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

Scott Roberts wordsgalore at gmail.com
Sat Oct 14 10:18:01 UTC 2017


SegWit2x seems to have more miner and business support, not
"community" support from devs, users, and hodlers.

Higher hashrate is a chain consensus, not a bitcoin protocol consensus.

Miners and businesses unilaterally making decisions is like banks and
corporations lobbying government, something bitcoin is supposed to be
against.

Calling SegWit2x an "attack" is a declaration that there is a
technological deficiency.  Alts do not whine over hash attacks from
larger coins.  They simply fix their difficulty to have a much faster
response. By not fixing it, SegWit and SegWit2x are demanding that
there be only 1 "bitcoin".  Competing forks that let the market decide
would be better. An incredibly slow (aka "inefficient", "inaccurate",
"bureaucratic", or "dumb") difficulty blocks the market from being
able to make a decision.  It prevents a smaller competitor from
growing because it will be sent into oscillations with long delays
until the price drops to reflect the slow (dumb) difficulty.  Even
alts with 5x faster block times than bitcoin have to abandon the
cryptonote difficulty that is a 300 block window.

Either SegWit or SegWit2x are going to desperately need a much shorter
rolling window average for determining difficulty in the range of 30
to 60 blocks (as long as it is not "tempered" or otherwise slowed down
with a low-pass filter). It's very simple and there is no better
solution (if you disagree, email me and I'll show how your suggested
alternative is no better or inferior):

next_D = avg_D * 600 / avg_ST

Devs of the bitcoin protocol need to solve the technical challenge of
how to provide users (buyers and sellers of goods and services) with
an alternative that protects them against hodlers (the 1%) and miners
(the banks).  Saying there should be only one bitcoin and that it
should be "The" coin benefits hodlers to the detriment of future users
(the 99%). Competing "bitcoins" would be more like Hayak's competing
currencies. Limited quantity coin is a deflationary coin, something
the 1% love. The ideal coin would be constant value so that society's
contracts can remain valid when expressed in it (like price and wage
commitments).  This can only be done when coin quantity expands in
proportion to its marketplace use (by users, not traders). So let
forks thrive together. Don't let hodlers retain the same 90% of all
coins when these forks occur. Figure out how to airdrop the new coins
to each unique human DNA sequence, and how to let businesses equally
accept them.


More information about the Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list