From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
To: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Emergency Deployment of SegWit as a partial mitigation of CVE-2017-9230
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 10:39:30 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJowKgKAN8ti8_BQj=7r=uAAegfg=0AisbhQghNA5L5t51c8PA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2575282.hbjRTIzDqY@strawberry>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2706 bytes --]
Linking a bit4 MASF with a bit4 "lock in of a hard fork in 6 months" is
something that will simply never happen for basic engineering reasons.
Spoonet, an oft-quoted hard fork that actually has some strong support, is
a much better candidate for the code base - but not of the supposed
supporters of bit4 MASF seem to be ready to roll up their sleeves and do
any work at all. I mean, if they really had "millions" for development,
they could just hire dome developers and built it correctly, right? But
they aren't ... instead they are pumping money into "bcoin", which doesn't
yet have any of the protections needed to get consensus. Maybe it will
some day.
Claiming that miners support segwit is disingenuous ... considering that if
they supported it, they would be signaling for it today... instead of
distracting the community with fake proposals that have no peer-reviewed
code.
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Friday, 26 May 2017 10:02:27 CEST Cameron Garnham via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > So, I started searching for the motivations of such a large amount of the
> > mining hash-rate holding a position that isn’t at-all represented in the
> > wider Bitcoin Community. My study of ASICBOOST lead to a ‘bingo’ moment:
> > If one assumes that the 67% of the hash rate that refuse to signal for
> > SegWit are using ASICBOOST. The entire picture of this political
> > stalemate became much more understandable.
>
> I’m uncomfortable with your “bingo” moment, and your huge assumption to get
> to make it fit.
> The reality is that we have seen repeatedly that the miners are stating
> they
> are Ok with an ASICBOOST disabling change.
> The larger mining industry has just this week come to consensus about a
> better way to activate SegWit! Referring to the New York consensus
> meeting!!
> https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-
> consensus-2017-133521fe9a77
>
> I question your conclusions of miners not supporting SegWit because of
> ASICBOOST, the evidence shows this accusation to be false.
>
> You openly admitting here that you use ASICBOOST as a tool to push SegWit
> is
> further making me uncomfortable. Your intention may be pure, but the
> methods
> are not.
> And on that I agree with Andreas, that taints this proposal.
>
> --
> Tom Zander
> Blog: https://zander.github.io
> Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3755 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-26 14:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-26 6:30 [bitcoin-dev] Emergency Deployment of SegWit as a partial mitigation of CVE-2017-9230 Cameron Garnham
2017-05-26 6:52 ` Andreas M. Antonopoulos
2017-05-26 8:02 ` Cameron Garnham
2017-05-26 8:15 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-05-26 19:20 ` Cameron Garnham
2017-05-26 9:21 ` Tom Zander
2017-05-26 14:39 ` Erik Aronesty [this message]
2017-05-26 14:54 ` Tom Zander
2017-05-27 6:37 ` Anthony Towns
2017-05-27 20:07 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-05-29 11:19 ` Anthony Towns
2017-05-31 6:17 ` Eric Voskuil
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAJowKgKAN8ti8_BQj=7r=uAAegfg=0AisbhQghNA5L5t51c8PA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=erik@q32.com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=tomz@freedommail.ch \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox