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

[Bitcoin Error Log]

The funny part is lack of replay protection will hurt your fork more than
help it. We tried to help; you doubled down. We tried to educate you; you
doubled down. Your goal must be disruption.

On Fri, Nov 3, 2017, 3:52 AM Will M <will.madden at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Those terms mean exactly the same thing. Intent and/or developer
> competence do not change an event and cannot be measured.
>
> On Nov 2, 2017, 5:58 PM -0600, bitPico <bitpico at icloud.com>, wrote:
>
> Chain split is not a hard fork. A hard fork is intentional.
> Misconfiguration of BDB was incompetence. Even mail servers use millions of
> locks and objects in BDB. 📚
>
> On Nov 2, 2017, at 7:52 PM, Will M <will.madden at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sure, and I can fully sync a segwit2x client to the segwit1x blockchain
> after the fork by changing settings as well. If you run pre 0.8 with the
> settings and code that shipped in the build, you will fork.
>
> On Nov 2, 2017, 5:48 PM -0600, bitPico <bitpico at icloud.com>, wrote:
>
> We fully synced a pre 0.8 node by setting the number of BDB locks
> set_lk_max_locks(1000000). Try it yourself... 🤓😛
>
> On Nov 2, 2017, at 7:29 PM, Will M via Bitcoin-segwit2x <
> bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> That’s patently false.
>
> You can prove it by installing a pre 0.8 client and syncing it. You will
> be unable to sync to today’s Bitcoin at block height 252,451.
>
> Here are detailed instructions you can use to reproduce this yourself:
> https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5rc7an/despite_what_core_supporters_may_claim_bitcoin/
>
> Cheers.
>
> On Nov 2, 2017, 5:27 PM -0600, Bitcoin Error Log <
> bitcoinerrorlog at gmail.com>, wrote:
>
> Will, Bitcoin has never forked and abandoned the old chain. There was a
> rollback for bugfixes and a time when Hearn's db bug almost caused a fork,
> but the fork failed.
>
> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 1:20 AM Will M <will.madden at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If we were to use your definition, the original Bitcoin ceased to be used
>> on August 16th, 2013 at block height 252,451. We are all using a new
>> blockchain that is based on proof of stake from v 0.8 bitcoin qt and not
>> Bitcoin.
>>
>> Can we keep this mailing list to technical discussion and move this sort
>> of debate back to twitter, reddit or whatever? Thanks...
>>
>> On Nov 2, 2017, 5:11 PM -0600, Bitcoin Error Log via Bitcoin-segwit2x <
>> bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>, wrote:
>>
>> There's no such thing as consensus of what Bitcoin is, at least not in
>> the abstract sense you are all yammering on about.
>>
>> Bitcoin is the first blockchain, it's protocol defines it and what you
>> can expect from it. You can only add rules, not change them.
>>
>> A hard fork can NEVER be "Bitcoin" and Bitcoin can't even "die" (whether
>> miners mine it or not, it remains in hibernation and is secure). These are
>> absolute facts, not beliefs or theories. If you start from these
>> fundamentals, you can make better decisions about how to manage your forks,
>> soft or hard. You will understand you are competing with Bitcoin, not
>> upgrading it.
>>
>> You are not reaching consensus, your are campaigning and competing. You
>> are not Bitcoin, you are using Bitcoin history as a proof of stake for a
>> new blockchain.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 12:30 AM Luke Dashjr via Bitcoin-segwit2x <
>> bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday 02 November 2017 4:53:42 PM Alberto De Luigi via
>>> Bitcoin-segwit2x
>>> wrote:
>>> > Actually the bitcoin Core developers never clarified why they are
>>> against
>>> > segwit2x. There are no technical reasons.
>>>
>>> I don't normally post here, but since you're making bogus claims about
>>> me like
>>> this... I, at least, absolutely have clarified my stance on multiple
>>> occasions.
>>>
>>> Please read this reddit comment for a synopsis:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/61yvvv/request_to_core_devs_please_explain_your_vision/dficjhj/
>>>
>>> >  2mb blocksize hf means very smooth change in 6 months, everybody
>>> knows it
>>> >  and can prepare, fullnodes do not costs more, or the cost increase is
>>> >  negligible.
>>>
>>> Hardforks are almost* NEVER smooth, due to the design that entails what a
>>> hardfork is.
>>>
>>> The cost increase is not negligible. You're talking about the blockchain
>>> increasing at a rate of ~263 GB per year. That's almost double the
>>> current
>>> blockchain size, which already cuts out far too many users from running
>>> their
>>> own node, to the point where Bitcoin today is not actually secure.
>>>
>>> Note that 2X is NOT a 2 MB block size. It is up to 8 MB blocks.
>>>
>>> Luke
>>>
>>> * The exception is when the network has ceased to be functioning prior
>>> to the
>>> change, which forces universal visibility into the matter. This is
>>> clearly NOT
>>> the case for November; Bitcoin has been working fine since 2013.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
>>> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
>>>
>> --
>>
>> John C
>> Bitcoin Error Log
>> www.bitcoinerrorlog.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
>> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
>>
>> --
>
> John C
> Bitcoin Error Log
> www.bitcoinerrorlog.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
>
> --

John C
Bitcoin Error Log
www.bitcoinerrorlog.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/attachments/20171103/c87cf30f/attachment-0001.html>