[Bitcoin-segwit2x] Wayniloans on SegWit2x

Thu Sep 21 04:44:19 UTC 2017

On Sep 19, 2017, 3:09 AM -0600, Marcel Jamin via Bitcoin-segwit2x <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>, wrote:
> > 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.
You aren’t using the same client you’ve been using for the past 8 years. If you were, you would not be using the “Bitcoin” of today. You would be running a client predating 0.8 client and you would not sync to what you believe is the original bitcoin blockchain, but is not. There was a planned chain fork on August 16 2013 that forked unpatched nodes off the network. This event is described in the resolution section of BIP50 and is reproducible if you install 0.7.2 or earlier and try to sync up. You will fork off at block height 252,451.
>
> 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.
Signaling support for Segwit from entities solving blocks went from under 30% to greater than 90% when a 2MB hard fork was added to the deal. That wasn’t a few dozen CEOs, it was signaling by the majority of the hash power behind Bitcoin, which is why Bitcoin works, proof of work.
>
> > 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_bitcoinxt_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
> > > > > > > > > e: barry at DCG.co
> > > > > > > > > t: (212) 473-2408 | @BarrySilbert
> > > > > > > > > 636 Avenue of the Americas (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
> > >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170920/c18af0c5/attachment-0001.html>