<div dir="ltr">Hey Adam -<div><br></div><div>Your long and winding messages are often hard to follow ;-)</div><div><br></div><div>A few succinct replies:</div><div> a) The SPV wallets will follow the longest chain; if Core diverges from the longest chain, Core will be alienating 15+million wallets. I think this is a shame, but I know we disagree. </div><div><br></div><div> b) Counter to your claim, BTC1 is not changing up to 5 days before the fork. It's an open source project, so I don't control it, but general sentiment is that it is done for now. The team prefers to keep it stable rather than add various opt-in replay protections that both sides seem to not like anyway.</div><div><br></div><div> c) You claim that "most smart phone wallets" will not follow the longest chain. I believe this is untrue. Can you tell me which wallets you're referring to? </div><div><br></div><div>Mike</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Dr Adam Back via Bitcoin-segwit2x <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bitcoin-segwit2x@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">bitcoin-segwit2x@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><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>
<span class="im HOEnZb"><br>
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Ben Peters via Bitcoin-segwit2x<br>
<<a href="mailto:bitcoin-segwit2x@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-segwit2x@lists.<wbr>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>
</span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Bitcoin-segwit2x@lists.linuxfoundation.org">Bitcoin-segwit2x@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>segwit2x</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><p style="font-size:12.8px"><b style="font-size:12.8px;line-height:17px"><font color="#0b5394">Mike Belshe<br></font></b><b style="font-size:12.8px;line-height:17px"><font color="#0b5394">CEO, BitGo, Inc<br></font></b><span style="font-size:12.8px;line-height:17px;color:rgb(102,102,102)">408-718-6885</span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>