[Bitcoin-segwit2x] September/October SegWit2x Status Update

Jared Lee Richardson jaredr26 at gmail.com
Wed Oct 25 20:37:49 UTC 2017


> However it appears you are trying to achieve 1 by using 2 as a trojan horse in this thread

There's no trojan horse, this is literally what the ecosystem and the
miners agreed to in May, Jeff has just implemented it so that it can
be followed, complete with specifications of the consensus rule
changes.

And until the Core developers came out swinging against it and Theymos
started banning everyone who supported 2x, 2x aka segwit2mb was very
popular in the community.  No one was surprised, of course, as Core's
and Theymos' behavior here have become extremely predictable.



On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Chris Stewart via Bitcoin-segwit2x
<bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>No; the Fedora model exists and works precisely because it risk adjusts
>> against all manner of upstream events:  Project idleness, Developer
>> departure, developer grumpiness with some changes otherwise widely accepted
>> by the community, and more.
>
> So I have a couple gripes with the analogy, you are mixing the following
> interchangeably:
>
> 1.) btc1's ambition to alter the consensus rules of the bitcoin protocol
> 2.) providing a more efficient implementation of non-consensus critical
> components of bitcoin core.
>
> I have no problems with 2.
>
> However it appears you are trying to achieve 1 by using 2 as a trojan horse
> in this thread. Operating systems are not consensus critical protocols and
> readers of this mailing list should have a high amount of skepticism when
> the two are compared.
>
> -Chris
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Jeff Garzik <jeff at bloq.com> wrote:
>>
>> Alex,
>>
>> No; the Fedora model exists and works precisely because it risk adjusts
>> against all manner of upstream events:  Project idleness, Developer
>> departure, developer grumpiness with some changes otherwise widely accepted
>> by the community, and more.
>>
>> You can read more background at
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedora_Project
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Alex Morcos <morcos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes but you're assuming the continued existence of the Bitcoin Core
>>> project, but in the hypothetical situation where Segwit2X is the completely
>>> dominant chain, there is no continued existence of the Bitcoin Core project.
>>> There is no upstream in this scenario.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Jeff Garzik <jeff at bloq.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Alex,
>>>>
>>>> The plan was already stated in the thread.  This is a well defined open
>>>> source pattern and situation.  btc1 will continue as a sort of Fedora for
>>>> Bitcoin after the fork.
>>>>
>>>> It is irrelevant whether or not Bitcoin Core merges patches such as the
>>>> 2X patches.  The codebase remains 99% the same either way.
>>>>
>>>> That is what Fedora does on Linux:   Carry patches that haven't made
>>>> their way upstream.   Either the upstream developers merge or they don't;
>>>> either way, the project continues.
>>>>
>>>> Consider reviewing another example from open source history, the GCC vs.
>>>> EGCS situation.  https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/History#EGCS
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Alex Morcos <morcos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff, I'd just like to clarify what you envision for btc1 after the
>>>>> fork.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's assume 1X wins: OK, makes sense to me, additional implementation
>>>>> with extra features.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's assume 2X wins: There is no Bitcoin Core working on "Bitcoin".
>>>>> Bitcoin Core will either work on the minority chain (with different rules!)
>>>>> for as long as that seems like it has a chance to be the Bitcoin again OR it
>>>>> will just cease to exist.  The model of continuing to base development off
>>>>> of the work of Bitcoin Core contributors when Bitcoin is clearly defined by
>>>>> the 2X rules just doesn't make sense.  There will be no Bitcoin Core
>>>>> contributors working on the 2X rules (or very few).  I'm not someone who
>>>>> thinks that the contributors to the Bitcoin Core project are the only ones
>>>>> who can do this, but I think you should have some plan for who is going to
>>>>> work on it.  It won't be btc1 and Bitcoin Core, it'll just be btc1 after the
>>>>> fork (I don't know and maybe Classic/Unlimited?)
>>>>>
>>>>> NB: I think this has very low probability, but it's kind of crazy to me
>>>>> that you don't even have a plan for what to do if you succeed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Jeff Garzik via Bitcoin-segwit2x
>>>>> <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no reallocation of time or commitment.   Metronome and Bloq
>>>>>> are off-topic on this list, so I'll only cover this once.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I run a company, Bloq, with over 25 team members -- not just one.
>>>>>> Just like many other companies, we have multiple projects running
>>>>>> simultaneously, and Metronome is one of those.  Our primary product is
>>>>>> BloqEnterprise, which is a supported-Bitcoin product in the style of Red Hat
>>>>>> Enterprise Linux.  Majority of Bloq revenue comes from Bitcoin.  If you are
>>>>>> a large enterprise that needs Bitcoin support (or a very well funded
>>>>>> startup), we would be happy to discuss a customer agreement.  BloqEnterprise
>>>>>> v1 is Bitcoin-only; BloqEnterprise v2 will be adding other chains to our
>>>>>> product, such as Litecoin or Bitcoin Cash, as well as Eth/Etc support, based
>>>>>> on customer demand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Our vision at Bloq has always been:  Multi-chain, multi-token,
>>>>>> multi-network, with Bitcoin - BTC - as the root of a security tree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for btc1:   As was stated in August, months ago, the code is in
>>>>>> feature freeze until after the fork.  It is a software engineering goal to
>>>>>> keep changes to an absolute minimum, and that is what btc1 is doing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After the fork, btc1 will be continuing as a sort of "Fedora for
>>>>>> Bitcoin" -- very exciting stuff, and a useful way to risk adjust versus
>>>>>> Bitcoin Core instability or feature selection.   Several btc1 members have
>>>>>> proposed new btc1 changes for post-fork, large and small.  It will be a very
>>>>>> nice addition to the Bitcoin community to have an additional outlet for
>>>>>> feature requests such as this one, a small change that makes life easier for
>>>>>> DevOps: https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/issues/107
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Chris Stewart <chris at suredbits.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Has there been any thought to who will be maintaining B2X after the
>>>>>>> chain split is completed? It seems the only dev, Jeff, has committed his
>>>>>>> time to a new project called Metronome. It doesn't appear that any
>>>>>>> significant portion of the bitcoin core developers are willing to put their
>>>>>>> time and effort into this project.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So is the plan to just fork and abandon the btc1 codebase?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Chris
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Melvin Carvalho via Bitcoin-segwit2x
>>>>>>> <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 25 October 2017 at 19:54, Jeff Garzik via Bitcoin-segwit2x
>>>>>>>> <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi all!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is a follow-on from the previous status update in August:
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-August/000265.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. To state the obvious, everything is still full steam ahead for
>>>>>>>>> segwit2x upgrade in mid-November.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2. As noted in August, the project continues to be in a code freeze
>>>>>>>>> for the fork:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeze_(software_engineering)
>>>>>>>>> Only changes or fixes thought to be important pre-fork will be included.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3. Reviewing the btc1 project and branch policies, btc1 is a source
>>>>>>>>> code fork of Bitcoin Core, very much like Fedora Linux is a
>>>>>>>>> fork/distribution intended for end users.  As such, we track Bitcoin Core
>>>>>>>>> updates as necessary and pull those into the project.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 4. "segwit2x" is the production release branch for the SegWit2x
>>>>>>>>> Working Group, and the latest release can be downloaded here:
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/releases/tag/v1.14.5
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 5. "segwit2x-dev" is the development and testing release branch.
>>>>>>>>> New changes go to segwit2x-dev first, for external testing and feedback,
>>>>>>>>> before being merged into the production branch, and labelled a production
>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 6. The current segwit2x production release, on the segwit2x branch,
>>>>>>>>> is based on Bitcoin Core 0.14.x.   The current dev release is based on
>>>>>>>>> Bitcoin Core 0.15.x.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 7. I've been paying close attention to the Bitcoin Core 0.15.x
>>>>>>>>> rollout.    Based on instability and bugs that upstream Bitcoin Core project
>>>>>>>>> is seeing - ie. Core's bugs not ours - segwit2x will stay on Bitcoin Core
>>>>>>>>> 0.14.x through the November fork.  This is the most stable path for users,
>>>>>>>>> based on upstream Bitcoin Core instability.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In short we -do not- feel that Bitcoin Core bugs and instability
>>>>>>>>> will impact our project in the short term, because this is not yet in a
>>>>>>>>> segwit2x production release on a production branch.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 8. The only change worth noting is a likely be an adjustment of
>>>>>>>>> miner policy defaults that will be accepted through the code freeze:
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/pull/136
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks everyone!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for the update.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There was a question on a previous thread that I think went
>>>>>>>> unanswered.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is the threshold for release still 80% miner signaling?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If miner signaling for NYA falls significantly, would it be
>>>>>>>> considered new information?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FYI: latest metric is NYA signaling at 75% in the last 24h [1], with
>>>>>>>> the position of ViaBTC still unclear
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1] https://coin.dance/blocks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Jeff Garzik
>>>>>>>>> CEO and Co Founder
>>>>>>>>> Bloq, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Jeff Garzik
>>>>>> CEO and Co Founder
>>>>>> Bloq, Inc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
>>>>>> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jeff Garzik
>>>> CEO and Co Founder
>>>> Bloq, Inc.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jeff Garzik
>> CEO and Co Founder
>> Bloq, Inc.
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
>


More information about the Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list