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

Cedrick Perrigo cedrickperrigo at protonmail.com
Sat Oct 14 16:54:31 UTC 2017

Oh Adam, then enjoy.

If the disruption is symmetric you have no argument for segwit2x people to enable strong two-way RP. So stop trolling.

Have fun!

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 15, 2017 12:50 AM
> UTC Time: October 14, 2017 4:50 PM
> From: adam at blockstream.com
> To: Cedrick Perrigo <cedrickperrigo at protonmail.com>
> Ben Peters <ben at bitso.com>, Peter Todd via Bitcoin-segwit2x <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> all the disruptive part you talked about happens only on the segwit1x altcoin. Segwit2x Bitcoin is not affected.
> the disruption is symmetric.
> Adam
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/attachments/20171014/2958caa2/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list