[Bitcoin-segwit2x] Require a new Statement from NYA companies
mail at albertodeluigi.com
mail at albertodeluigi.com
Wed Nov 1 23:55:37 UTC 2017
In order to safeguard the community from an undesired chain split, the
upgrade should be overwhelming, but it’s not enough. It should also
‘appear’ as overwhelming. People, businesses and services needs to be
certain about what is going to happen and the risks if they won’t
follow. My impression is that still too many speaking english people in
the western world think the upgrade will be abandoned before or
immediately after block 494784 is mined, thus they are going to simply
ignore it. That could lead to unprepared patch up and confusion, while
naïve users risk to harm themselves.
For this reason and for the sake of the Bitcoin community as a whole, we
need to show again, clearly and publicly the extent of the support to
SegWit2x. We also need to commit ourselves in a widespread communication
campaign. I know this is not a strict technical matter, but it could
help a lot avoiding technical issues in the future.
What we have to do:
First, we need a new statement from the original NYA signers and all the
business, firms and individuals who joined the cause later. That
statement should be slightly different from the original NYA though, and
I am explaining why.
We all know that what Bitcoin is will be ultimately determined by market
forces, comprehensive of all the stakeholders involved: businesses,
miners, users, developers, traders, investors, holders etc. Each
category has its own weight in the process, and everybody has incentives
in following the market. If the market goes clearly towards a certain
direction, in the long run no company will remain stuck to a position
for barely ideological beliefs.
For this reason, it’s clear why some businesses communicate that they
are going to support the chain which will better meet the market demand,
independently from what they think is the best protocol solution or
upgrade for Bitcoin.
For example, two signers of the NYA, SurBTC and Bitwala, recently stated
that they completely subscribe to the technical changes proposed in the
agreement for SegWit2x
SurBTC: “From a technical standpoint, we’ve always loved SegWit and we
see a small increment (2mb) in the size of the block as a good idea as
it would relieve pressure, lower fees and give some time to other more
definitive scaling alternatives such as the Lightning Network to develop
Bitwala: “We urge all developers to take into account the demands of
users and all parties of the NYA and address them adequately, if not
implement them” (https://www.bitwala.com/bitwala-statement-segwit2x/)
Despite this, they said they cannot guarantee they will use the ticker
BTC for SegWit2x coin. Bitwala states that they “would like to honor the
agreement”, but they also depend on third party exchange and service
payments (Xapo) and “must build our products on what they support”, so
they won’t have an active role in the fork: “Everything else is up to
the market”. Reading that statement no one can say Bitwala is not in
favor to SegWit2x as a technical upgrade. Despite that, I also see
people who misinterpreted the message and listed Bitwala among the NO2X
companies. There are many companies deprecating a contentious upgrade,
for this reason they move against SegWit2x hard fork, but that doesn’t
always mean they oppose the upgrade in itself.
Many, including some Core developers, oppose the fork just because ‘they
think’ it is contentious. But what if they are wrong? We can reasonably
think companies are not eager to struggle against a big part of the
industry, or put the network unity at risk, if S2X had no broad support.
It’s fair. But first, companies have to express their opinion, second,
they see if it is shared by the rest of the community. Then, they can
decide to pursue the upgrade or not. There is no point in opposing a
proposal prima facie because the mere fact that it’s contentious, it
would be simply illogical.
I would ask all business the following question:
“Would you favor a Bitcoin upgrade increasing the blocksize to 2mb by
means of a hard fork from block number 494784, if this upgrade proposal
proved to have broad support among the Bitcoin community?”
YES / NO
This way, we are able to identify exactly how many are in favor of the
bare technical upgrade in itself, without political considerations.
After we have a clear feedback, it’s left to individual companies and
miners to read the response data in a political framework and decide if
it’s an acceptable level of consensus. Thus each one will independently
decide if it’s worthwhile pursuing the upgrade or not.
From my search, I would say that at least the following companies are in
favor of the upgrade (see the list below). I included the original NYA
signers, plus the companies “blacklisted” by bitcoin.org (and other
companies who lately asked bitcoin.org to be included in the
blacklist), plus a few others retrieved from these lists which
weren’t mentioned yet. Please check the list and make amendments if
something is wrong, which is likely since I could have missed the most
recent statements of some companies.
I included also Wanyloans, Vaultoro, CryptoFacilities and SurBTC,
original signers of NYA that lately pulled their unconditioned support.
Reading their statements, it seems they are not against the technical
proposal in itself: they denounce the lack of replay protection, but
it’s reasonable to complain about it only if the upgrade is likely to
cause a split, which is a political matter. I excluded F2pool, since I
think that supporting NYA “until july” implies that they simply never
Coinfucius ATM operator
Digital Currency Group
Genesis Global Trading
Our purpose is to extend this list as much as we can. In the following
link, I discuss the technical and political reasons why everybody should
subscribe. In the article, I treat different topics such as: technical
aspects of segwit2x like hardware requirements and fee costs, timing and
status of lightning network and other scalability solutions, bt1 vs bt2
futures on bitfinex, the unethical move of bitcoin.org denouncing honest
companies, the need of many different fullnode clients instead of a
unique reference software in the ecosystem, and much more.
 https://bitcoin.org/en/posts/denounce-segwit2x and here
 http://segwit.party/nya/ and https://coin.dance/poli. From the first
list, BitOasis is uncorrectly listed among the NYA withdrawn, you can
read their statement here and nothing can make you think they are
The same holds for Bitwala:
 It’s not a public communication: https://i.redd.it/e9x15k6bmmpz.png
More information about the Bitcoin-segwit2x