Quote from: ELI85 on November 02, 2017, 03:56:51 PM

Quote

This is not a blockchain upgrade. This is a chain split and we are failing to address legitimate safety concerns for the users of this network.

Quote

We had ZERO users asking us to keep support for the now dead pre-Byzantium ETH chain. We have tons of users asking us to keep support for their "core" BTC.

Text in Full:

Quote

There are few things that are clear to me about this upcoming Fork. But the lack of consensus is definitely one of them. Sorry if I just made you puke Ben.

Given this is a technical mailing list, I would urge everyone to rethink the S2X code from a technical perspective. The code base was written as an upgrade to Bitcoin. I believe there is enough hard data out there to make it clear that S2X is no longer an upgrade.

F2Pool backed down
Slush Pool was never in
ViaBTC said none of their customers are requesting S2X
BTC.top said they will just mine whatever is more profitable

When do we stop and rethink? When we get to less than 50% hashing power?

I know most miners are still signaling NYA on their blocks. There is no cost for doing so and signaling is non-binding. One of the things that was agreed upon at the NYA was better signaling methods - I have seen none so far. Why is this? This makes me uncomfortable.

I am not aware of any BTC liquidity providers that signed the NYA which are abandoning the original chain, which is what happens with a blockchain upgrade (see last month's ETH fork).

Furthermore there are plenty of businesses that will not be supporting S2X.

This is not a blockchain upgrade. This is a chain split.

When we were invited to sign the NYA I saw an opportunity to come together as an industry. Although proud to have signed the NYA - it got segwit activated in a coordinated and safe way (no UASF hell!), I believe the NYA has failed in achieving it's original goal of keeping the community together and advancing the development of Bitcoin in a coordinated manner.

Whether this failure is the fault of some loudmouths in twitter, some trolls in Reddit, or very opinionated and principled engineers and scientists is irrelevant. What's relevant is that NYA has failed to bring the community together and provide a safe mechanism to upgrade Bitcoin as it had intended to do.

I might be stupidly naive or I might just be figuring how decentralized consensus mechanisms work (like many of you, I'd assume), but when asked about signing the NYA I definitely didn't agree to it in order to further divide and cause mayhem, which is what NYA has achieved.

I ultimately think this is about users. We had ZERO users asking us to keep support for the now dead pre-Byzantium ETH chain. We have tons of users asking us to keep support for their "core" BTC.

This is not a blockchain upgrade. This is a chain split and we are failing to address legitimate safety concerns for the users of this network.

Daniel Vogel vogel at bitso.com
Thu Nov 2 15:30:16 UTC 2017

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-November/000632.html

Indeed, just as I expected... chain reaction is happening. Smart actors are positioning themselves on the right side of history. We've see ViaBTC recently saying this:

Signaling means nothing, and they will not mine 2xcoin. With ViaBTC down, supposed hashrate support for 2x is down to 70%, which will be actually lower in practice as the rest of the idiots still on the 2x clown train realize they will be mining at a loss, but even 70% alone is already a totally insanely low amount of hashrate to pretend to hardfork bitcoin without being responsible of a total mess.