<div><div dir="auto">Mr. Adam Back,</div><div dir="auto">I appreciate your interest in Bitcoin. However, I am afraid that this may be not the appropriate place to play politics. Double speaking or not, off-topic chat combined with destructive tone only add unnecessary noise.</div></div><div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Emil has clearly pointed out some logical fallacies of anti-Bitcoin trolls. Moreover, it will be a bit more moral if the beneficiary of censorship keeps quiet, instead of bragging about the efficiency of censorship.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Enjoy the sunshine.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Junyi</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 04:19 Dr Adam Back via Bitcoin-segwit2x <<a href="mailto:bitcoin-segwit2x@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">bitcoin-segwit2x@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">A lot of what you described doesn't work the way you seem to expect.<br>
<br>
There's a few levels:<br>
<br>
Mining economics: I do some mining, and there are a number of data<br>
points from alt-coins that share mining algorithms: miners short / mid<br>
term mine what is profitable. That is driven by relative price.<br>
Difficulty adjusts to equilibrium. This is a feature, it is the<br>
incentive that secures blockchains. Bitcoin security works by<br>
economically incentivised creation of valid blocks as measured by the<br>
nodes on the network.<br>
<br>
Nodes and wallets mechanically todays software: Existing full nodes<br>
won't follow. Most smart phone wallets will not automatically switch<br>
but either ignore a new chain, stop functioning, go into some kind of<br>
warning state pending bugfix, some older wallets may get stuck on<br>
random chain. And because there is no proper replay protection<br>
randomly transactions will be made on one or both chains unless mixed<br>
with new coinbase over time. That will be pretty disruptive because<br>
people writing wallet software don't know what segwit2x code will be<br>
as they keep changing. Bitcoin cash changed up to 5days before<br>
release.<br>
<br>
Services: Also it's a big job to defend all existing all existing<br>
services and wallets. Never the less as both chains have value each<br>
service and wallet must over time offer some solution even if it is<br>
replay protected withdrawal. So nothing is achieved in practice vs<br>
proper replay protection other than disruption.<br>
<br>
Due Care & safety: Doing reckless and risky things to the network may<br>
not be a good advertisement for service or wallet. Users will<br>
research and make some decision about which wallets and services will<br>
preserve their coins and allow them to split and sell or hold<br>
whichever of the 3 or 4 spinoffs are created. People will likely not<br>
recommend software and services that promote dand advocated for<br>
creating the disruption and risk.<br>
<br>
Financial, support tickets: users will complain via support tickets<br>
and formal complaints about experience and asset loss as that happens.<br>
<br>
Would be interested in proponents views of how their companies (if<br>
they have users) will handle this, and also how they suppose different<br>
use cases from other services and wallets will interoperate.<br>
<br>
It sort of feels like there is an expected game-theory reaction here<br>
that no one is talking about, but maybe people have different views of<br>
what the logical game theory is?<br>
<br>
ps please trip replies list posts are bouncing as too large.<br>
<br>
Adam<br>
<br>
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Ben Peters via Bitcoin-segwit2x<br>
<<a href="mailto:bitcoin-segwit2x@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">bitcoin-segwit2x@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the<br>
> NYA/Segwit2x endeavour. What is happening here is that an alternative,<br>
> minimally modified, version of the Bitcoin code is being developed that will<br>
> implement a change that has long been sought by the mining community and<br>
> many in industry and beyond (a change that they presumably feel is important<br>
> for the future success of Bitcoin and thus their respective investments).<br>
><br>
> That candidate code will be offered to the miners and mining pools, who may<br>
> or may not opt to apply hashing power to it. If they apply more than the<br>
> threshold amount of hashing power, then that new code will effectively<br>
> takeover from the previous consensus rule, and take most SPV wallets and<br>
> economic activity along with it.<br>
><br>
> Rather than lobbying this technical working group to “call off” their<br>
> efforts, your time might be better spent lobbying the miners. The function<br>
> of this group is to produce candidate code, thus fulfilling the obligations<br>
> as set out under the NYA.<br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Bitcoin-segwit2x@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">Bitcoin-segwit2x@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>