MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: earonesty@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <2575282.hbjRTIzDqY@strawberry>
References: <D0299438-E848-4696-B323-8D0E810AE491@gmail.com>
	<CAFmyj8zNkPj3my3CLzkXdpJ1xkD0GQk8ODg09qYnnj_ONGUtsQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<2E6BB6FA-65FF-497F-8AEA-4CC8655BAE69@gmail.com>
	<2575282.hbjRTIzDqY@strawberry>
From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 10:39:30 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJowKgKAN8ti8_BQj=7r=uAAegfg=0AisbhQghNA5L5t51c8PA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11451c0e1df90605506e4ecb"
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
Precedence: list

--001a11451c0e1df90605506e4ecb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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 wrot=
e:
> > So, I started searching for the motivations of such a large amount of t=
he
> > mining hash-rate holding a position that isn=E2=80=99t at-all represent=
ed in the
> > wider Bitcoin Community. My study of ASICBOOST lead to a =E2=80=98bingo=
=E2=80=99 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=E2=80=99m uncomfortable with your =E2=80=9Cbingo=E2=80=9D moment, and y=
our 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
>

--001a11451c0e1df90605506e4ecb
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Linking a bit4 MASF with a bit4 &quot;lock in of a hard fo=
rk in 6 months&quot; is something that will simply never happen for basic e=
ngineering reasons.=C2=A0 <br><br>Spoonet, an oft-quoted hard fork that act=
ually 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.=C2=A0=C2=A0 I mean, if they reall=
y had &quot;millions&quot; for development, they could just hire dome devel=
opers and built it correctly, right?=C2=A0=C2=A0 But they aren&#39;t ... in=
stead they are pumping money into &quot;bcoin&quot;, which doesn&#39;t yet =
have any of the protections needed to get consensus.=C2=A0=C2=A0 Maybe it w=
ill some day. <br><br>Claiming that miners support segwit is disingenuous .=
.. considering that if they supported it, they would be signaling for it to=
day... instead of distracting the community with fake proposals that have n=
o peer-reviewed code.<br><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-d=
ev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundatio=
n.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</spa=
n> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;b=
order-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">On Friday, 26 =
May 2017 10:02:27 CEST Cameron Garnham via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
&gt; So, I started searching for the motivations of such a large amount of =
the<br>
&gt; mining hash-rate holding a position that isn=E2=80=99t at-all represen=
ted in the<br>
&gt; wider Bitcoin Community. My study of ASICBOOST lead to a =E2=80=98bing=
o=E2=80=99 moment:<br>
&gt; If one assumes that the 67% of the hash rate that refuse to signal for=
<br>
&gt; SegWit are using ASICBOOST. The entire picture of this political<br>
&gt; stalemate became much more understandable.<br>
<br>
</span>I=E2=80=99m uncomfortable with your =E2=80=9Cbingo=E2=80=9D moment, =
and your huge assumption to get<br>
to make it fit.<br>
The reality is that we have seen repeatedly that the miners are stating the=
y<br>
are Ok with an ASICBOOST disabling change.<br>
The larger mining industry has just this week come to consensus about a<br>
better way to activate SegWit! Referring to the New York consensus meeting!=
!<br>
<a href=3D"https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus=
-2017-133521fe9a77" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://medium.com=
/@DCGco/<wbr>bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-<wbr>consensus-2017-133521fe9a77<=
/a><br>
<br>
I question your conclusions of miners not supporting SegWit because of<br>
ASICBOOST, the evidence shows this accusation to be false.<br>
<br>
You openly admitting here that you use ASICBOOST as a tool to push SegWit i=
s<br>
further making me uncomfortable. Your intention may be pure, but the method=
s<br>
are not.<br>
And on that I agree with Andreas, that taints this proposal.<br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
--<br>
Tom Zander<br>
Blog: <a href=3D"https://zander.github.io" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_bl=
ank">https://zander.github.io</a><br>
Vlog: <a href=3D"https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel" rel=3D"noref=
errer" target=3D"_blank">https://vimeo.com/channels/<wbr>tomscryptochannel<=
/a><br>
</font></span><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">_____________________=
_________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>

--001a11451c0e1df90605506e4ecb--