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

Fri Oct 13 15:55:04 UTC 2017

On 13 October 2017 at 12:45, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On 13 October 2017 at 12:30, Phillip Katete <pekatete at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> 24h signaling fell to 79.86% [1]
>

NYA signaling is now down to 77.70% in the last 24h (down from over 90% a
day ago)

https://coin.dance/blocks

This does not take into account ViaBTC which may support either chain, but
are currently signaling 100% NYA.

However, much hash is mining bitcoin cash right now, and probably
favourable to seg2x

Additionally, you can monitor the futures market in realtime

https://cryptowat.ch/bitfinex/bt2btc

Currently trading at 10.6% of bitcoin (down from over 20% a day ago)

You may wish to consider these metrics a source of new information for this
project.  And / or watch them as they develop.

>
> [1] https://coin.dance/blocks#thisweek
>
>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho at gmail.com>
>> *Sent: *13 October 2017 11:11
>> *To: *Phillip Katete <pekatete at hotmail.com>
>> *Cc: *Dr Adam Back <adam at blockstream.com>; Emil Oldenburg
>> <emil at bitcoin.com>; Peter Todd via Bitcoin-segwit2x
>> <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> 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/20171013/40d48404/attachment-0001.html>