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

Phillip Katete pekatete at hotmail.com
Thu Nov 2 18:41:15 UTC 2017


You mean show good faith while rendering the NYA voidable? It has been pointed out already that this will not happen and your continued suggestions on these specific issues amount to trolling of the highest order (for which you should be ashamed of).

________________________________
From: bitcoin-segwit2x-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org <bitcoin-segwit2x-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Dr Adam Back via Bitcoin-segwit2x <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 6:36:37 PM
To: Daniel Vogel
Cc: Peter Todd via Bitcoin-segwit2x; mail at albertodeluigi.com
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-segwit2x] Require a new Statement from NYA companies

I would suggest what people could do as a show of good faith given what Daniel says, is add replay protection, different addresses, different network magic, SPV detectability (hard fork bit to make it easier to detect, and split as they must detect with two chains).  It's largely costless, recognises the reality that every company is anyway going to work on doing this in harder ways at app and service level, and avoids the users, community and other ecosystem companies and R & D community feeling quite as uncharitable towards NYA and actively supporting companies for creating risks, disruption and a huge amount of needless work. That can have business costs as users and ecosystem companies swap services.  I have heard that some people don't want a fork with two chains - but even then I would argue NYA has an obligation to tidy up the replay protection etc on the way out because others will fork it for you even if NYA tried to abort or quietly walk away, because others may have a vested interest to do so (eg via buying futures or for some mining tactic).

Adam

On Nov 2, 2017 23:30, "Daniel Vogel via Bitcoin-segwit2x" <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/attachments/20171102/7e025de1/attachment.html>


More information about the Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list