[Bitcoin-segwit2x] Strong 2-Way Replay Protection

Mon Oct 9 05:16:25 UTC 2017

You hit upon the important point here:

1) Services are charged with keeping safe the clients assets, NOT its value.  The assets in this case are private keys.  These are not affected in a fork.
2) For services that are not holding keys as assets but ‘balances’ then they should already be licensed as a deposit holding business aka, a banking institution, (are they really? I doubt BitFinex is) if they aren’t then they have no obligation whatsoever, and if you are their client you should have known this when you willingly gave them your bitcoins.  If they aren’t, then you traded your bitcoins for what effectively are air mileage points when you sent them to the business.  They can do whatever they want with them, including cancelling them at will.
3) For ones that ‘are’ banks, then basically what you are saying is that the law should be enforcing them to stay in consensus with each other. — I don’t believe this is the responsibility of the businesses.  They should have clearly stated in their T&C that they would support the ledger of the most proof of work chain.  That is about all they can guarantee they can do.  Else you are effectively trying to put a meta-layer of consensus over bitcoin PoW.

Jerry D Chan
President and Founder
Bittoku G.K.
jerry.d.chan at bittoku.co.jp
www.bittoku.co.jp

> On Oct 9, 2017, at 12:49, Chris Stewart <chris at suredbits.com> wrote:
> 
> >Let’s keep the discussion technical, there is no reason to start debating phrasing or semantics here, I should think you know very well what I mean when I said ‘framing’.  Its a business, they can choose what kind of service they can provide their customers.  If they were a business that was run properly, then they would have stated in their T&C that they would only offer access to the bitcoin ledger of which they have the sole right to determine which one it is.
> 
> I agree, *technically* most consumer facing companies are acting as custodians of bitcoin*. In the case of a hard fork they will inherit custody of a new crypto asset. In most jurisdictions these companies cannot outright confiscate assets (in this case either bitcoin or the hard fork asset) from their customers.
> 
> * - there are a few exceptions to this. I'm talking about about your traditional exchange/broker (coinbase,gemini,bitstamp,bitfinex etc)
> 
> -Chris
> 
> On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 10:41 PM, Jerry D Chan <jerry.d.chan at bittoku.co.jp <mailto:jerry.d.chan at bittoku.co.jp>> wrote:
> There is no marketing involved. Let’s keep the discussion technical, there is no reason to start debating phrasing or semantics here, I should think you know very well what I mean when I said ‘framing’.  Its a business, they can choose what kind of service they can provide their customers.  If they were a business that was run properly, then they would have stated in their T&C that they would only offer access to the bitcoin ledger of which they have the sole right to determine which one it is.  Most of the time this will be what everyone else agrees it is, but in times of a fork, the only thing that the business can guarantee that they will have control over their version of the ledger.
> 
> Unless a company has explicitly stated that they will support any and all ledger forks that persist past a certain time, this should not be assumed to be the default behaviour, ‘ethical’, ‘moral obligation’ or otherwise.
> 
> Bitcoin is a new paradigm.  Users who put their money into it thinking that it is just ‘digital gold’ and services just ‘banks’ should be dissuaded from believing this oversimplification, for exactly the situations such as the one we find ourselves in now.
> 
> 
> Jerry D Chan
> President and Founder
> Bittoku G.K.
> jerry.d.chan at bittoku.co.jp <mailto:jerry.d.chan at bittoku.co.jp>
> www.bittoku.co.jp <http://www.bittoku.co.jp/>
> 
> 
> <Screen Shot 2014-08-10 at 2.19.56.png>
> 
>> On Oct 9, 2017, at 12:26, Chris Stewart <chris at suredbits.com <mailto:chris at suredbits.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> It seems to me if bitcoin forks the consumer facing companies would be responsible for crediting users with balances on both chains. The word 'framing' makes me think of subjective marketing terms -- this is the interesting thing about bitcoin -- we are dealing with a bearer asset that *technically* can be forked by *anybody*.
>> 
>> >they can simply tell their customers that this is the upgrade path that they will be taking, and if they don’t agree with it, then they should remove their funds or cease to use their service
>> 
>> Again, I disagree about the word 'upgrade' in this context -- see my Peter Thiel comment -- but otherwise this seems prudent if you are diverging from consensus, but do you think there is enough time left until the hard fork to actually do this in a responsible manner? A lot of people don't follow bitcoin news on a daily basis like both of us do.
>> 
>> -Chris
>> 
>> On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Jerry D Chan <jerry.d.chan at bittoku.co.jp <mailto:jerry.d.chan at bittoku.co.jp>> wrote:
>> They *could*, if they were framing the fork as an optional new transactional network option.  But if they are framing it as an *upgrade* to the existing one, they can simply tell their customers that this is the upgrade path that they will be taking, and if they don’t agree with it, then they should remove their funds or cease to use their service.  There is no way to ‘ask’ your customers that can’t be simply sybil attacked by those who will pay for social media noise.
>> 
>> 
>> Jerry D Chan
>> President and Founder
>> Bittoku G.K.
>> jerry.d.chan at bittoku.co.jp <mailto:jerry.d.chan at bittoku.co.jp>
>> www.bittoku.co.jp <http://www.bittoku.co.jp/>
>> 
>> 
>> <Screen Shot 2014-08-10 at 2.19.56.png>
>> 
>>> On Oct 9, 2017, at 12:02, Chris Stewart via Bitcoin-segwit2x <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> So again -- just to be crystal clear -- consumer facing companies that signed the segwit2x agreement should offer their customers this choice between the two chains?
>>> 
>>> -Chris
>>> 
>>> On Oct 8, 2017 9:55 PM, "digitsu" <jerry.d.chan at bittoku.co.jp <mailto:jerry.d.chan at bittoku.co.jp>> wrote:
>>> It doesn’t require any assumptions.  Users (who tend to care about the transaction validity and reliability of their chain) will move.  Those that don’t move will stay because they value their principles or idealogy more than functionality or security of their chain.  Everyone will get what they want (to pay for).
>>> 
>>> There is no coercion required.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Oct 9, 2017, at 11:43, Chris Stewart via Bitcoin-segwit2x <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> You cannot make assumptions about what users will do (unless you are assuming that the business they are using coerced them onto a specific chain).
>>>> 
>>>> Also the word 'upgraded' is very subjective. I consider upgrades to be the Peter Thiel flavor of "0 to 1"  (legitimate new technology) not the "1 to N" that hard forking a block size increase does.
>>>> 
>>>> -Chris
>>>> On Oct 8, 2017 9:05 PM, "Emil Oldenburg" <emil at bitcoin.com <mailto:emil at bitcoin.com>> wrote:
>>>> I never said it will. Simply that the users will move to the upgraded chain and the legacy one will have neither blocks nor users after a short while.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Emil Oldenburg, CTO
>>>> Emil at bitcoin.com <mailto:Emil at bitcoin.com>
>>>> Visit the all new https://bitcoin.com <https://bitcoin.com/>
>>>> Wechat: emilold
>>>> Telegram: emilold
>>>> On 2017年10月09日 10:59, Chris Stewart wrote:
>>>>> This is really alarming that you think this is how consensus protocols work. The legacy chain will never reorg to the new currency. The two consensus rule sets are incompatible.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Chris
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Emil Oldenburg via Bitcoin-segwit2x <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>>>>> Chain splits happens once in a while, we had a chain split three days ago, even though it didn't last as no miner built a block on top of the AntPool block since the cost of burying it deep enough to reach more than 100 confirmations so it can be sold, simply was too high.
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/blocks/orphans/1 <https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/blocks/orphans/1>
>>>>> Post HF, we will get a chain split, and blocks will be mined on both chains. But the economic reality is that the non-upgraded legacy chain face a significant risk of getting orphaned/abandoned. What is a good definition of chain split? 1, 100, or 1000 blocks?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Emil Oldenburg, CTO
>>>>> Emil at bitcoin.com <mailto:Emil at bitcoin.com>
>>>>> Visit the all new https://bitcoin.com <https://bitcoin.com/>
>>>>> Wechat: emilold
>>>>> Telegram: emilold
>>>>> On 2017年10月09日 09:56, Chris Stewart via Bitcoin-segwit2x wrote:
>>>>>> So just so this is clear to the rest of the world, Segwit2x believes there will be no chain split?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Chris
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 5:57 PM, bitPico <bitpico at icloud.com <mailto:bitpico at icloud.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> https://blockchain.info/charts/nya-support <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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>>>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
>>>>> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
>>>> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x>
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
>>> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/attachments/20171009/a07d0a4e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screen Shot 2014-08-10 at 2.19.56.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8427 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/attachments/20171009/a07d0a4e/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 874 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/attachments/20171009/a07d0a4e/attachment-0001.sig>