What's the problem with endorsing Segwit2x?
It's literally malware at this point.
Segwit2x would not degrade security. People think it would because they assume larger blocks would reduce the absolute number of full nodes, but historically this is not what we have seen: https://twitter.com/zorinaq/status/918133693964865538
The "untested" claim is false. The BTC1 reference implementation has unit tests, and is currently run by at least ~700 nodes: https://coin.dance/nodes
The fact the BTC1 repo is currently based on Core 0.14.2 (released June 18, 2017) instead of Core 0.15.0.1 (released Sep 19, 2017) is not really much of a problem.
It has been explained numerous time why we do not want replay protection: to remove the need to upgrade millions of SPV wallets.
BTC1 nodes do not pretend to be Core nodes to "confuse" the network. They did it (https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/commit/28ebbdb1f4ab632a1500b...) in response to Bitcoin Core's hostile attempt to disconnect segwit2x nodes (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10982) which would have made the network less reliable between now and the HF, by intentionally disconnecting nodes just because they are not "liked".
Bitcoin has already gone from 1-4mb max blocks this August, going to 8mb is unproven.... and it does reduce security because it increases centralization. The great firewall of china is a real thing, and I've seen first hand that 1mb blocks have trouble crossing it. Absolute number of full nodes is not a relevant measure in this issue... miner centralization is.
Untested is true... the 700 nodes that were spun up in the past could of days are not running a test network, and thus it is untested, and also 700 insta-clone AWS instances that are there just as part of the attack do not constitute testing.
The fact that BTC1 is months behind is in fact a problem, its one developer has clearly been working on his alt, and there's no indication that the code will be maintained going forward-- especially since it is months behind already.
I think it's hilarious to rephrase "Wanting to steal the bitcoin of SPV wallet users" as a "feature" of "not having to upgrade." BCH put in replay protection and did a good job of trying to be a good citizen and still people lost money.
You guys are flagrantly pushing malware that hides its nature and ARE going to cause people to lose funds... hell, you guys have been talking about straight up attacks on bitcoin as part of your attempt to launch your scam coin.
It's not hostile to disconnect incompatible nodes that are going to cause a hard fork-- you guys keep redefining terms and putting spin on your actions in a way that tells me that you know you're supporting a scam.
Nodes that do not follow the consensus rules will be disconnected anyway, this is the way bitcoin works, disconnecting immediately simple saves the network a lot of effort to discover the incompatibility... but hiding it is great if your goal-- as has been stated by you guys on multiple occasions-- to attack bitcoin.
«it does reduce security because it increases centralization»
Very large blocks, on the order of 100+ MB, would certainly increase centralization. But in practice a segwit2x block is going to be around 4 MB. 4 MB does not increase miner centralization. 4 MB is peanuts. There is no technical evidence showing that 4 MB would increase miner centralization.
«1mb blocks have trouble crossing it»
No they do not. If there was trouble, we would see many empty blocks being mined by Chinese miners. Currently only a small minority (<1%) of blocks are empty or close to empty. Maybe you encountered problems trying to naively run a full node on your hotel's wifi while being in China? Doing so is not evidence that the GFW prevents 1 MB blocks from crossing it.
«past could of days are not running a test network»
Another false claim. There is a testnet: https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-segwit2x-testnet-fork-scali...
«just as part of the attack»
Why does everyone think it is an attack? Segwit2x is not an attack! See my long reddit post https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7508mh/eli5_please_exp...
«its one developer has clearly been working on his alt»
No, it is one dev working on the ref implementation on behalf of the entire group of signatories who signed the NYA. And there is only 1 dev because Segwit2x is a very small patch against Core: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0.14...btc1:segwi...
«I think it's hilarious to rephrase "Wanting to steal the bitcoin of SPV wallet users" as a "feature" of "not having to upgrade."»
That is exactly the point. Segwit2x is meant to be an upgrade. This has been said many times.
«You guys are flagrantly pushing malware»
It is not malware. Stop using that word. You do not know what malware is.
«talking about straight up attacks on bitcoin»
No we have not. Radicals exist in both camps (segwit2x and no2x) and they have talked about "attacks". But the words/lies of radicals do not represent the intent of each camp.
«It's not hostile to disconnect incompatible nodes that are going to cause a hard fork»
Nodes are not incompatible between now and the HF. It is hostile to disconnect them today. It would, however, not be hostile to disconnect post HF. But it would also be pointless because 2MB blocks are going to be automatically rejected by Core nodes anyway.
«disconnecting immediately simple saves the network a lot of effort»
It does not save a lot of effort. Literally 1 block will ever be transmitted unnecessarily (the first block with a segwit weight over 4 million), and all subsequent blocks will automatically be rejected.
«you're supporting a scam»
It is not a scam. Stop using that word.
If you take the time to read the white paper and listen to the people who are explaining how things work you won't fall for the propaganda that has you posting this kind of nonsense.
But I do credit you for admitting that BTC1 is months behind.
https://twitter.com/zorinaq This guy seems to support it and also knows how Bitcoin works.
Non-engineers simply cannot understand the technology arguments and so they are manipulatable via social engineering, which in this case is literally legions of paid shills (http://birds.bitcoin.com is the attackers site where shills get paid.)
That's the layer that's under attack now- because the powers that be want to control bitcoin and they can't beat the software, they can't beat the hash power, but they think they can maybe beat the people. (And in Ver's case, he shills BCH to keep its price up while unloading it to get more BTC.)
Actually that twitter account is one that I've seen many times before, and I would not consider him someone who understand how bitcoin works. He seems to be an engineer who has taken a superficial look and then fallen sway to propaganda.
This is the thing about bitcoin, there are layers. Here's some of the layers: 1. "Bitcoin is internet money" 2. A block chain is a chain of database entries 3. I understand what Proof of work is 4. I understand how economic incentives work in bitcoin 5. I understand why PoW will always be better than PoS 6. I understand why ethereum can never work (ultimately) 7. Now I really understand the economic incentives 8. Now I understand bitcoin
Of course this is more than a little tongue in cheek.
The white paper can be found here: https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-paper
But a lot of the standards are found here (in various levels of adoption)... this bit is really relevant for wallets: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips#readme
Read the white paper at least once before holding any bitcoin. And then re-read it at least 5 times one the course of 2 years. It has layers and you will come to understand them over time.
Reading Mastering Bitcoin I understand is really useful too. (I got thrown into the deep end of btcd so I didn't have that luxury)
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x...
Didn't SPV wallets get upgraded for the sake of BCH's fork? How is S2x different in this regard?
Look at BCH for an example of a responsible fork. They did the right things and still people lost money, but they did at least do their best.
BCH is an ideological fork for bigger blocks and no segwit. I think they are wrong, but they did it in a relatively responsible manner.
2X is straight up malware.
The problem with B2X is the purposeful takeover of a decentralized protocol by an industry cabal, not any specific technical aspect of it (although it does have flaws).
Bitcoin has forked, by the way, August was a soft fork, and it has had a couple hard forks in the past.
What's new is that 2X is an attack fork. (Maybe "assault fork"?)
Sorry if my response seems pedantic, I am agreeing with you.
Doing a mandatory change to how signatures are calculated invalidates all of these constructs, potentially burning coins (if people lock-timed them to the future) and certainly breaking the security of all existing payment channels.