[Bitcoin-segwit2x] Strong 2-Way Replay Protection
bitpico at icloud.com
Wed Oct 11 23:30:44 UTC 2017
This mailing list is for discussion of the SegWit2x Bitcoin upgrade; more specifically upgrading from deprecated code (1x) to upgraded code (2x) to increase the base block size.
If you are not experienced participating in “working groups” please read up on the IETF as we all share the one common goal of “making the internet better”.
> On Oct 9, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Marcel Jamin via Bitcoin-segwit2x <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On 9 October 2017 at 19:00, Mike Belshe <mike at bitgo.com <mailto:mike at bitgo.com>> wrote:
>> I was using Bitcoin Core's expectation of 60% maximum increase as described
>> https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/#block-capacitysize-increase <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 <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
> 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
>>> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bitcoin-segwit2x