[Bitcoin-segwit2x] F2Pool backing out of NYA - Fork still happening?
cedrickperrigo at protonmail.com
Sat Oct 14 10:39:22 UTC 2017
I only see existing devs using anti-segwit2x as a strategy to hold their places. Core is extremely hostile for new devs. This includes scientists and professional engineers who has much better understanding of the Bitcoin protocol.
Businesses and miners are large hodlers of Bitcoin. Excluding them makes no sense. Besides, if you think there's more "users" supporting segwit1x altcoin. Show me the proof with their Bitcoin holding amounts. If that ever covers 10% of the total Bitcoins in circulation, I would start to consider segwit1x altcoin has some grounds. Otherwise, it's just sybil attack trolls paid by Blockstream.
Besides, segwit2x businesses also have many engineers who would be glad to take up the job of Core if they quit. (But of course Core is always welcome to join the segwit2x camp.)
Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-segwit2x] F2Pool backing out of NYA - Fork still happening?
> Local Time: October 14, 2017 6:18 PM
> UTC Time: October 14, 2017 10:18 AM
> From: bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> To: bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> 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
> 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.
> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bitcoin-segwit2x