[Bitcoin-segwit2x] F2Pool backing out of NYA - Fork still happening?
cedrickperrigo at protonmail.com
Sat Oct 14 11:50:56 UTC 2017
Arguing about strong two-way replay protection is a waste of time for Core. People had made clear that won't happen. You'd better spending time thinking about how you would make segwit1x altcoin survive.
Talking about financial/support tickets. More would be complaining why the transaction on segwit1x altcoin is not confirmed and why the fee is too high. Exchanges will likely not want to handle this, and drop segwit1x altcoin support all together. That's the simple game theory.
Adam, what you didn't get is that all the disruptive part you talked about happens only on the segwit1x altcoin. Segwit2x Bitcoin is not affected. So better spend you time on bitcoin-dev discussing with Blockstream devs on how to hard fork the difficulty algorithm and add replay protection on the segwit1x altcoin.
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 7:19 PM
> UTC Time: October 14, 2017 11:19 AM
> From: bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> To: Ben Peters <ben at bitso.com>
> Peter Todd via Bitcoin-segwit2x <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> A lot of what you described doesn"t work the way you seem to expect.
> There"s a few levels:
> Mining economics: I do some mining, and there are a number of data
> points from alt-coins that share mining algorithms: miners short / mid
> term mine what is profitable. That is driven by relative price.
> Difficulty adjusts to equilibrium. This is a feature, it is the
> incentive that secures blockchains. Bitcoin security works by
> economically incentivised creation of valid blocks as measured by the
> nodes on the network.
> Nodes and wallets mechanically todays software: Existing full nodes
> won"t follow. Most smart phone wallets will not automatically switch
> but either ignore a new chain, stop functioning, go into some kind of
> warning state pending bugfix, some older wallets may get stuck on
> random chain. And because there is no proper replay protection
> randomly transactions will be made on one or both chains unless mixed
> with new coinbase over time. That will be pretty disruptive because
> people writing wallet software don"t know what segwit2x code will be
> as they keep changing. Bitcoin cash changed up to 5days before
> Services: Also it"s a big job to defend all existing all existing
> services and wallets. Never the less as both chains have value each
> service and wallet must over time offer some solution even if it is
> replay protected withdrawal. So nothing is achieved in practice vs
> proper replay protection other than disruption.
> Due Care & safety: Doing reckless and risky things to the network may
> not be a good advertisement for service or wallet. Users will
> research and make some decision about which wallets and services will
> preserve their coins and allow them to split and sell or hold
> whichever of the 3 or 4 spinoffs are created. People will likely not
> recommend software and services that promote dand advocated for
> creating the disruption and risk.
> Financial, support tickets: users will complain via support tickets
> and formal complaints about experience and asset loss as that happens.
> Would be interested in proponents views of how their companies (if
> they have users) will handle this, and also how they suppose different
> use cases from other services and wallets will interoperate.
> It sort of feels like there is an expected game-theory reaction here
> that no one is talking about, but maybe people have different views of
> what the logical game theory is?
> ps please trip replies list posts are bouncing as too large.
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 2:20 AM, 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.
> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bitcoin-segwit2x