[Bitcoin-segwit2x] Strong 2-Way Replay Protection

Mike Belshe mike at bitgo.com
Mon Oct 9 17:00:03 UTC 2017


On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Marcel Jamin <marcel at jamin.net> wrote:

> On 9 October 2017 at 16:43, Mike Belshe <mike at bitgo.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I didn't claim that the block size doubled, I pointed to the fact that
> the block *limit* effectively doubled. And the fact that the available
> capacity is not fully utilized right now does say something about the
> urgency of further increasing MAX_BLOCK_WEIGHT.
>



>
> > Even at theoretical max, its not a doubling.
>
> The theoretical max is slightly less than 4M bytes. Four times the
> previous limit. The recent estimates I've seen put the
> effective/practical capacity increase at 2.1x - 2.3x if SegWit is
> fully utilized.
>

I was using Bitcoin Core's expectation of 60% maximum increase as described
here:
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/#block-capacitysize-increase



>
> > Regardless, we should always be thinking about growing capacity.
>
> And we are, of course. SegWit provides a doubling of capacity. Schnorr
> signatures will build upon that and provide another 20-30%. The
> lightning network then completely knocks it out of the park and
> effectively increases the capacity for certain types of transactions /
> use cases by several orders of magnitude.
>

Nobody is debating Schnorr signatures here.  I think that is a great idea
for the future too.



>
> > 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.
>
> That's very honorable and most bitcoiners share that goal, but the
> approach you take is utterly wrong and will utlimately fail. The
> question just is how much damage you want to do to bitcoin and/or the
> bitcoin brand in order to eventually realize that.
>

You failed to articulate any technical arguments here.



>
> The sheer audacity of non-tech people to promote their technical
> solution despite overwhelming expert opposition is mind-boggling
> (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support). I'm sorry to be blunt,
> but you're way out of your circle of competence and you need to
> recognize that.
>

Okay, thanks for the insults.  I suggest you do some research.


>
> > I've never heard customers say "no thanks" to better scalability except
> in Bitcoin.
>
> Bitcoin is not a business and does not have customers. It has users,
> many of which don't primarily value it because of super low
> transactions fees, but because of it's censorship resistance. Because
> of the fact that no single entity or group has full control over it.
> This includes DCG & friends.
>

I've never heard users say "no thanks" to better scalability except in
Bitcoin.


>
> Changes to bitcoin must be argued for. All concerns need to be
> addressed. If we start making backroom deals to get stuff in and let
> certain groups hold things like SegWit hostage to successfully get
> what they want but can't properly argue for, I'd consider this
> experiment failed.
>

You have failed to make any technical arguments here. This has all been
done, and after fervent debate, the decisions have been made.

At this point, the onus is on you to provide technical arguments against
segwit2x. While you have provided a full course dinner of insults to me and
everyone else here, you've failed to state even one single technical
argument against segwit2x.






> > Today, Bitcoin is small potatoes.  Want to make it really soar?  Make it
> > available to everyone.
>
> We owe it to ourselves to do it properly.
>

Again, give me a technical argument.

Mike






>
> >
> > 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
>



-- 


*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/b4dddcd1/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list