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

Marcel Jamin marcel at jamin.net
Sat Oct 14 05:31:27 UTC 2017


On 14 October 2017 at 02:20, Ben Peters via Bitcoin-segwit2x
<bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the
> NYA/Segwit2x endeavour. What is happening here is that an alternative,
> minimally modified, version of the Bitcoin code is being developed that will
> implement a change that has long been sought by the mining community and
> many in industry and beyond (a change that they presumably feel is important
> for the future success of Bitcoin and thus their respective investments).
>
> That candidate code will be offered to the miners and mining pools, who may
> or may not opt to apply hashing power to it. If they apply more than the
> threshold amount of hashing power, then that new code will effectively
> takeover from the previous consensus rule, and take most SPV wallets and
> economic activity along with it.
>
> Rather than lobbying this technical working group to “call off” their
> efforts, your time might be better spent lobbying the miners. The function
> of this group is to produce candidate code, thus fulfilling the obligations
> as set out under the NYA.

Fair enough, but this working group is making technical decisions that
can create a lof of confusion and cause many problems for bitcoin
users.

Much of the lobbying is targeted towards implementing strong two-way
replay protection. The reason for not implementing this protection, is
that it would reveal this project as an alternative fork of bitcoin
and is based on the assumption, that most miners will in fact employ
the client put forward by this WG and apply their hashpower to it.

Many indicators however point towards a virtually guaranteed network split.

The NYA committed signers to "deployment of safe solutions that
increase bitcoin capacity". This implementation doesn't fulfill that
goal. Without strong replay protection, this will be a mess for both
sides.

>
>
> On Oct 13, 2017, at 8:55 AM, Melvin Carvalho via Bitcoin-segwit2x
> <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
>>> Sent: 13 October 2017 11:11
>>> To: Phillip Katete
>>> Cc: Dr Adam Back; Emil Oldenburg; Peter Todd via Bitcoin-segwit2x
>>>
>>> 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
>>> Sent: 13 October 2017 10:11
>>> To: Emil Oldenburg
>>> Cc: Peter Todd via Bitcoin-segwit2x
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


More information about the Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list