[Bitcoin-segwit2x] F2Pool backing out of NYA - Fork still happening?
sysman at bitfury.org
Sat Oct 14 13:24:09 UTC 2017
- huge network can not be upgraded fast, and definitely can not attack new version developed in short time.
current network uses prev.version with all prior versions + huge amount of nodes/users/spv who react slowly,
it thousands of businesses/customers who can not upgrade fast their applications, hardware, or deploy to millions of mobile clients even in week/3-4months...
I think even is split if not planed, any S2X/BTC1/ABC1/GOLD/CORE - all should keep in mind all risks, and prevent all kind of risks.
for huge networks reaction is longer, shorter network/team/community should implement protection to avoid harmful effects,
otherwise it may be counted as huge/same-size network attack, and them attackers should realize & take full responsibility of all consequences for all networks,
exploding the trust for technology by itself.
> On Oct 14, 2017, at 15:46, Cedrick Perrigo <cedrickperrigo at protonmail.com> wrote:
> There's solid proof that Blockstream's segwit1x altcoin is harming and attacking segwit2x Bitcoin. What happening right now is the proof.
> Segwit2x Bitcoin is not in any way harming segwit1x altcoin. Miners quitting an altcoin is just normal dynamics. Plus segwit1x Blockstream people has stated that miners do not matter.
> If Blockstream trolls don't stop on this mailing list. You'll see more and more "anon person" like me.
> 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 8:18 PM
>> UTC Time: October 14, 2017 12:18 PM
>> From: bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> To: Jeff Garzik <jeff at bloq.com>
>> Peter Todd via Bitcoin-segwit2x <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> 1st hard suggestion keep this discussion technical & less political ! (Cedrick Perrigo - anon person ?)
>> 2nd Jeff all simpler, my IMHO
>> All upgrades should be done in safe way, protecting interests of most users on all version as much as possible.
>> All negative impacts will harm for whole ecosystem & sure price, users trust & doesn't matter separate alt-coins or single-coin.
>> 3rd upgrading existing system, will be always someone who will not upgrade, delay or would like to support their own version,
>> - major role plays "economical" full-nodes who perform operations.
>> - SPV wallets can be fulled/misled by huge amount of non-economical full-nodes with different full-nodes rule.set
>> - miners majority impacting -> trx speed/hashrate
>> & hashrate should be high enough to protect "avg.coin-marketcap-price" from 51% attack
>> - users (coin owners) & biz.team - are free to choice and support any version of chains, if they not harm other chain.
>> - harming other chain, directly, by mistake or by negligence is equal to attacking.
>> same about SPV wallets, using their technical misconceptions for misleading against the will of the owners - is kinda of attacking.
>> different versions is okey, they is team doesn't trust they may create they own community, taking onboard all users who would like to join.
>> all current version improvements may happens only them huge amount of dev/users/biz agree & would like to see it.
>> protocol _compatibility_ should be supported by most nodes, changes should be pre-planed in safe way & and pre-agreed.
>> all network & ecosystem should function stabile as possible in all cases.
>> all instabilities will harm trust of users, business & will 100% impact price.
>>> On Oct 14, 2017, at 10:02, Jeff Garzik via Bitcoin-segwit2x <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>>> "Strong, two-way replay protection" is poorly defined.
>>> Segwit2x is an upgrade to bitcoin, not an altcoin.
>>> 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.
>>> 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).
>>> Put simply, we want most wallets to Just Keep Working. Certain types of replay protection break that.
>>> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
>>> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> -- THIS COMMUNICATION AND ANY ATTACHMENTS MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION OF THE SENDER. ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE, DISCLOSURE OR DISTRIBUTION IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY AND DESTROY ALL COPIES OF THIS COMMUNICATION. THANK YOU.
THIS COMMUNICATION AND ANY ATTACHMENTS MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION OF THE SENDER. ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE, DISCLOSURE OR DISTRIBUTION IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY AND DESTROY ALL COPIES OF THIS COMMUNICATION. THANK YOU.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bitcoin-segwit2x