[Bitcoin-segwit2x] Strong 2-Way Replay Protection

Marcel Jamin marcel at jamin.net
Mon Oct 9 19:51:38 UTC 2017


On 9 October 2017 at 19:00, Mike Belshe <mike at bitgo.com> wrote:

> 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
>

(The lower bound of it.)

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

I brought up Schnorr signatures and LN up as examples of thinking
about growing capacity.

> You failed to articulate any technical arguments here.

I didn't try to. Those have already been made by people far more
capable than me again and again. And subsequently handwaved away. Talk
about being insulting.

>> 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.

Your behaviour is insulting as well. Almost as if you didn't do
research on the numerous people whose assessments you are continually
dismissing.

Swap "non-tech" for "bitcoin non-experts", if you like. It's
admittedly more accurate. My point remains the same.

>> > 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.

Looks like I didn't get the memo.

> 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.

If telling it how it is insults you, you may want to reevaluate your position.

But I'll stop here. I acknowledge that the "Why?" is considered
off-topic here. I also agree that my hostile stance towards what I
perceive as an attack isn't really helping here. My apologies.

This will sort itself out in the coming weeks anyway.

>> > 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


More information about the Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list