[Bitcoin-segwit2x] F2Pool backing out of NYA - Fork still happening?
melvincarvalho at gmail.com
Sat Oct 14 12:03:15 UTC 2017
On 12 October 2017 at 17:50, Jeff Garzik <jeff at bloq.com> wrote:
> Answers inline...
> On Oct 12, 2017 6:41 AM, "Melvin Carvalho via Bitcoin-segwit2x" <
> bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On 12 October 2017 at 14:49, Peter BitcoinReminder.com via
> Bitcoin-segwit2x <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> Since F2Pool stopped signaling for the NYA and slush also mines mostly
>> non-NYA blocks, are you still going to fork off in November - splitting the
>> chain intentionally?
> This is good new information, thanks!
> It is information over a month old. See counter.
The information of intent may be over a month old, but the actual signaling
is recent, hence why I consider it new information.
However, if we were to assume that the information was indeed months old,
perhaps the logical thing to do would be to backward adjust the signaling.
And perhaps the conclusion to that would be that segwit2x might not have
reached the thresholds for activation?
> A sensible approach might be:
> 1. Allow the implementation of Schnorr signatures
> Very risky- this impacts tx message integrity and authenticity. Changing
> transaction signing code impacts private keys and other security sensitive
> In comparison, changing the size of the message container - a block - does
> not impact message integrity and authenticity.
Hi Jeff, thanks for the response. Thanks for raising this. I'd like to
reply to these points.
So would you be in favour or against the schnorr sig capacity increase. Or
be in favour of changing the sequencing. 2x first, then debate schnorr sig?
> 2. In parallel, address the issues raised on the segwit2x codebase
> Link to the issues filed?
Good point again. Im mainly thinking about the replay protection.
> 3. Unfreeze the segwit2x code, and seek a dialogue with core on a timeline
> for a 2x block size increase
> All field evidence points to continual delays, never a base block size
> increase as has been planned since 2010.
> Repeated attempts at dialogue just result in attacks, delays, The Familiar
It sounds to me like there has been a loss of trust. Typically in working
groups (IETF/W3C) there are a broad section of stake holders that meet once
a week (telecon) and twice a year (face to face). Not a perfect system,
but it does help build trust, or prevent loss. Jeff I think is well
regarded by many or most. I remember the early days on irc, when everyone
just got on :)
As an observer, I do get the impression that people want the same things
(increased capacity over time), or at a minimum, that's the rhetoric. We
did just have an increase in capacity more are planned.
> The reason being that we've just had a capacity upgrade and segwit is
> starting to kick in. Blocks are less congested now. Schnorr will likely
> give another 30% capacity quite soon. This will allow general hardware
> increases to make moving to 2x blocks, without a contentious hard fork,
> more practical.
> It is extremely contentious to continue blocking a block size increase.
> Continued delay is part of what produced the gridlock that we saw over the
> past two years.
I think there's a trade off here, well articulated by Adam Back in his
hcpp17 talk last weekend . At one time or other I think most bitcoiners
have thought, 'larger blocks, that's a good idea. But it comes with at the
cost I think in 3 areas.
1. bitcoin becomes more centralized in that it becomes harder to run a full
node. While the incremental value of full nodes diminishes as they go up,
it's a trade off to think about. As hardware improves this balance shifts.
2. security the block chain long-term, via proof of work, requires fees.
Eventually the block reward will go away. So the idea of zero fees and
large blocks has a shelf life, as rewards half. This is a hard problem.
We really need to use all our brain power, to solve it together. OK, it
might not be urgent for 20 years, but we need to start planning for this.
I dont think a 1MB block with high fees is really a practical solution.
Larger blocks will have to come, if we stay with proof of work (not a
3. it is not practical to put every tx on the block chain. For example, I
am working on a fitness project that rewards you for steps taken in a given
day. It would be impractical to put every step on the block chain. So it
is necessary to build layer 2 technology that aggregates tx, and puts them
on the block chain sparingly. That seems like a good way to scale bitcoin
to a wider audience.
Personally I am highly sympathetic to core, but actually think 2x is a
reasonable proposal. There is a certain logic that says the timing is not
ideal, when a capacity increase has just been rolled out, and there are
more in the pipe.
But face it, the way it is being rolled out is impractical, and causes high
risk to users, businesses, the eco system and bitcoin itself. And if the
market is an indicator, has a high chance of failure. Worse still, it
exacerbates the already low level of trust.
There has been a lot of acrimony flying around. And anything seen as an
attack will obviously be defended against. But I think we should take the
attitude of never responding to personal abuse (Ive received some already)
and welcoming anyone that wants to make bitcoin better to do so, in spite
of past record. Even Jamie Dimon :)
tl;dr I think 2MB has to happen at some point if we stick to proof of work,
the argument is strong. The argument that now is not the time is also a
IMHO the best thing would be to fight less and talk more.
Bitcoin is supposed to be a new way to do finance, we should be using our
collective ability to take on the incumbent financial system, which is a
huge task, and we have limited time to do that. The best chance is to work
> Just my 2 cents.
>>  https://imgur.com/LgYdFKw
>> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
>> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bitcoin-segwit2x