[Bitcoin-segwit2x] Require a new Statement from NYA companies

Daniel Vogel vogel at bitso.com
Thu Nov 2 15:30:16 UTC 2017


There are few things that are clear to me about this upcoming Fork. But the lack of consensus is definitely one of them. Sorry if I just made you puke Ben.

Given this is a technical mailing list, I would urge everyone to rethink the S2X code from a technical perspective. The code base was written as an upgrade to Bitcoin. I believe there is enough hard data out there to make it clear that S2X is no longer an upgrade.

F2Pool backed down
Slush Pool was never in
ViaBTC said none of their customers are requesting S2X
BTC.top said they will just mine whatever is more profitable

When do we stop and rethink? When we get to less than 50% hashing power?

I know most miners are still signaling NYA on their blocks. There is no cost for doing so and signaling is non-binding. One of the things that was agreed upon at the NYA was better signaling methods - I have seen none so far. Why is this? This makes me uncomfortable.

I am not aware of any BTC liquidity providers that signed the NYA which are abandoning the original chain, which is what happens with a blockchain upgrade (see last month's ETH fork).

Furthermore there are plenty of businesses that will not be supporting S2X.

This is not a blockchain upgrade. This is a chain split.

When we were invited to sign the NYA I saw an opportunity to come together as an industry. Although proud to have signed the NYA - it got segwit activated in a coordinated and safe way (no UASF hell!), I believe the NYA has failed in achieving it's original goal of keeping the community together and advancing the development of Bitcoin in a coordinated manner.

Whether this failure is the fault of some loudmouths in twitter, some trolls in Reddit, or very opinionated and principled engineers and scientists is irrelevant. What's relevant is that NYA has failed to bring the community together and provide a safe mechanism to upgrade Bitcoin as it had intended to do.

I might be stupidly naive or I might just be figuring how decentralized consensus mechanisms work (like many of you, I'd assume), but when asked about signing the NYA I definitely didn't agree to it in order to further divide and cause mayhem, which is what NYA has achieved.

I ultimately think this is about users. We had ZERO users asking us to keep support for the now dead pre-Byzantium ETH chain. We have tons of users asking us to keep support for their "core" BTC.

This is not a blockchain upgrade. This is a chain split and we are failing to address legitimate safety concerns for the users of this network.

> On Nov 2, 2017, at 1:02 AM, Marcel Jamin via Bitcoin-segwit2x <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> On 2 November 2017 at 02:09, Ben Peters via Bitcoin-segwit2x
> <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> If I see one more “without consensus blah blah” I think I’m going to puke.
>> 
>> There is no way to determine consensus other than what the markets and the
>> miners do. Loudmouths and trolls on social media are not a measure of
>> consensus.
> 
> But it's very easy to determine lack of consensus.
> 
>> 
>> As bitPico says, this the mailing list of a project for creating and
>> deploying a software solution to meet with the requirements of the NYA. The
>> creation has happened, and the deployment was the code being passed into the
>> hands of the miners.
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 1, 2017, at 6:56 PM, Melvin Carvalho via Bitcoin-segwit2x
>> <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 2 November 2017 at 01:17, bitPico via Bitcoin-segwit2x
>> <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>wrote:
>>> 
>>> This is a development list/working group.
>>> 
>>> The charter of this working group is design, implement, build, test, and
>>> deploy the software required to make Bitcoin scale, in accordance with the
>>> specific points of the agreement made on May 21, 2017.
>>> 
>>> https://segwit2x.github.io/
>> 
>> 
>> "Design & deploy" ... [ to make Bitcoin scale ]
>> 
>> Without consensus, this premise is flawed.
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sent from my Space Ship
>>> 
>>> On Nov 1, 2017, at 7:55 PM, Alberto De Luigi via Bitcoin-segwit2x
>>> <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> In order to safeguard the community from...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
>>> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
>> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
>> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/attachments/20171102/ecf09cae/attachment.html>


More information about the Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list