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

Dr Adam Back adam at blockstream.com
Sat Oct 14 16:50:03 UTC 2017

> all the disruptive part you talked about happens only on the segwit1x altcoin. Segwit2x Bitcoin is not affected.

the disruption is symmetric.


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Cedrick Perrigo
<cedrickperrigo at protonmail.com> wrote:
> 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 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
> release.
> 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.
> Adam
> 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
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x

More information about the Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list