[Bitcoin-segwit2x] F2Pool backing out of NYA - Fork still happening?

[Phillip Katete]

We can safely and accurately deduce overwhelming support  for 2x from bit 4/BIP91 support because segwit only voting/signalling, despite being open for an extended period of time, never even achieved / sustained even half the required threshold until the NYA.

From: James Hilliard<mailto:james.hilliard1 at gmail.com>
Sent: 12 October 2017 18:31
To: Phillip Katete<mailto:pekatete at hotmail.com>
Cc: brian at ob1.io<mailto:brian at ob1.io>; bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-segwit2x] F2Pool backing out of NYA - Fork still happening?

SegWit2x consists of BIP91 and a 2X HF, however bit 4 is not required
to activate the 2X HF, it's only used to activate BIP91.  Bit 4
signalling is not an accurate indication of 2X HF support, it's only
an indicator for BIP91 support.

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Phillip Katete <pekatete at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for clearing that up, at least we are now clear that without
> SegWit2x, segwit would never have been activated seeing the pre bit 4
> signalling on bit 1 never sustained anything near 35% (thus segwit had no
> chance of being activated).
>
>
>
> From: James Hilliard
> Sent: 12 October 2017 18:13
> To: Phillip Katete
> Cc: brian at ob1.io; bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>
>
> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-segwit2x] F2Pool backing out of NYA - Fork still
> happening?
>
>
>
> That's incorrect, f2pool was signalling on bit 1 well before bit 4.
> The 2X hard fork activation logic in btc1 is also not triggered by bit
> 4, it is triggered by the bit 1 activation of segwit regardless of
> whether or not there was a bit 4 activation, bit 4 activation only
> triggered BIP91 mandatory signalling.
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Phillip Katete via Bitcoin-segwit2x
> <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> Whatever he may say he agreed to, the facts are that he voted to activate
>> and lock-in SegWit2x on bit 4 (before voting on bit 1 to get the legacy
>> clients activated and locked-in too).
>>
>> Despite the sabre rattling, f2pool will end up on the majority chain as
>> they
>> are not in the space to prop up core.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Brian Hoffman via Bitcoin-segwit2x
>> Sent: 12 October 2017 16:56
>> To: Peter BitcoinReminder.com; Peter Todd via Bitcoin-segwit2x
>> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-segwit2x] F2Pool backing out of NYA - Fork still
>> happening?
>>
>>
>>
>> Where have you been? Wang Chun has said they never were agreed to NYA post
>> segwit so what’s your point exactly?
>>
>>
>>
>> It’s obvious that there will be a chain split at this point.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:53 AM Peter BitcoinReminder.com via
>> Bitcoin-segwit2x <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> I was just pointing out that F2Pool just stopped NYA signaling some hours
>> ago - which is a new information.
>>
>>
>>
>> And still nobody answered my question if you know acknowledge that there
>> will be a chain split for sure and you are intentionally splitting off?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 12.10.2017 um 17:50 schrieb Jeff Garzik <jeff at bloq.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>> It is information over a month old. See counter.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
>> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
>>
>> --
>>
>> Brian Hoffman
>>
>> President
>>
>> OB1
>>
>> (571) 205-4967
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
>> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
>>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/attachments/20171012/aa6c55f3/attachment.html>