[Bitcoin-segwit2x] SegWit2x Hard Fork Testing Update

Jared Lee Richardson jaredr26 at gmail.com
Wed Jul 12 21:51:40 UTC 2017


* longer than almost anyone.  Sorry on phone and it autocorrects words very
badly sometimes, like slush pool -> slash pool. :/

On Jul 12, 2017 5:46 PM, "Jared Lee Richardson" <jaredr26 at gmail.com> wrote:

> they still don't prevent people
> from buying the coin, and thus supporting miners mining it.

If the chain is weak enough/unusable enough, it may not be listed on
exchanges until it is forked with a POW change to get it unstuck.

That would handle exactly the situation you're describing, and seems quite
likely to me.

> After all, if it's 100% guaranteed for segwit2x to have a majority of
hashing
> power, why was wipeout protection added?

Because even if what you and core are attempting to do right now(discredit
and mock s2x publicly, and trying to get miners to defect) succeeds, the
big block faction of bitcoin will not return to the status quo; the fork
will split the community and only long term economics will determine what
happens to bitcoin.

Keeping compatibility with all possible wallets as the team here has
decided regarding the hardfork bit is a step towards preventing a split and
keeping bitcoin as one unified ecosystem.  If core refuses to follow clear
community consensus, the fork damage is on them and they can use the
hardfork bit when they change POW to recover from losing the entire rest
off the community.

The decision to not use the hardfork bit may not be the best thing for your
goals of refusing to follow the clear consensus, but it is the best choice
for this team to attempt to keep bitcoin in one piece throughout this
process.


> with an inexperienced dev team without a track record.

This team has a track record of not fracturing the community by
manufacturing consensus when it drives out and silences all of the
opposition, but I'm not sure what you mean by inexperienced.  Jeff has been
here longer than anyone, and there's several more devs assisting behind the
scenes that just don't get into messy political arguments.

> There's also the problem that the price of a coin is kept high by holders
of the coin first and foremost,

Stuck chains don't have a price until they get unstuck.  And you forget,
everyone who does want bigger blocks and is frustrated but the lack of
compromise for two years will still have coins to sell off from the stuck
chain if it does get a price.  The stuck chain needs buyers, not just
holders; the highest POW chain will have both and a price.

Jared

On Jul 12, 2017 5:18 PM, "Peter Todd" <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 01:59:12PM -0700, Jared Lee Richardson wrote:
> > Given the lack of consensus, it's hard to predict in
> advance what percentage of hashing power will be allocated to either side.
>
> Uh, no, we know quite well what the support is in advance.  84% signed on,
> 91% currently signalling, and that's without slash pool enabling s2x
voting
> yet.  So > 91% on s2x, < 9% on legacy.  That means that the legacy chain

There is nothing preventing that distribution from changing in the future.
Equally, what you call "signalling" is not in fact signalling, just a
non-technical show of support that could be easily withdrawn or modified
with
no major impact.

After all, if it's 100% guaranteed for segwit2x to have a majority of
hashing
power, why was wipeout protection added? There's no need for it in the event
that segwit2x remains at a majority of hashing power.

> will spend nearly 6 months before they reach the first difficulty change
to
> get the chain unstuck, assuming every bit of the non signalling miners
both
> stay behind and don't defect.

Even in the worst case, the chain isn't "stuck", it's slow. While multi-hour
confirmations would suck for many use-cases, they still don't prevent people
from buying the coin, and thus supporting miners mining it. Equally, if
such a
market develops hashing power can very quickly move from one chain to
another.

While segwit2x has support by many, although certainly not all, companies,
it's
as yet unclear what Bitcoin owners will support, and thus the relative
price of
both coins. Obviously there's a number of risks to the segwit2x coin, such
as
the fact that many existing Bitcoin owners will not want to own a coin with
an
inexperienced dev team without a track record.

There's also the problem that the price of a coin is kept high by holders of
the coin first and foremost, not non-holding-related retail payments
activity.
The latter's impact on price decreases as the entire system becomes more
efficient and the velocity of money increases.

> It also instantly puts the legacy chain in
> danger of 51% control from its own miners if it isn't halted by an outside
> miner attack.

Bitcoin has withstood 51% control before, and in fact many believe there
likely
is 51% control by Bitmain right now. Fortunately the PoW and incentives
security model is quite resiliant with multiple layers of protection.

--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/attachments/20170712/93e82334/attachment.html>


More information about the Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list