[Bitcoin-segwit2x] replay protection and spinoffs vs collaboration

It will create even more work to deal with coins if there is no replay protection. It maybe interesting to read the BCC coin github and google-able and widespread objections to the initial absence of replay protection from ecosystem companies, probably there is some overlap with NYA signers also among those companies. I'm seeing the spinoff as basically identical to segwit2x proposed HF. This project could even consider merging with them - does bitcoin need two spinoffs? So far theirs seems better able to cope with replay. As to the value of the spinoff focussed on medium security/more centralised retail coin vs a conservative security and decentralisation / censorship resistant Bitcoin-current, I think the value allocation is unpredictable and many may have the wrong intuitions. One has to consider what is the allocation of user value ascribed between digital gold investment thesis vs holding incidental to retail trade. I think coincidentally that Jihan, myself and Trace Mayer (and probably others on this group) all agree that digital gold investing is the higher contributor to market value. Which to be clear is not at all to say that scale isn't important: many have spent 1000s of hours working on scale within the bitcoin project, and many companies have volunteered time to accelerate Bitcoin in that area, as well as their own time. I dont think the "field experience" from P2SH nor Litecoin are really applicable for obvious reasons, many companies who signed the NYA agreement are themselves ready to go with segwit at some volume. Others are some way along. I don't think Jeff's views about compatibility at all costs strike a sensible balance here. It's also also confusing and asymmetric (some smart phone wallets but not others and different from fullnodes). There are fewer pure SPV wallets left. More wallets are working relative to a hosted and managed full node, and in some cases cross checking with SPV nodes, and so need changes either way. SPV nodes saying conflicting things will cause confusion. As was discussed, segregating DNS seeds does not provide any meaningful protection. Effort is being put into tinkering with fragile best-effort approaches that don't protect users. Almost all smart-phone wallets are auto-upgrade. The rationale for medium security use-cases is to bring *new users*, they will use *new wallets* by default. I consider it more prudent to let BCC run the experiment and focus instead on optimising what we have, collaborating and adopting best practices that can significantly increase scale *today* (with no bitcoind changes) for example transaction batching, hosted netting, multisig service netting etc. And make progress on scale via lightning, schnorr/MASF, best practices, and drivechain/sidechains to make a medium security area that doesnt have a floating value. Ecosystem companies would get more done faster along this approach and more safely too, because much infrastructure is not designed for multiple coins. Re-architecting singleton data models in a 3month window is putting progress on other types of scaling, security and feature improvement on hold. Not to mention the confidence hit from the controversy it creates. Adam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/attachments/20170725/5f838a48/attachment-0001.html>