[Bitcoin-segwit2x] SegWit2x Hard Fork Testing Update

Jared Lee Richardson jaredr26 at gmail.com
Wed Jul 12 22:23:31 UTC 2017


> I'd suggest you step back, take a deep breath, and think about this from
the perspective of what happens where there does exist two chains

You are absolutely correct on that point, and that is why I said advantages
and disadvantages, and also why I said rational people could
disagree(despite my misgivings, I would definitely argue that both you and
Mr. Maxwell are rational people).

In the event that two viable chains survive, you would be correct, a
hardfork bit would probably be desirable.  I've said as much in the github
in the last few days though you may not have seen that comment.  Indeed, in
that case replay protection would also be needed.

This too is not without precedent; it happened with eth/etc and was solved
by the minority chain finally adding two way replay protection.  Based on
what happened with BU and ETC, I believe the exchanges will unanimously
demand that the minority chain (as best as they can decide that) add replay
protection.  If segwit2x's support remains as strong and broad as it
appears to be now, they may demand that from the legacy chain.  If segwit2x
is as weak as you and core hopes, they will demand it of us.

We cannot know whether two viable chains will result.  The decisions that
are the best option for one case are not the best decisions for the other
case.  The decision has been made here, and for sound reasons.  Your
objections are sound as well, but from a different set of concerns and
desires.

To address your concerns, if we wind up in a two-viable chain situation
where the exchanges are demanding that s2x adds replay protection, it can
be added at that point.  Likewise if we end up in the situation I
described(stuck chain), then Luke-Jr can add a hardfork bit and replay
protection to that fork(and the exchanges will require it).  This is not an
intractable problem that cannot be addressed in the future.

Jared


On Jul 12, 2017 6:01 PM, "Peter Todd" <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 02:46:19PM -0700, Jared Lee Richardson wrote:
> 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

I'd suggest you step back, take a deep breath, and think about this from the
perspective of what happens where there does exist two chains, and how that
affects lite client security. Most of your points here aren't relevant to
that
question, which is a value-free question of security that's relevant to both
sides after a split.

We can't rule out two chains existing, nor can we even guarantee that the
segwit2x chain will have a majority of hashing power. To that end segwit2x
has
an anti-rollback provision. The question is, how can we also protect lite
clients?

--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/attachments/20170712/57db7e7d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list