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

Bitcoin Error Log bitcoinerrorlog at gmail.com
Tue Oct 24 16:38:30 UTC 2017


What you are missing is that YOU are now heavily speculating, Erik. It
doesn't matter if miners express indecision. There will be two chains, and
you are nuts if you think some volatility in hashrate allows for a
definitive diagnosis that RP is not needed.

Miners will mine what pays best. Ask yourself, who will be paying for S2X
coins? You may have gotten miners to agree, and some businesses to support
your fork, but NO ONE WANTS TO BUY B2X. The demand isn't there, and if
we're realistic, our example scenario would be whether the S2X chain is
sustainable, not the reverse.


On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 12:27 PM Erik Voorhees via Bitcoin-segwit2x <
bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> I have a question for the group...
>
>
> "Given the market is showing that the 2x coin will be valued under 20% of
> bitcoin, miners acting in self interest will mine bitcoin and the 2x chain
> will freeze up, requiring subsidy to mine.” - Mo Adham
>
> -Let’s assume, immediately following the fork, 1x has 20% of hash power,
> and 2x has 80%  (as indicated by miner signaling)
> -Let’s assume also that the price, immediately following the fork, 1x is
> $4,000 and 2x is $1,000  (as indicated by futures)
>
> Most people see the above and think, “okay, soon after the fork the miners
> will switch back to 1x because price is higher.”
>
> But, is it not the case that while price might be higher, block times are
> lower. So if you consider it from a $ revenue per day:
> - 1x finds 28.8 blocks per day (0.2x144) and earns 360 BTC1x, or $1.44m
> per day ($4,000 x 360)
> - 2x finds 115.2 blocks per day (0.8x144) and earns  1440 BTC2x, or $1.44m
> per day ($1,000 x 1,440)
>
> In the above case, the revenue stream of both coins is equal, at $1.44m
> per day.  So even though one coin is priced higher, it doesn’t mean miners
> will necessarily choose that chain to mine.
>
> Am I missing something?
>
>
> Kind regards,
> -Erik Voorhees
> CEO ShapeShift AG
>
> On October 24, 2017 at 9:58:05 AM, Melvin Carvalho via Bitcoin-segwit2x (
> bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org) wrote:
>
>
>
> On 24 October 2017 at 17:47, Moe Adham via Bitcoin-segwit2x <
> bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> 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)
>>
>
> What typically happens is (shock horror) miners will mine in self
> interest.  If you consider mining as a commodity, it makes sense that
> they'll just go for the most profitable coin, and not act altruistically,
> which was suggested in the original white paper.
>
> Mining is therefore common is a 0% / 100% until fees for a block make it
> profitable to mine that block (cab take several days) or the difficulty
> adjusts the profitability.
>
> This phenomenon is often referred to as "feast and famine".
>
> Given the market is showing that the 2x coin will be valued under 20% of
> bitcoin, miners acting in self interest will mine bitcoin and the 2x chain
> will freeze up, requiring subsidy to mine.  Such subsidies could be added
> by creating a few transactions with high mining fees.
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Moe Adham, MSc, BEng **|* Co-Founder
>>
>> *bitaccess.co <http://www.bitaccess.co/>*
>> Cell: *+1 858 877 3420 <(858)%20877-3420>*
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/attachments/20171024/ea7f7137/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list