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

[Moe Adham]

Miners need to move their funds into exchanges to sell them. If they can't
deposit coins to an exchange, they become valueless.

Assuming an 80-20 split, Block times for the minority chain spike to ~49.3
minutes and will remain that long for ~69 days. This would effectively
block the minority chain's functionality as a payment system, as it will
become increasingly impossible to deposit funds, or move them between
exchanges (assuming transaction demand remains linear). Miners can
prioritize their own transactions in blocks, but regular customers will be
left out to dry.

I don't anyone should under-estimate the negative effects of this on market
participants.

A lot of us have customers who expect bitcoin to just "work". If we start
telling them they can't spend their money for several days/weeks, the
choice of which chain is viable will quickly become clear. It will be
neither Bitcoin1x or Bitcoin2x. It will be a different blockchain
altogether.

(To be clear, Bitaccess is neutral on this fork, we just want customers to
remain happy. They way this is going, that doesn't seem to be a likely
outcome)

--
*Moe Adham, MSc, BEng **|* Co-Founder

*bitaccess.co <http://www.bitaccess.co/>*
Cell: *+1 858 877 3420*

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Phillip Katete via Bitcoin-segwit2x <
bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> 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
> <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> *Sent: *24 October 2017 16:31
> *To: *Peter <dizzle at pointbiz.com>
> *Cc: *Bitcoin Segwit2x <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> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171024/f8ea8049/attachment-0001.html>