<html><head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">Another lesson to be
learned from BCH is that incentives matter - where miners can sell coins
depends on markets, and market prices depend on user and exchange
support. Even if the 80% of miners signaling 2x at this time choose to
go forward, if there are not viable markets willing to buy 2x coins at
near 1x prices, 2x hash power will quickly revert to the old chain.<br>
<br>
<span>Peter wrote:</span><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CADsWqbsbeWA-RhqeK1qmCwdT5Wvr+75yL3Az_gOk-H=qNePT9g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="auto"><br><div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"><br><div
class="gmail_quote">On Oct 24, 2017 10:58 AM, "Chris Stewart via
Bitcoin-segwit2x" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bitcoin-segwit2x@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-segwit2x@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0
0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div
class="quoted-text"><div>>RP that encourages a network split would
render the NYA voidable<br><br></div></div>Phillip, if there is
consensus on one thing, it is there is going to be a network split.
Every exchange is publishing policies for the chain split. Some even
saying that they will not support the segwit2x token.<br><br></div>-Chris<br></div></blockquote></div></div><div
dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The technical lesson from the BCH
fork was that 1 hash = 1 vote. Nothing any exchange (or custodian) said
mattered. Indeed because significant sha256 hashpower was deployed
towards the fork it gained value and customers of exchanges pressured
the exchanges into the financially sensible decision. </div><div
dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">This proposal, SegWit2x, is for the
miners to decide. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Transaction
selection is not a consensus rule. Any miners that want to go against
the Nakamoto signaling is free to do so and the responsible party (not
the 2x devs who have no control over transaction selection). If because
of the political climate some miner sees an economic opportunity to
resurrect the legacy chain then they can modify their node (without
consensus change) to listen to 2x blocks and not mine any transaction
IDs found in the 2x chain. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div
dir="auto">Additionally, to complete a safe chain resurrection such a
miner can airdrop the mining reward from the forked block (after 100
depth) and send it to to all addresses with UTXOs over $x value. So that
users of the 1x chain can spend the combined UTXOs which cannot be
replayed on 2x, as a simple splitting solution. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div
dir="auto">Safety efforts which do not require consensus changes should
be exhausted first before suggesting consensus changes. </div><div
dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Regards </div><div dir="auto">Peter</div><div
dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body></html>