[Bitcoin-segwit2x] August Status Report for SegWit2x

Daniel Newton djpnewton at gmail.com
Thu Aug 24 02:36:22 UTC 2017


>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.

A significant portion of the "90+%" signaling segwit2x *before* the BCH
split moved to mining on the BCH chain when it was more profitable.

So sure, "90+%" of the original bitcoin chain miners were still signaling
segwit2x but that "90+%" went from ~6 exahash/s to ~3 exahash/s.

The original statement was:

>Hashpower continues to signal 90+% support for SegWit2x

I looks like a big chunk of that hashpower has shown everyone that they
will mine for profitability over segwit2x signaling


On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:35 AM, Mike Belshe via Bitcoin-segwit2x <
bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/attachments/20170824/eb8b4291/attachment.html>


More information about the Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list