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

Phillip Katete pekatete at hotmail.com
Fri Oct 13 10:30:24 UTC 2017


The disingenuity here is “painful to watch”. First you make hay of f2pool switching off NYA signaling intent THEN you rubbish signaling intent as cheap and not worthy of consideration as a metric. More worryingly, you then want to predicate the HF on miner signaling at the 80% threshold. So which is it then?

Even with the EDA induced hash oscillations, I am confident hash at and post fork will mirror signaling intent.

From: Melvin Carvalho<mailto:melvincarvalho at gmail.com>
Sent: 13 October 2017 11:11
To: Phillip Katete<mailto:pekatete at hotmail.com>
Cc: Dr Adam Back<mailto:adam at blockstream.com>; Emil Oldenburg<mailto:emil at bitcoin.com>; Peter Todd via Bitcoin-segwit2x<mailto:bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-segwit2x] F2Pool backing out of NYA - Fork still happening?



On 13 October 2017 at 11:47, Phillip Katete via Bitcoin-segwit2x <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto: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<mailto:bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: 13 October 2017 10:11
To: Emil Oldenburg<mailto:emil at bitcoin.com>
Cc: Peter Todd via Bitcoin-segwit2x<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
>> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
>
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x


_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto: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/20171013/417917b3/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list