[Bitcoin-segwit2x] PROPOSAL: B0RG (Bitcoin zero replay guarantee) - Ensuring a smooth 2X upgrade without a chain split

Phillip Katete pekatete at hotmail.com
Tue Oct 24 14:26:59 UTC 2017


  1.  There are going to be 2 chains – there is NO speculation in this, we know it, aka legacy chain and the upgraded chain.
  2.  By hash, there is going to be a majority and minority chain – there is NO speculation here as it flows from 1 above.
  3.  Users (and exchanges by proxy) are speculating that both chains are going to be viable – no doubt at all that this is pure speculation.
  4.  All the data available, even at this late stage, clearly indicates that the legacy chain will not be viable. There is no speculation in this at all.


Ignoring all other data points (which do / may not favour the legacy chain anyway) and relying on signalling intent alone, the data indicates that the legacy chain can not be viable post HF. Quite aside from the stated objective of the NYA WG not implementing code that’ll encourage a split, there is no compelling reason to protect against replay attacks on an otherwise unusable chain.

If the legacy chain were to show signs of stuttering back to life, then the responsibility would be on the legacy chain, as the minority chain, to implement RP.

From: Daniel Vogel<mailto:vogel at bitso.com>
Sent: 24 October 2017 15:08
To: Phillip Katete<mailto:pekatete at hotmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Error Log<mailto:bitcoinerrorlog at gmail.com>; robtcspier1 at tutanota.com<mailto:robtcspier1 at tutanota.com>; Bitcoin Segwit2x<mailto:bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-segwit2x] PROPOSAL: B0RG (Bitcoin zero replay guarantee) - Ensuring a smooth 2X upgrade without a chain split

We are not adding support for both chains because we are speculating. We are adding support because our customers are demanding it.

Of note is that not a single one of our customers demanded support for the recent legacy Ethereum chain.

But just as much as some people are speculating that there'll be two chains you are also speculating that there will only be one chain.

What is happening is irresponsible.

Daniel
[http://cloudfront.giantuser.com/data/images/4ae191b55e616cc4360ce7a890bca68f/original.png]<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbitso.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpekatete%40hotmail.com%7Ca138a5ee7b1c4aab5ce608d51ae8a938%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636444508942076206&sdata=K4eWq6R%2Bih3R9VKXrR8T7LQZ7ol6%2BFP4ibo5cIo%2F4nU%3D&reserved=0>





Daniel Vogel<mailto:vogel at bitso.com> • Bitso<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbitso.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpekatete%40hotmail.com%7Ca138a5ee7b1c4aab5ce608d51ae8a938%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636444508942076206&sdata=K4eWq6R%2Bih3R9VKXrR8T7LQZ7ol6%2BFP4ibo5cIo%2F4nU%3D&reserved=0>

President<tel:+525563828572>

Facebook<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fbitsoex&data=02%7C01%7Cpekatete%40hotmail.com%7Ca138a5ee7b1c4aab5ce608d51ae8a938%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636444508942076206&sdata=6ja3zYMg%2F3nw0M4nYNW0WErmE%2BSiBEdeM9eLPqFJL50%3D&reserved=0> • Twitter<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fbitsoex&data=02%7C01%7Cpekatete%40hotmail.com%7Ca138a5ee7b1c4aab5ce608d51ae8a938%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636444508942076206&sdata=s5POASN1yX8xtYV3G%2BPFkO0ZxfRsQbzW6jOH%2FM3h%2BSE%3D&reserved=0> • LinkedIn<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fpub%2Fdaniel-vogel%2F8%2Fbb3%2F588&data=02%7C01%7Cpekatete%40hotmail.com%7Ca138a5ee7b1c4aab5ce608d51ae8a938%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636444508942076206&sdata=P5YsFlhvdQ3vlNodIFXHnlkbiDHBlKOIv3%2B2W3h4FHs%3D&reserved=0>




On Oct 24, 2017, at 6:01 AM, Phillip Katete via Bitcoin-segwit2x <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
WRONG. The exchanges are speculating that there will be 2 coins, quite distinct from 2 chains let alone 2 viable chains, whereas it is the intent of the NYA WG (thus btc1 client) not to split the network.
In-fact the overwhelming majority of the community concede that the minority chain (should there be a viable one post Nov HF) MUST implement RP otherwise they will expose their users to the risk of losses and themselves to risks of recourse.

From: Bitcoin Error Log via Bitcoin-segwit2x<mailto:bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: 24 October 2017 10:25
To: robtcspier1 at tutanota.com<mailto:robtcspier1 at tutanota.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Segwit2x<mailto:bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-segwit2x] PROPOSAL: B0RG (Bitcoin zero replay guarantee) - Ensuring a smooth 2X upgrade without a chain split

All of the exchanges and the community have conceded that this fork will result in two coins. They all decided to name the new one B2X.

There is no longer any reason to entertain the illusion of everyone migrating, thus you are obligated to include strong replay protection at this point. Otherwise you are choosing to be hostile and if you cause loss, you may expose yourself to risks or recourse.

Thank you for understanding, I look forward to everyone playing nicely together, as appropriate.



On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 5:06 AM robtcspierre via Bitcoin-segwit2x <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
Hi,

Can this proposal be done using merged mining?



As far as I can see, only by hard forking btc1 once more.  The B0RG proposal has the advantage of being just a soft fork.



Best regards,



robtcspierre

_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.linuxfoundation.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fbitcoin-segwit2x&data=02%7C01%7Cpekatete%40hotmail.com%7Cb8b5d7c8da2b48e1713008d51ac11b7b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636444339039226544&sdata=bASEgvTjHCNAtO6fZNAuINwqfslcjfl9f%2BVLXdy7oJM%3D&reserved=0>
--

John C
Bitcoin Error Log
www.bitcoinerrorlog.com<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bitcoinerrorlog.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpekatete%40hotmail.com%7Cb8b5d7c8da2b48e1713008d51ac11b7b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636444339039226544&sdata=lOw%2FZ9BZIxdgeUJ%2Flxb971BKDurstMaLu%2BMGAEhMLD0%3D&reserved=0>

_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.linuxfoundation.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fbitcoin-segwit2x&data=02%7C01%7Cpekatete%40hotmail.com%7Ca138a5ee7b1c4aab5ce608d51ae8a938%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636444508942076206&sdata=zF7PLJdXyC%2BC290GdBjAAF0%2BTufR3jlGok3MleXk6Vo%3D&reserved=0>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/attachments/20171024/7ac87dd2/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list