[Bitcoin-segwit2x] F2Pool backing out of NYA - Fork still happening?
segwit2x_mailinglist at bitcoinreminder.com
Sat Oct 14 09:40:16 UTC 2017
About „how a strong 2 way replay protection is to be defined“ - maybe just listen to the community and exchanges?
Bitmex declared yesterday that they won’t support or even list B2X, because you don’t offer the minimal level of security for the users:
Strong two way transaction replay protection, enabled by default, such that transactions on each chain are invalid on the other chain.
A clean break, such that the new chain cannot be “wiped out” by the original chain.
A modification to the block header, such that all wallets (including light clients) are required to upgrade to follow the hardforked chain.
A change in address format, to prevent people inadvertently sending coins to an address on the wrong chain.
New P2P network magic, to ensure a functioning and reliable node network for the both coins.
And to tell „oh it’s so hard to implement“ is nonsense, even BCash did it in about the same timeframe.
I think you shoot yourself in your own foot by missing these features and I think a lot other exchanges will follow or followed already Bitmex (BitKonan f.e.).
This strategy is unprofessional and risky - for both sides.
> Am 14.10.2017 um 11:18 schrieb Junyi Li via Bitcoin-segwit2x <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
> If you believe Bitcoin (SegWit2X) is not Bitcoin, this mailing list may be not the right place for you to complain, since you have recklessly violated the charter, for a long time.
> As many others clarified patiently, this mailing list is for technical talks only. To defend and improve Bitcoin project constructively technically is the only aim of us.
> I respect your freedom of speech, but you should realize that you have already infringed others' rights. Frankly speaking, you are harrassing others.
> The toxic environment in Bitcoin community has already scared those most talented and reputable devs away from Bitcoin in the past years. Instead of continuing cursing, trying to be constructive is the required attitude in any work group.
> Bitcoin (SegWit2X) is Bitcoin. Bitcoin is censorship-resistant. It's a shame to stand on the side of censorship.
> If you disagree on 'All human beings are born free and equal', you are actually humiliating yourself and harassing others by continuing talking about the constitution.
> We have confidence in defending our constitution and Bitcoin. The Berlin wall looks quite high, yet it's rotten since long ago. The censorship and propaganda were very effective in brainwashing useful idiots, yet its collapse is doomed.
> Because, we have belief in Bitcoin. We believe Bitcoin is destined to benefit the world very, very, very much.
> Welcome to Bitcoin, anyway.
> (Sorry for this off-topic email.)
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 00:38 Marcel Jamin via Bitcoin-segwit2x <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
> On 14 October 2017 at 09:02, Jeff Garzik <jeff at bloq.com <mailto:jeff at bloq.com>> wrote:
> > "Strong, two-way replay protection" is poorly defined.
> > Segwit2x is an upgrade to bitcoin, not an altcoin.
> I and many others heavily disagree. The simple reality is this: S2X is
> incompatible with Bitcoin AND contentious. Miners and business
> adopting this approach to "upgrading" will fork themselves off the
> bitcoin blockchain. You're trying to define Bitcoin's rules by
> strong-arming changes through hashpower. It doesn't bode well for
> bitcoin's future if this is actually successful.
> > It is an explicit design goal that SPV wallets continue working through the
> > fork, following the strongest, most secure chain as they were programmed to
> > do.
> ... tricking them to follow an invalid chain, as SPV can't fully
> validate bitcoin's rules. Validity is not solely defined by hashpower.
> > Therefore, any method of replay protection that breaks over 10 million
> > wallets - greatly exacerbating chain splits - is rejected (and this has been
> > communicated repeatedly for months).
> It doesn't break wallets at all, it merely fails to automatically (and
> unsolicitedly) onboard them onto this WG's fork of bitcoin (=
> incompatible consensus rules, new set of developers, new maintainer).
> > Put simply, we want most wallets to Just Keep Working. Certain types of
> > replay protection break that.
> Put simply, you want to take most wallets with you without explicit
> consent and certain types of replay protection don't allow you to do
> that. You're only offering an opt-out approach requiring user action +
> bloat on the incumbent chain.
> There are ways to increase bitcoin's capacity without causing a schism
> like this. After all, we did just double it. Work with (virtually all)
> bitcoin protocol developers, not against them. This merely means
> holding off on a hard fork for a while longer, acknowledging that a
> safe hard fork that doesn't split the community is a hard thing to do.
> As it should be.
> And before anyone is going to lecture me again that this is off-topic
> for this list (as a blanket defense when things get uncomfortable),
> rest assured that this will be my last mail to this list. One way or
> another, this will sort itself out.
> 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 <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bitcoin-segwit2x