[Bitcoin-segwit2x] We are all bitcoin

Mon Oct 16 00:49:34 UTC 2017

> I find it amusing how this working group developed 'consensus' for their proposed protocol change. It seems to me, if we were drawing parallels between the legacy financial system and bitcoin

And it seems amusing to me that the working group you favor defined
"consensus" as only within their group, the opinions of others does
not count.  Source: The rules behind who gets added to the
"segwit_support" page on the bitcoin wiki, created by several core
developers, measuring several core developers.  Where else do they
look to for "consensus"?  A forum where people who disagree with them
are *banned*.  Run by the same people who make the rules on the
bitcoin wiki.

This working group is moving Bitcoin forward.  2mb is a very small
change, and there are literally no technical arguments against such a
small increase.  Core's refusal to get on board is their own problem.
This group dictates nothing; People are free to run the btc1 client,
and they are free to not run it.  The miners agreed to activate segwit
conditionally upon this hardfork.  The hardfork will happen.

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Chris Stewart <chris at suredbits.com> wrote:
>>Network split != altcoin.
>
> Ok, fair enough, a consensus incompatible chain that does not have consensus
> from the wider ecosystem. If it had consensus I would agree with you that
> there would not be a chain split. This isn't the case -- if it was there
> wouldn't been hundreds of emails on the list arguing.
>
> I find it amusing how this working group developed 'consensus' for their
> proposed protocol change. It seems to me, if we were drawing parallels
> between the legacy financial system and bitcoin, the equivalent of what is
> happening in this working group would be JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo,
> Citigroup and Goldman getting together in a room and dictating monetary
> policy because they are some of the largest custodians of USD. After
> deciding 'what's best' they would decree this is the way things are going to
> be.
>
> Does it really give them the authority to set the rules of the system just
> because they are custodians of *other* people's capital?
>
> -Chris
>
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Jared Lee Richardson <jaredr26 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> > I think we can all admit there is going to be a network split.
>>
>> Network split != altcoin.
>>
>> 2x is Bitcoin.  Bitcoin does not need protection against Bitcoin.
>>
>> If the legacy chains survives as a minority, it can add replay
>> protection as the minority chain.  If 2x is the minority chain, it'll
>> fade, it is not BCH.  With more than 85% signaling, that is not
>> likely.
>>
>> Jared
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Chris Stewart via Bitcoin-segwit2x
>> <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >>The terns of reference for the working group, as has been stated
>> >> multiple
>> >> times, is to avoid a network split.
>> >
>> > If there is consensus on one thing, I think we can all admit there is
>> > going
>> > to be a network split.
>> >
>> > Therefore, if this working group insists on creating an altcoin, it
>> > should
>> > have strong 2 way replay protection.
>> >
>> > -Chris
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Phillip Katete via Bitcoin-segwit2x
>> > <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The terns of reference for the working group, as has been stated
>> >> multiple
>> >> times, is to avoid a network split. Implementing strong 2 way RP would
>> >> effectively render the agreement voidable as it’d be fostering a
>> >> network
>> >> split. From ALL Sybil resistant data available on the blockchain, and
>> >> despite what core would like everyone else to believe, the risk of a
>> >> “viable” split, sans HF by core,  though existent is at this particular
>> >> moment remote. As such, it matter not whether developers that do not
>> >> want
>> >> strong 2 way RP are in the minority, what matters is that the client
>> >> does
>> >> not render the agreement voidable.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> From: Bitcoin Error Log via Bitcoin-segwit2x
>> >> Sent: 14 October 2017 17:50
>> >> To: Mike Belshe
>> >> Cc: bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-segwit2x] We are all bitcoin
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> If you won't accept that a significant portion of Bitcoin does not want
>> >> this, let's at least address that some of the tech people in
>> >> NYA-signing
>> >> businesses, like Jameson Lopp of BitGo, and Alex Petrov of BitFury also
>> >> disagree with the implementation. Are these companies going to ignore
>> >> the
>> >> very people they hired to be knowledgeable?
>> >>
>> >> I'd argue a minority of developers overall do not want strong replay
>> >> protection. You do not have consensus of developers, Core, or not.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, 6:19 PM Mike Belshe via Bitcoin-segwit2x
>> >> <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I've banned Scott.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:11 AM, Cedrick Perrigo via Bitcoin-segwit2x
>> >> <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> You wonders do not belong to this mailing list. Get those silly
>> >> speculations elsewhere.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> It's users deciding to use those services, not the other way around. If
>> >> users are not happy, they can leave any time. But yet you see, that's
>> >> not
>> >> what's happening.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -------- Original Message --------
>> >>
>> >> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-segwit2x] We are all bitcoin
>> >>
>> >> Local Time: October 14, 2017 11:04 PM
>> >>
>> >> UTC Time: October 14, 2017 3:04 PM
>> >>
>> >> From: segwit2x_mailinglist at bitcoinreminder.com
>> >>
>> >> To: Cedrick Perrigo <cedrickperrigo at protonmail.com>
>> >>
>> >> Phillip Katete <pekatete at hotmail.com>,
>> >> bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> >> <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>  If any of them are pro-segwit1x, they should immediately terminate
>> >> their
>> >> business with those companies or stop using those wallets.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I wonder then why Coinbase, Bitpay,.. etc are not asking its users or
>> >> telling them to " immediately terminate their business with those
>> >> companies
>> >> or stop using those wallets“?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I never see people arguing on a Bitcoin Cash mailing list to show which
>> >> one has the majority support.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> BCash was professional enough to include replay protection - which is
>> >> not
>> >> the case with B2X until now.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Am 14.10.2017 um 17:00 schrieb Cedrick Perrigo
>> >> <cedrickperrigo at protonmail.com>:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Funny you listed something that only has less than 400 responses. How
>> >> is
>> >> that something "objective"?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Many people don't care or are neutral to segwit1x vs segwit2x, of
>> >> course.
>> >> Businesses and services they use would take them to segwit2x, like the
>> >> 10,000 merchants and millions of users. If any of them are
>> >> pro-segwit1x,
>> >> they should immediately terminate their business with those companies
>> >> or
>> >> stop using those wallets. We didn't see it happen.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> If you truly think those poll counts, why would you still arguing with
>> >> me
>> >> on a segwit2x mailing list? It only shows that you're extremely
>> >> doubtful of
>> >> your belief. I never see people arguing on a Bitcoin Cash mailing list
>> >> to
>> >> show which one has the majority support.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Also you missed the counter-argument for "majority of miners". So I
>> >> assume
>> >> at least we agree that majority of miners support segwit2x. :)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Now this is a technical mailing list. Would trolls please find
>> >> elsewhere
>> >> for those nonsense?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -------- Original Message --------
>> >>
>> >> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-segwit2x] We are all bitcoin
>> >>
>> >> Local Time: October 14, 2017 10:48 PM
>> >>
>> >> UTC Time: October 14, 2017 2:48 PM
>> >>
>> >> From: segwit2x_mailinglist at bitcoinreminder.com
>> >>
>> >> To: Cedrick Perrigo <cedrickperrigo at protonmail.com>
>> >>
>> >> Phillip Katete <pekatete at hotmail.com>,
>> >> bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> >> <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> It’s funny how you imply that "10,000 merchants of BitPay, millions of
>> >> users of Blockchain.info, Bitcoin.com, Xapo, Coinbase, millions of
>> >> buyers
>> >> and sellers of OpenBazar“ are in favour of b2x?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The only sybill resistant poll which I know (even created by data of
>> >> users
>> >> from Coinbase!!!) shows that most of the coinbase customers are not in
>> >> favour of b2x?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/kycpoll/answers.php
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> This link was twittered on /r/bitcoin, /r/btc and reweeted also by many
>> >> B2X proponents.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> So please, show me some data how these "10,000 merchants of BitPay,
>> >> millions of users of Blockchain.info, Bitcoin.com, Xapo, Coinbase,
>> >> millions
>> >> of buyers and sellers of OpenBazar“ are in favour of b2x?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Am 14.10.2017 um 16:44 schrieb Cedrick Perrigo via Bitcoin-segwit2x
>> >> <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> In the grand scheme of things, 10,000 merchants of BitPay, millions of
>> >> users of Blockchain.info, Bitcoin.com, Xapo, Coinbase, millions of
>> >> buyers
>> >> and sellers of OpenBazar, majority of miners do not count but you only
>> >> count
>> >> a tiny thousand people on a Twitter poll. How funny this is.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> If you actually look into Twitter, there are only around a thousand
>> >> people
>> >> who has the "no2x" tag. Not all of them are trolling. However, people
>> >> who
>> >> state that those are everything that counts, especially on a segwit2x
>> >> mailing list, is certainly trolling and does not worth any people's
>> >> attention.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Bitcoin will be what majority calls it. Period.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -------- Original Message --------
>> >>
>> >> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-segwit2x] We are all bitcoin
>> >>
>> >> Local Time: October 14, 2017 10:32 PM
>> >>
>> >> UTC Time: October 14, 2017 2:32 PM
>> >>
>> >> From: bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> >>
>> >> To: Scott Roberts <wordsgalore at gmail.com>,
>> >> bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> >> <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> In the grand scheme of things, 1,168 responders is not exactly
>> >> representative of the bitcoin community, is it? But that number, for a
>> >> sample size, falls in the range of what is referred to as statistically
>> >> irrelevant. It seems like you’ll have to do even more reading up!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> From: Scott Roberts via Bitcoin-segwit2x
>> >>
>> >> Sent: 14 October 2017 15:25
>> >>
>> >> To: bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> >>
>> >> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-segwit2x] We are all bitcoin
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > I have NEVER seen a twitter poll on bitcoin that had a statistically
>> >> > relevant sample size. But also bear in mind that by it’s very nature,
>> >> > twitter creates bubbles where like minded people follow each other.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 1,168 with 30x difference in responses is very significant. Show me
>> >> the twitter bubble where like-minded SegWit2x supporters show their
>> >> support.
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
>> >> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.linuxfoundation.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fbitcoin-segwit2x&data=02%7C01%7Cpekatete%40hotmail.com%7C34137d5584c04799c18b08d5130f5dd0%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636435879064911890&sdata=2tpwhMVlH96kQI9h%2BEwbedJtbEffjz%2FMMOgKN3XMKyY%3D&reserved=0
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >>
>> >> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
>> >>
>> >> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> >>
>> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
>> >> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> Mike Belshe
>> >> CEO, BitGo, Inc
>> >> 408-718-6885
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
>> >> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> John C
>> >>
>> >> Bitcoin Error Log
>> >>
>> >> www.bitcoinerrorlog.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
>> >> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
>> > Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
>> >
>
>