[Bitcoin-segwit2x] Wayniloans on SegWit2x
jli225 at binghamton.edu
Tue Sep 19 07:42:04 UTC 2017
What's BCash? I thought you meant BCore? It's very immoral to fit the
narrative spread under censorship. I really miss the days when everyone was
polite to each other. Yet the toxic atmosphere is an unavoidable result of
censorship and propaganda.
The current Bitcoin rule is based on SegWit2X. Anyone who tries to break
the current rule without consensus should add strong replay protection.
Bitcoin Cash (original Bitcoin Chain) did so. Yet BCore refuses to act
Anyway, if SegWit2X fails, there will be no Bitcoin on this planet. There
will only be Bitcoin Cash & BCore temporarily. It's absolutely unacceptable
for Bitcoin to be controlled by censorship. Don't have an illusion that
Blockstream Core & Theymos could hijack the brand of Bitcoin. No way.
I am a Bitcoin holder since 2011. I believed in Satoshi's vision which led
to the current success of cryptocurrencies obviously. It's proven by the
time that his expectations were much more correct than everyone else. He
was certainly not perfect, but he was never 'wrong, wrong, all wrong' as
BCore claims. If you claim your roadmap is better yet fail to prove it,
it's called 'contentious'.
I clearly remember the days of Bitcoin XT. At that time, it gained the
support of the majority devs & startups & users, without any doubt. Then
Theymos started its notorious censorship to defame Bitcoin XT.
Later, BCore flew to China to sign an agreement with miners and claimed
that hashrate ruled all. Thus, Bitcoin XT was dismissed because they didn't
want to cause any disruption on the network. They chose to wait and they
thought there would be no more excuses once the fee became high.
Yet excuses and lies are endless under censorship, so Roger chose to
support BU. New propaganda came out to defame BU as 'give too much
control to miner'. Holy shit! Ethereum implemented a similar mechanism but
no one thought it's controlled by miners.
We know how reckless UASF, which is not user-activated at all, is. We know
how effective the censorship is. But, is that the real Bitcoin? Is that the
Bitcoin Barry Silbert, Brian Armstrong, and others defended in the New York
hearing? We kept telling others that Bitcoin is censorship-resistant, but
John, why do you stand on the side of censorship?
Too much misinformation was spread under censorship. A few Blockstream
coders and one forum owner successfully misinformed many people, The
lacking of common sense is shockingly common. If you thought Hard Fork is
any worse than Soft Fork, then you are one victim of censorship. Anyone who
has ten minutes to think it over would realize that it's false.
The 2016 block difficulty adjust mechanism guaranteed that the probability
of chain slit caused by Hardfork, Softfork, and Nonfork are the same.
SegWit2X is the result of the contentious Nonfork. Bitcoin Cash is the
result of the contentious softfork. BCore is the result of the result of
contentious Hardfork. The withdrawal of Wayniloans is out of the illusion
that contentious HardFork should be avoided at all cost, which propaganda
has been spread by censorship for two years.
SegWit2X is certainly contentious since anyone who refuses to kneel down to
BCore & censorship is contentious or even malicious to them. However,
contentious nonfork, or contentious HalfFork (abortion of SW2X after SW
part), will definitely cause another chain split. The harm of a HalfFork
would bring to Bitcoin is unimaginable.
So three chains are unavoidable even if all SW2X participants withdraw, and
the missing of the 4th chain is a strong sign that no one really believes
the 1mb anti-spam limit is still necessary. It's nothing but a lie to push
or coerce users to unpractical or immature sidechains. To make the patent
of Blockstream more valuable? I am not sure.
Which chain will gain the brand of Bitcoin? Bitcoin Cash renounced it on
its own accord. BCore vainly attempts to hijack Bitcoin although it
contradicts to everything Bitcoin stands for, and they mainly rely on
censorship. Bitcoin SW2X gained support from the majority of Bitcoin
industry & miners, yet it lacks the counterforce to the dragon's den. We
all know how the useful idiots made Silber and Stephen have to leave
Twitter for days to avoid negative emotion. The great course is NOT
destined for success, and what we can do is to do our level best and leave
the rest to God's will.
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:02 AM, Bitcoin Error Log via Bitcoin-segwit2x <
bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Just want to make sure ya'll know that, while you were playing fantasy
> designing your control over Bitcoin, it scaled without you. We've got
> Segwit, we've got BCash. You've got ... the latest embarrassing version of
> Bitcoin Classic.
> You do you, but maybe consider waking up and moving on.
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:36 PM Juan Francisco Salviolo via
> Bitcoin-segwit2x <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> Barry and all,
>> Sorry if it sounds confusing, the sentence was later changed to a bigger
>> proposal and it was sent and accepted by me, while technical issues like
>> mandatory replay protection (not opt-in) where not defined at that moment
>> (now they are).
>> We are fully commitment on scaling and make compromises for that, but at
>> that moment it was unknown that most of the community, our users, would
>> rally against it, and we must politely reconsider.
>> El lun., 18 sept. 2017 a las 22:46, Barry Silbert (<barry at dcg.co>)
>>> You are of course welcome to withdraw support for SegWit2x, but your
>>> statement below is not accurate. I have an email from you on Sunday, May
>>> 21 at 8:40 pm ET confirming support of the final, full statement that was
>>> published on May 23rd.
>>> Also, as a reminder, I was approached about adding Wayniloans to the
>>> agreement, not the other way around, so I have no idea what you were told.
>>> *Barry Silbert*
>>> Founder & CEO, Digital Currency Group
>>> www.DCG.co <http://www.dcg.co/>
>>> e: barry at DCG.co
>>> t: (212) 473-2408 <(212)%20473-2408> | @BarrySilbert
>>> (Entrance on 19th St.)
>>> New York, NY 10011
>>> *From: *<bitcoin-segwit2x-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf
>>> of Juan Francisco Salviolo via Bitcoin-segwit2x <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.
>>> *Reply-To: *"Juan com>" <juan.salviolo at gmail.com>
>>> *Date: *Monday, September 18, 2017 at 9:27 PM
>>> *To: *"bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org" <
>>> bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>>> *Subject: *[Bitcoin-segwit2x] Wayniloans on SegWit2x
>>> Dear all,
>>> On Wayniloans part or our business is achieved thanks to Bitcoin, and on
>>> May we agreed to a sentence to reach consensus for the good of the
>>> ecosystem. This sentence was later changed to a longer agreement without
>>> our notice, and it was known as the New York Agreement (NYA).
>>> At the time we didn't know that existing developers wouldn't support it,
>>> or that most Latin American Bitcoin users, our customers, would view it as
>>> an contentious proposal.
>>> Also, without mandatory replay protection (not opt-in) on SegWit2x, we
>>> wouldn't be able to operate the crypto part of our business without risk of
>>> missing funds or legal actions.
>>> So with existing conditions we can no longer be part of what later
>>> became the NYA.
>> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
>> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> John C
> Bitcoin Error Log
> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bitcoin-segwit2x