[Bitcoin-segwit2x] Wayniloans on SegWit2x

Tue Sep 19 09:09:07 UTC 2017

> The current Bitcoin rule is based on SegWit2X

I never agreed to SegWit2X and I will keep using the client I've been using
for the past 8 years. From my and more importantly my node's point of view,
SegWit activated via BIP141.

Good luck with whatever you're trying to do, but don't assume that a few
dozen CEOs can highjack the Bitcoin brand that easily. SegWit2x is the fork
that breaks with the status quo. Act like it.

On 19 September 2017 at 09:42, Junyi Li via Bitcoin-segwit2x <
bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> 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
> responsibly.
>
> 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.
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h608a/why_bitcoin
> xt_is_considered_offtopic/
>
> 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.
>
> Be brave!
>
> 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.
>>
>> ~John
>>
>> 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.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>> Juan
>>>
>>>
>>> El lun., 18 sept. 2017 a las 22:46, Barry Silbert (<barry at dcg.co>)
>>> escribió:
>>>
>>>> Juan,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> <https://twitter.com/BarrySilbert>
>>>>
>>>> 636
>>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=636%C2%A0Avenue%C2%A0of%C2%A0the%C2%A0Americas&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>>  Avenue
>>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=636%C2%A0Avenue%C2%A0of%C2%A0the%C2%A0Americas&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>>  of
>>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=636%C2%A0Avenue%C2%A0of%C2%A0the%C2%A0Americas&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>>  the
>>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=636%C2%A0Avenue%C2%A0of%C2%A0the%C2%A0Americas&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>>  Americas
>>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=636%C2%A0Avenue%C2%A0of%C2%A0the%C2%A0Americas&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>> (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.linuxfoundation.org>
>>>> *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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> best
>>>>
>>>> Juan
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170919/21784bf8/attachment-0001.html>