[Bitcoin-segwit2x] Bitcoin Cash's mandatory replay protection - an example for B2X

[Jared Lee Richardson]

> We do not know what the views of the hashing power are; hashing power is free
> to move from one pool to another, and can do so in a matter of minutes.

That's fallacious logic.  If individual miners indeed did not wish to
support segwit2x, continuing to mine to a pool that signed support
over a month ago and has been signaling support for weeks wouldn't
make any sense - their inaction only makes support for segwit2x seem
STRONGER.  The fact that miners have not done the thing you are
claiming that miners will do taking a matter of minutes is strong
evidence that you're speculating without any evidence.

Can you provide evidence that indicates miners are currently mining to
a pool who'se agenda they do not support?

Because if not, I can provide evidence showing the opposite.  Slush,
the only pool not signed/signaling /NYA/, was ~5% of the hashrate 1
month ago and is now 2.5% of the hashrate.  If what you are saying is
true that number would be going up, not down.  Please provide evidence
to support your claims.

> that situation still allows for coins to be bought and sold

Where?

No exchange has stated they will support the legacy chain as bitcoin
instead of the most-work chain.  Moreover, 5% of the hashrate is not
only insufficient to process anything approaching our current volume
of transactions (even with segwit!), it is also a highly unstable
equilibrium - Given the extreme lack of blocks, many neutral users
will abandon it immediately, and any miners without strong convictions
will abandon it within hours to protect their investments, making the
slow blocks problem even worse.

Even worse than that, the only significant pool I can find that isn't
signaling /NYA/ has historically always allowed its' miners to vote,
and doesn't own many miners to back its own convictions.  That 5%
hashrate itself may be split, weakening what was already nowhere near
enough hashrate for viability.

>  The Ethereum chain was left with even less hashing power
> immediately after the bailout fork - nearly 0% - but hashing power rapidly

You mean like minutes afterwards?  Because that wasn't true days
afterwards.  Regardless, Ethereum is not a good comparison, it
continuously adjusts difficulty and wouldn't be stuck for 6+ months,
and miners are already applying the new rules and indicating they are
running the HF code.

Please provide evidence of your claims.

Jared

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 09:02:25AM -0700, Jared Lee Richardson wrote:
>> 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 signalling has been done by mining *pools*, not hashing power.
>
> We do not know what the views of the hashing power are; hashing power is free
> to move from one pool to another, and can do so in a matter of minutes.
>
> Equally, even if Bitcoin was left with just 5% of the hashing power, and B2X
> with 95%, that situation still allows for coins to be bought and sold, with an
> unknown outcome. The Ethereum chain was left with even less hashing power
> immediately after the bailout fork - nearly 0% - but hashing power rapidly
> moved from the bailout chain back to the Ethereum chain in response to market
> demand.
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org