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

Melvin Carvalho melvincarvalho at gmail.com
Fri Oct 13 10:11:25 UTC 2017


On 13 October 2017 at 11:47, Phillip Katete via Bitcoin-segwit2x <
bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> You are barking up the wrong tree by using a “rigged” futures’ price to
> estimate the hash supporting the upgrade at fork time. They NYA was
> presented as being backed by at least 80% of the network hash then and was
> activated / locked-in by over 90%. Since then, it has continued to receive
> and sustain intent signalling above the introduction threshold. It is only
> rational to expect the hash on fork to reflect the latter as opposed to
> futures’ prices.
>
>
>
> Obiter dicta: the futures’ price is more reflective of the wavering non
> mining, none  economic users. It goes without saying, a lot of people are
> going to loose a lot of money on this otherwise rigged futures’ market.
>

Markets are not always accurate, but simply a form of price discovery, I
think "rigged" is perhaps a loaded term in this case and stretching
things.  A 12% futures market does not bode well for success, but, you
never know.

Since F2Pool stopped signaling NYA yesterday the signaling ratio is now
about 81%, though this might have something to do with the feast and famine
EDA in bitcoin cash which has just been activated.  Around 83% might be a
better guess.

However signaling is cheap, and many miners act in economic self interest.
Having helped run a coin for many years, I have witnessed this being the
case.  There's nothing developers would like more than steady miners that
stick with a coin, but sites such as coinwarz [1] all too often create
spikes in hash power related to profitability.

Wishing to stay on topic, I'd like to ask the following question.  If
signaling falls below the described 80% threshold stated above (ie one more
miner stops signaling), will this this be grounds to rethink the timing of
the release schedule?

[1] https://www.coinwarz.com/cryptocurrency


>
>
> *From: *Dr Adam Back via Bitcoin-segwit2x
> <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> *Sent: *13 October 2017 10:11
> *To: *Emil Oldenburg <emil at bitcoin.com>
> *Cc: *Peter Todd via Bitcoin-segwit2x
> <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Bitcoin-segwit2x] F2Pool backing out of NYA - Fork still
> happening?
>
>
>
> The futures price is 1/3 of 40% so yes actually < 40% hashrate is quite
> likely.
>
>
> https://www.cryptonator.com/rates/BT2-BTC?utm_referrer=
> https%3a%2f%2fwww.google.com%2f
>
> Nodes should upgrade because code changes are being made and it's not
> a good idea to run pre-production code on the live network.  Do you
> recall when the company you work for lost bitcoin by running
> pre-release fork code before on the pool?
>
> Is anyone running BTC1 head in production?  Protecting how much value.
> Reminder this is a public list.
>
> Adam
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Emil Oldenburg via Bitcoin-segwit2x
> <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > The hardfork part is already locked in and is not subject to change. Many
> > btc1 nodes are already deployed and they should not and don't need to
> > update. The only thing left is a potential extra softfork for opt-in
> replay
> > protection. Only the miners need this softfork.
> >
> > What makes you think the hardfork will have less than 40% hashpower?
> >
> >
> > Emil Oldenburg, CTO
> > Emil at bitcoin.com
> > Visit the all new https://bitcoin.com
> > Wechat: emilold
> > Telegram: emilold
> >
> > On 2017
> 年10月13日 17:31, Peter BitcoinReminder.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Thats not a reason, the BTC1 sourcecode is still in development (f.e.
> replay
> > protection was reverted just 1-2 days ago?) - so the argument „it can’t
> be
> > called off“ is just wrong.
> >
> > So wouldn’t it make sense to add a minimum required hashrate for the HF
> to
> > lock in? You are really going to fork off with f.e. 40 % hashpower?
> >
> >
> > Am 13.10.2017 um 03:42 schrieb Emil Oldenburg via Bitcoin-segwit2x
> > <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
> >
> > If we try to be technical here. The HF is already activated, is
> estimated to
> > trigger in 36 days, and can't be "called off". Nor is there any logic to
> > delay it if hashrate deflects. That's the rules of the btc1 client.
> >
> >
> > Emil Oldenburg, CTO
> > Emil at bitcoin.com
> > Visit the all new https://bitcoin.com
> > Wechat: emilold
> > Telegram: emilold
> >
> > On 2017
> 年10月13日 05:31, John Heathco via Bitcoin-segwit2x wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't believe there is an explicitly stated hashpower in which the fork
> > would be "called off", but I would assume it is much lower than what is
> > currently signaling, even if we make the (unwise) assumption that F2Pool
> > would not contribute to mining 2x whatsoever.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:57 PM Peter BitcoinReminder.com via
> > Bitcoin-segwit2x <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> I’m not Peter Todd, we just share the same (nice) firstname.
> >>
> >> I still didn’t get an answer what the minimum amount of hashpower is
> >> required, before the fork is getting delayed?
> >> We have to plan time for the whole security measures etc, so I think
> it’s
> >> reasonable to get more information about this?
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 12.10.2017 um 21:53 schrieb bitPico <bitpico at icloud.com>:
> >>
> >> Without you knowing why they stopped signaling this is FUD and off-topic
> >> for this list. Please instead let F2Pool  state their own opinion here
> since
> >> yours doesn’t count. If you think your opinion does count then show us
> your
> >> blocks that your pool has produced; until then you are simply an
> end-user
> >> and still you are off-topic for this list. If you need ELI5 for how this
> >> list works please let us know and we can help you Peter Todd.
> >>
> >> Have a groovy day!
> >>
> >> On Oct 12, 2017, at 8:49 AM, Peter BitcoinReminder.com via
> >> Bitcoin-segwit2x <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Since F2Pool stopped signaling for the NYA[1] and slush also mines
> mostly
> >> non-NYA blocks, are you still going to fork off in November - splitting
> the
> >> chain intentionally?
> >>
> >> —
> >> [1] https://imgur.com/LgYdFKw
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
> >> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
> >> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
> > Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
> > Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
> > Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171013/f172c693/attachment.html>


More information about the Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list