>\n

14. BTCC: hash power decides which chain is \u201cBTC\u201d<\/h2>\n

Hong Kong\u2013based Bitcoin exchange BTCC<\/a> is another signatory of the New York Agreement. Like Bitfinex and HitBTC, BTCC is already offering a futures market<\/a> where the two future coins are traded. These coins are currently referred to as \u201c1MB\u201d for the coin on the original chain, and \u201c2MB\u201d for the coin on the SegWit2x chain.<\/p>\n

Update, October 29th:<\/em> It was pointed out to us that according to the FAQ<\/a> concerning this futures market, BTCC will after the fork “consider the version of bitcoin that has the most proof-of-work behind it as bitcoin (BTC)”. In other words, BTCC will give the name \u201cBTC\u201d to the coin that has the most hash power attributed to it.<\/p>\n

15. BitMarket: unknown<\/h2>\n

Polish Bitcoin exchange BitMarket<\/a> has not yet made any public statements concerning the SegWit2x fork. <\/p>\n

The exchange did respond to inquiries from Bitcoin Magazine<\/em>, but it did not reveal which coin will be listed under what name or ticker.<\/p>\n

Instead, a BitMarket representative stated:<\/p>\n

\u201cWe reserve the right to decide whether to support or not [the] given fork of the Bitcoin. Our decision will depend on the stability of the fork\u2019s network and what issues it may cause in the future.\u201d<\/p>\n

16. QuadrigaCX: unknown<\/h2>\n

Canadian Bitcoin exchange QuadrigaCX<\/a> has not yet made any public statements concerning the SegWit2x fork. The exchange also did not respond to inquiries from Bitcoin Magazine<\/em>.<\/p>\n

QuadrigaCX did sign the hard fork statement<\/a> insisting on consensus and strong replay protection for hard forks, originally referring to the potential Bitcoin Unlimited hard fork.<\/p>\n

17. Mercado Bitcoin: original chain is \u201cBTC\u201d<\/h2>\n

Brazilian Bitcoin exchange Mercado Bitcoin<\/a> recently signed a statement<\/a> on behalf of the Brazilian and Argentinian Bitcoin communities in opposition of SegWit2x.<\/p>\n

When asked by Bitcoin Magazine<\/em>, the exchange further explained that it may or may not list the coins on the SegWit2x chain, which will in part depend on whether or not the SegWit2x chain implements strong replay protection. (This currently seems very unlikely.)<\/p>\n

If Mercado Bitcoin does list this coin, it will use the ticker \u201cB2X\u201d because \u201cthe market is converging to this ticker.\u201d They added: \u201cWe also tend to consider the Core version the legitimate one.\u201d<\/p>\n

18. Bitso: unknown<\/h2>\n

Mexican Bitcoin exchange Bitso<\/a> is a signatory of the New York Agreement<\/a> in support of the SegWit2x fork. The company has since also confirmed<\/a> that it will support coins on both chains \u2014 even though it did sign the Bitcoin Unlimited\u2013inspired hard fork statement<\/a> insisting on consensus and strong replay protection for hard forks.<\/p>\n

Regarding names and tickers, a Bitso representative told Bitcoin Magazine<\/em>:<\/p>\n

\u201cWe have not yet decided on ticker names but hope to make an official statement soon.\u201d<\/p>\n

19. The Rock Trading: original chain is \u201cBTC\u201d<\/h2>\n

Malta-based Bitcoin exchange The Rock Trading<\/a> has not yet made any public statements concerning the SegWit2x fork. It did, however, sign the Bitcoin Unlimited\u2013inspired hard fork statement<\/a> insisting on consensus and strong replay protection for hard forks.<\/p>\n

And, when asked by Bitcoin Magazine<\/em>, The Rock Trading CTO Davide \u201cPaci Barbarossa\u201d Barbieri said the exchange will list the coins on the SegWit2x chain as \u201cB2X\u201d \u2014 if the exchange lists that coin at all.<\/p>\n

Said Barbieri:<\/p>\n

\u201cAs stated publicly, we are generally against any hard forks; we do not currently guarantee that we will handle SegWit2x, or that we will list it; as far as I know replay protection is still a concern.\u201d
And: \u201cIf we do [list the coin on the SegWit2x chain] we will probably call it B2X or something like it.\u201d<\/p>\n

20. EXMO: unknown<\/h2>\n

U.K.-based cryptocurrency exchange EXMO<\/a> has not yet made any public statements concerning the SegWit2x fork. The exchange also did not respond to inquiries from Bitcoin Magazine<\/em>.<\/p>\n

This article will be updated as the news develops. Did I miss anything? Feel free to let me know at aaron@bitcoinmagazine.com<\/a>. This article was last updated on November 12th.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Bitcoin exchanges play a major role in determining which coin retains the BTC name since they list the currencies that are traded under specific names.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2509,"featured_media":23051,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[35],"tags":[1964,3329,1079,3330],"class_list":{"0":"post-23050","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-technical","8":"tag-hard-fork","9":"tag-new-york-agreement","10":"tag-segwit","11":"tag-segwit2x"},"author_data":{"id":2509,"name":"Aaron van Wirdum","nicename":"aaron-van-wirdum","avatar_url":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/aaron-van-wirdum-96x96.jpg"},"featured_image_url":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/to-b2x-or-not-to-b2x-how-exchanges-will-list-the-segwit2x-coin.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23050","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2509"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23050"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23050\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/23051"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23050"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23050"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23050"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}