[Bitcoin-segwit2x] Strong 2-Way Replay Protection

Mon Oct 9 14:43:13 UTC 2017

I don't expect to convince you, but segwit didn't double the block size as
you claim.  You can witness the results yourself - more like a 3% increase
so far.  I expect it may get to a 50% increase in 8-10 months, but your
mileage may vary.  Even at theoretical max, its not a doubling.

Regardless, we should always be thinking about growing capacity.  I'm
interested in helping a much larger portion of the world have access to
Bitcoin, and we know we need to move forward.  This is a simple and easy
step.  I've never heard customers say "no thanks" to better scalability
except in Bitcoin.

Today, Bitcoin is small potatoes.  Want to make it really soar?  Make it
available to everyone.

Best,
Mike

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 1:46 AM, Marcel Jamin <marcel at jamin.net> wrote:

> On 9 October 2017 at 05:46, Mike Belshe via Bitcoin-segwit2x
> <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > BitGo serves its customers; we'll handle both chains.
> > I still hope everyone decides to vote for bigger blocks - its taken a
> long
> > time to get here, and we have a great opportunity!
>
> The block limit effectively doubled recently. You say that's because
> of the NYA, others say it's because of the UASF ultimatum. Personally
> I believe the pro-hardfork side saw a chance to get their pound of
> flesh with the NYA and BIP91 caught them by surprise. But the UASF
> deadline provided the pressure.
>
> In any case, it already doubled and you want to double it *again*.
>
> > No reason to support two chains except pride.
>
> The new chain will be run by a forked off client maintained by a new
> and much smaller set of developers willing to give in to business (and
> presumably government) pressure.
>
> The original chain will keep the most if not all of the developer
> talent that helped bitcoin flourish over the past years and follow a
> more rational and less political approach to decision making.
>
> I see plenty of reason to support the original chain and can't fathom
> how anyone (except some CEOs perhaps) would value the former higher
> than the latter. Early results on Bitfinex tend to agree with me here.
> This valuation will be an issue for you and the mining support you
> currently think you have. Understand that hashpower is a value add,
> not the core value proposition. Even with 1000x the hashpower, there's
> nothing secure about a corporately run version of bitcoin.
>
>
> - Marcel
>
>
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 8:43 PM, Chris Stewart <chris at suredbits.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> >No.
> >>
> >> Ok. Thanks for the candid answer Mike. I look forward to an official
> >> update from bitgo of how they will handle this chain split wrt to
> bitcoin
> >> and segwit2x.
> >>
> >> -Chris
> >>
> >> On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Mike Belshe <mike at bitgo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Chris Stewart via Bitcoin-segwit2x
> >>> <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> So just so this is clear to the rest of the world, Segwit2x believes
> >>>> there will be no chain split?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> No.
> >>>
> >>> Although the design goal was to not create a split, that doesn't mean
> >>> that there won't be one. Since you can never get 100.000% agreement, I
> >>> suppose you could say that means there must be a split - the question
> is
> >>> just how big.
> >>>
> >>> From the beginning, the segwit2x crew tried to garner as much support
> as
> >>> possible and make the code as simple and unobtrusive as possible. They
> >>> certainly accomplished a lot - getting more miner support than ever in
> >>> history, and getting segwit itself activated.  With regard to the 2MB
> >>> upgrade, it does seem that many are against it.  But if you look at
> the node
> >>> counts of SPV and full nodes, its easy to see that this group is
> incredibly
> >>> small - likely 0.5% or less of all deployed wallets.
> >>>
> >>> On the other hand, adding "replay protection" and orphaning the SPV
> >>> wallets would clearly create a massive chain split.
> >>>
> >>> Mike
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -Chris
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 5:57 PM, bitPico <bitpico at icloud.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://blockchain.info/charts/nya-support
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ~95-96%
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do the math on how long it would take to solve a 1x (deprecated)
> block
> >>>>> with only 4-5% network hash power.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is no HACK in place to drop the difficulty either so it’s a
> dead
> >>>>> blockchain. :-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Oct 8, 2017, at 6:46 PM, Chris Stewart via Bitcoin-segwit2x
> >>>>> <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So just to be clear, segwit2x no longer believes there will not be a
> >>>>> chain split come November?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Chris
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
> >>>> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> >>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Mike Belshe
> >>> CEO, BitGo, Inc
> >>> 408-718-6885
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Mike Belshe
> > CEO, BitGo, Inc
> > 408-718-6885
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
> > Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
> >
>

-- 

*Mike Belshe*
*CEO, BitGo, Inc*408-718-6885
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/attachments/20171009/c30671b3/attachment.html>