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

[Peter Todd]

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 02:09:53AM +0300, Alex Petrov wrote:
> 1. Peter - please leave political discussions outside this mail list.
>  this mail list is technical in general ! 
> slack is great option for such discussions.

I'd recomend you take your own advice three; your entire message is making a
lot of political assumptions that we should not be making in a technical forum.

> 2. Hashing power including major pools show strong signal and vote already and now.
> if you think there some minor forces who would like to vote for something else - please go find & and good luck ! 

Things can change rapidly precisely because pools != hashing power.

Your own pool as an example dropped from IIRC about 10% of the total hashing
power to the current 2.4% in a fairly short period of time. That drop alone
represents more than enough hashing power maintain a viable Bitcoin chain.

We don't need to speculate on politics here - the above clearly shows that
Bitcoin continuing to exist after the B2X coin is launched is a possible
outcome.

> 3. We all made agreement aka consensus & we all want to improve bitcoin here, we waste enough time prior already.
> Miners, Businesses = are also users of bitcoin as well & we would like to keep bitcoin strong and avoid any hard-forks. 

The signatories to the NYA agreement are just a small part of the Bitcoin
ecosystem. Note how only a few of the major exchanges signed, only a few of the
many wallets, etc.

And of course, all the signatories are service companies - none of those
signatories could speak on behalf of actual Bitcoin owners. We should not claim
to speak on their behalf.

All of these assumptions you are making about consensus and consent are
*political* assumptions that we should not be making idly in a technical forum.
You need to design a system that is robust to all likely outcomes, such as the
continued existence of Bitcoin after the B2X coin launches.

> 4. if there are some minor forces, who would like to destabilize bitcoin
> or make their own hard-fork aka copy of existing blockchain with tail 148Gb with 16.5 millions of already issues bitcoins in circulations. good luck for them again. 
> they will get huge & heavy tail 148GB historical block-chan, and they still can get 4.5m coins, and change their clone-copies,
> but more reasonable for then to start from scratch with alt-coin. 
> Bitcoin is open source.

Well, I think you're characterization of the Bitcoin blockchain as "huge" does
raise an important technical issue: given that segwit already increases the
likely blocksize by a factor of two, what is the plan on dealing with the
additional 2x increase? How can the 2x agreement justify the safety of doing
so?

-- 
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org