[Bitcoin-segwit2x] August Status Report for SegWit2x

[Mike Belshe]

Peter,

Your entire argument is that I was dishonest to say that 90+% are signaling
for segwti2x now because they could change their minds in the future.

I don't care to debate that.  What I said was verifiably true - 90+% are
signaling for segwit2x.

I propose we stick to facts and avoid speculation as much as we can.

Mike


On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 08:45:52AM -0700, Mike Belshe wrote:
> > > Equally, this shows that hash power signalling is not a good metric:
> miners
> > > have proven that they follow money, not agreements.
> > >
> > > You and and all other S2X supporters need to stop making these
> dishonest
> > > hashing power support statements.
> > >
> >
> > I believe your logic is incorrect.  We should concern ourselves with
> those
> > that are mining Bitcoin, not those that are not mining Bitcoin.
>
> Let's go back to the basics here:
>
> BCH is a hard fork of Bitcoin that split from Bitcoin on Aug 1st, a date
> that
> was set in advance. S2X is also a hard fork of Bitcoin, that is planned to
> split from the Bitcoin chain as of block #494,784.
>
> Multiple times on this list and on the btc1 github it has been argued that
> the
> alleged hashing power superiority of S2X means that S2X does not need to
> implement things like proper BCH-style mandatory replay protection, or lite
> client protections like ensuring that lite clients can detect the hard
> fork via
> block headers. For example, Jeff Garzik used that argument here(1) to argue
> that the "one chain" outcome is likely, and thus replay protection is not
> needed:
>
>     5) It is *not* good to include a change that breaks all wallets
> (meaning,
>     requires upgrade to continue working post-2M HF).  The likely case is
> that
>     the NYA participants and 80+% hashpower will upgrade to 2M BBSI.
> Thus, in
>     the the likely "one chain" outcome, a break-all-wallets change would be
>     unnecessarily disruptive to users (to make a large understatement).
>
> Similarly, Jared Richardson:
>
>     Right now between signalling and signatories, btc1 has ~95% of the
>     hashpower.  ~5% of the hashpower is not enough to be viable without a
>     hardfork, in which case it would be more appropriate and less damaging
> for
>     the ecosystem for the non-majority hardfork to add replay protection.
>     Thus, replay protection would be a net loss for everyone if added to
> btc1.
>
> Or even your own statements(3):
>
>     Our goal with segwit2x is to get massive miner support.  We'll see if
> we
>     get there.  But if we do get 95+% support, its a better scenario than
> the
>     very large chain split caused by requiring all application software to
>     upgrade.
>
> These arguments hinge on hashing power *not* mining Bitcoin, and mining
> S2X.
> But as BCH proves, hashing power will mine whatever is profitable. In fact,
> we're already in a situation where it's plausible that the the most-work
> SHA256^2 chain may become BCH rather than Bitcoin at some point in the near
> future - a serious problem for lite clients as BCH's header chain is
> consensus
> compatible with from Bitcoin's.
>
>
> > As you can see from the evidence provided above, those mining Bitcoin
> today
> > are signaling for SegWit2x.
>
> In fact, your line of argument raises an important question: do you think
> S2X
> will be Bitcoin? On what basis? It's no different at a technical level
> than the
> BCH hard-fork that you just claimed was *not* Bitcoin, so what makes S2X
> Bitcoin?
>
>
> # References
>
> 1) https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-
> segwit2x/2017-July/000246.html
> 2) https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-
> segwit2x/2017-July/000197.html
> 3) https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-
> segwit2x/2017-June/000037.html
>
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>



-- 


*Mike Belshe*
*CEO, BitGo, Inc*408-718-6885
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/attachments/20170823/e577fa47/attachment-0001.html>