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

[Phillip Katete]

It is at this point that common sense needs to be applied. Even the most ardent anti SegWit2x upgrade individual would snap up the “airdrop” should there be 2 viable chains post Nov HF. That in itself is demand enough to have a market for both tokens. The flip side is that with an unusable chain, it matters not whether exchanges respond to user requests for listing as you won’t be able to move your tokens anyway.

From: Samuel Reed via Bitcoin-segwit2x<mailto:bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: 24 October 2017 16:31
To: Peter<mailto:dizzle at pointbiz.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

Another lesson to be learned from BCH is that incentives matter - where miners can sell coins depends on markets, and market prices depend on user and exchange support. Even if the 80% of miners signaling 2x at this time choose to go forward, if there are not viable markets willing to buy 2x coins at near 1x prices, 2x hash power will quickly revert to the old chain.

Peter wrote:



On Oct 24, 2017 10:58 AM, "Chris Stewart via Bitcoin-segwit2x" <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>RP that encourages a network split would render the NYA voidable
Phillip, if there is consensus on one thing, it is there is going to be a network split. Every exchange is publishing policies for the chain split. Some even saying that they will not support the segwit2x token.
-Chris

The technical lesson from the BCH fork was that 1 hash = 1 vote. Nothing any exchange (or custodian) said mattered. Indeed because significant sha256 hashpower was deployed towards the fork it gained value and customers of exchanges pressured the exchanges into the financially sensible decision.

This proposal, SegWit2x, is for the miners to decide.

Transaction selection is not a consensus rule. Any miners that want to go against the Nakamoto signaling is free to do so and the responsible party (not the 2x devs who have no control over transaction selection). If because of the political climate some miner sees an economic opportunity to resurrect the legacy chain then they can modify their node (without consensus change) to listen to 2x blocks and not mine any transaction IDs found in the 2x chain.

Additionally, to complete a safe chain resurrection such a miner can airdrop the mining reward from the forked block (after 100 depth) and send it to to all addresses with UTXOs over $x value. So that users of the 1x chain can spend the combined UTXOs which cannot be replayed on 2x, as a simple splitting solution.

Safety efforts which do not require consensus changes should be exhausted first before suggesting consensus changes.

Regards
Peter




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/attachments/20171024/5a409c87/attachment.html>