The current approach S2X is taking in deploying their fork is a violation of the second paragraph of the NYA Scaling Agreement

Paragraph 2 of the NYA scaling agreement reads:

We are also committed to the research and development of technical mechanisms to improve signaling(sic) in the bitcoin community, as well as to put in place communication tools, in order to more closely coordinate with ecosystem participants in the design, integration, and deployment of safe solutions that increase bitcoin capacity.

(I added the bold above)

In direct contradiction, however, BTC1 (the S2X codebase) intentionally has created and deployed code that creates a technical mechanism to cloak signalling.

Also in contradiction to the claim of "deployment of safe solutions" the refusal to implement safe two way replay protection, which is an easy thing to do, is actually intentional deployment of an unsafe solution.

Add to that today's news that Jeff Garzik has sought assistance in creating Sybil nodes deployable as docker containers for BTC1 which would send false signals about the quantity of support S2X has and we can see that NYA's second paragraph carries zero weight with its lead (and possibly only) developer.

Add to that the fact that all the miners mined on a separate hard fork of bitcoin that was created simultaneous to the SegWit activation clause, and that all the exchanges listed and traded that alt coin and you have the agreement's first paragraph breached by practically all participants already.

Those that tell you that you are breaking an agreement by not endorsing S2X are the worst kinds of liars. You never signed up to their agreement; and they are the ones breaking the agreement.

(https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77 for anyone interested in reviewing it.)

submitted by /u/logical
[link] [comments]
Bitcoin

I just want to say, I’m excited we get to see both dominant scaling methods in action. A market test is the only way we will ever truly know the eventual consequences of both.

The fact that the market for consensus networks develops and diverges ideologies/technical differences by splitting the network and actually trying both methods is just awesome. While this is clearly not over, and there will likely be some serious bumping around, it does seem that we might actually be able to go our separate ways, and design and build upon separate systems that share a history.

This technology is the most fascinating thing that I have ever learned about. Even after 7 years I still feel like I spend all of my time learning, only to better understand how little I actually know. It never ceases to amaze. Long live Bitcoin XD

submitted by /u/Cryptoconomy
[link] [comments]
Bitcoin