[Bitcoin-segwit2x] September/October SegWit2x Status Update

Melvin Carvalho melvincarvalho at gmail.com
Wed Oct 25 20:51:21 UTC 2017


On 25 October 2017 at 22:37, Jared Lee Richardson via Bitcoin-segwit2x <
bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> > 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.
>

Possibly best to avoid ad hominems.

I think 2x had, and continues to have mind share.

But certainly not on an accelerated timescale, which lacks consensus.

That is simply suicidal.


>
>
>
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171025/79fb0f2c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list