Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1BA0BC3 for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 09:22:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx-out03.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C869180 for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 09:22:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com X-Spam-Score: -2.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx03.mykolab.com (mx03.mykolab.com [10.20.7.101]) by mx-out03.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 220C921E1C for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 11:21:57 +0200 (CEST) From: Tom Zander To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 11:21:55 +0200 Message-ID: <2575282.hbjRTIzDqY@strawberry> In-Reply-To: <2E6BB6FA-65FF-497F-8AEA-4CC8655BAE69@gmail.com> References: <2E6BB6FA-65FF-497F-8AEA-4CC8655BAE69@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 26 May 2017 14:10:01 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Emergency Deployment of SegWit as a partial mitigation of CVE-2017-9230 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 09:22:03 -0000 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=E2=80=99t at-all represented= in the > wider Bitcoin Community. My study of ASICBOOST lead to a =E2=80=98bingo= =E2=80=99 moment:=20 > 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=E2=80=99m uncomfortable with your =E2=80=9Cbingo=E2=80=9D moment, and you= r huge assumption to get=20 to make it fit. The reality is that we have seen repeatedly that the miners are stating the= y=20 are Ok with an ASICBOOST disabling change. The larger mining industry has just this week come to consensus about a=20 better way to activate SegWit! Referring to the New York consensus meeting!! https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-13352= 1fe9a77 I question your conclusions of miners not supporting SegWit because of=20 ASICBOOST, the evidence shows this accusation to be false. You openly admitting here that you use ASICBOOST as a tool to push SegWit i= s=20 further making me uncomfortable. Your intention may be pure, but the method= s=20 are not. And on that I agree with Andreas, that taints this proposal. =2D-=20 Tom Zander Blog: https://zander.github.io Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel