BIP200 - Mandatory de-activation of forced segwit deployment
Abstract This BIP supercedes BIP148 and outlines the methods and actions necessary to prevent unwanted network segmentation and forced isolation caused by non-consensual BIP148 and Segregated Witness deployment. The Bitcoin protocol was initially designed as a decentralized standard. Unfortunately BIP148 establishes and assigns significant standards-implementation authority to large and more influential commercial organizations and away from independent parties. The author of this proposal fully rejects BIP148 as being contrary to the spirit of Bitcoin and rejects the premise that overall Bitcoin consensus can be gained through a simple voting mechanism. BIP148 (UASF) additionally creates the scaffolding required for large influential groups to take ownership of the global Bitcoin protocol which is a significant departure from the original decentralized nature of Bitcoin. The presence of this scaffolding creates extraordinary risk of centralization within the Bitcoin community and must be resisted. This BIP takes a red-team-centric approach and proposes multiple legally acceptable covert and overt means to resist and eradicate BIP148 and SegWit from the global Bitcoin network in the event it is non-consensually activated. More details: https://gist.github.com/joshuayabut/0b4f58bd31cb3becf4630002acac884d Sent from [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.ch), encrypted email based in Switzerland.
Do you mind elaborating on the factions at war here? I haven't fully figured them out I must admit. My take is that blockstream has some sort of vested interest...and so do the the "bitcoin unlimited" crowd. I'm not sure where the "user activated soft fork" thing fits. Is that what blockstream is backing?
Abstract This BIP supercedes BIP148 and outlines the methods and actions necessary to prevent unwanted network segmentation and forced isolation caused by non-consensual BIP148 and Segregated Witness deployment.
The Bitcoin protocol was initially designed as a decentralized standard. Unfortunately BIP148 establishes and assigns significant standards-implementation authority to large and more influential commercial organizations and away from independent parties. The author of this proposal fully rejects BIP148 as being contrary to the spirit of Bitcoin and rejects the premise that overall Bitcoin consensus can be gained through a simple voting mechanism.
BIP148 (UASF) additionally creates the scaffolding required for large influential groups to take ownership of the global Bitcoin protocol which is a significant departure from the original decentralized nature of Bitcoin. The presence of this scaffolding creates extraordinary risk of centralization within the Bitcoin community and must be resisted. This BIP takes a red-team-centric approach and proposes multiple legally acceptable covert and overt means to resist and eradicate BIP148 and SegWit from the global Bitcoin network in the event it is non-consensually activated.
More details: https://gist.github.com/joshuayabut/0b4f58bd31cb3becf4630002acac884d
Sent from [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.ch), encrypted email based in Switzerland.
I haven't really figured it out and there's lots of idiocy going on. It seems the marketers have told all the employees and contractors in the Blockchain industry to claim they are all decentralists and cypherpunks. I've only been full-time in the Bitcoin space for a few months and I don't think many carry the appropriate vision of Bitcoin. There's a great deal of commercial enterprises seeking to capitalize on Bitcoin. Segregated Witness is just another commercially produced protocol that allows functions to work at higher levels of abstraction. Think of going from BIOS to OS... In itself it's not such a bad thing... but there's major repercussions. This can also allow them to backdoor the Bitcoin Proposal process and further build upon the layer 2 platform. The way I view it is that these corporate fucks are attempting to privatizing a community resource. And they need to fuck off. -movrcx Sent from [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.ch), encrypted email based in Switzerland. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: BIP200 - Mandatory de-activation of forced segwit deployment Local Time: June 2, 2017 10:19 PM UTC Time: June 3, 2017 2:19 AM From: juan.g71@gmail.com To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Do you mind elaborating on the factions at war here? I haven't fully figured them out I must admit. My take is that blockstream has some sort of vested interest...and so do the the "bitcoin unlimited" crowd. I'm not sure where the "user activated soft fork" thing fits. Is that what blockstream is backing?
Abstract This BIP supercedes BIP148 and outlines the methods and actions necessary to prevent unwanted network segmentation and forced isolation caused by non-consensual BIP148 and Segregated Witness deployment.
The Bitcoin protocol was initially designed as a decentralized standard. Unfortunately BIP148 establishes and assigns significant standards-implementation authority to large and more influential commercial organizations and away from independent parties. The author of this proposal fully rejects BIP148 as being contrary to the spirit of Bitcoin and rejects the premise that overall Bitcoin consensus can be gained through a simple voting mechanism.
BIP148 (UASF) additionally creates the scaffolding required for large influential groups to take ownership of the global Bitcoin protocol which is a significant departure from the original decentralized nature of Bitcoin. The presence of this scaffolding creates extraordinary risk of centralization within the Bitcoin community and must be resisted. This BIP takes a red-team-centric approach and proposes multiple legally acceptable covert and overt means to resist and eradicate BIP148 and SegWit from the global Bitcoin network in the event it is non-consensually activated.
More details: https://gist.github.com/joshuayabut/0b4f58bd31cb3becf4630002acac884d
Sent from [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.ch), encrypted email based in Switzerland.
On 06/02/2017 11:51 PM, Joshua wrote:
I haven't really figured it out and there's lots of idiocy going on.
It seems the marketers have told all the employees and contractors in the Blockchain industry to claim they are all decentralists and cypherpunks. I've only been full-time in the Bitcoin space for a few months and I don't think many carry the appropriate vision of Bitcoin.
There's a great deal of commercial enterprises seeking to capitalize
on Bitcoin.
And you get EXACTLY the same kind of scumbags who trashed the value of the last mythical currency, and the one before that, and the one before that. As far as I can tell Btc and it's ilk is simply techno-gambling and will always be, because vulture-capitalists hijacked it, almost 'from the git' (sic, americanism), as surely as they hijacked the whole personal computer industry over the years. Rr On 06/02/2017 11:51 PM, Joshua wrote:
I haven't really figured it out and there's lots of idiocy going on. It seems the marketers have told all the employees and contractors in the Blockchain industry to claim they are all decentralists and cypherpunks. I've only been full-time in the Bitcoin space for a few months and I don't think many carry the appropriate vision of Bitcoin.
There's a great deal of commercial enterprises seeking to capitalize on Bitcoin. Segregated Witness is just another commercially produced protocol that allows functions to work at higher levels of abstraction. Think of going from BIOS to OS...
In itself it's not such a bad thing... but there's major repercussions. This can also allow them to backdoor the Bitcoin Proposal process and further build upon the layer 2 platform.
The way I view it is that these corporate fucks are attempting to privatizing a community resource. And they need to fuck off.
-movrcx
Sent from ProtonMail https://protonmail.ch, encrypted email based in Switzerland.
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: BIP200 - Mandatory de-activation of forced segwit deployment Local Time: June 2, 2017 10:19 PM UTC Time: June 3, 2017 2:19 AM From: juan.g71@gmail.com To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org
Do you mind elaborating on the factions at war here? I haven't fully figured them out I must admit.
My take is that blockstream has some sort of vested interest...and so do the the "bitcoin unlimited" crowd.
I'm not sure where the "user activated soft fork" thing fits. Is that what blockstream is backing?
Abstract This BIP supercedes BIP148 and outlines the methods and actions necessary to prevent unwanted network segmentation and forced isolation caused by non-consensual BIP148 and Segregated Witness deployment.
The Bitcoin protocol was initially designed as a decentralized standard. Unfortunately BIP148 establishes and assigns significant standards-implementation authority to large and more influential commercial organizations and away from independent parties. The author of this proposal fully rejects BIP148 as being contrary to the spirit of Bitcoin and rejects the premise that overall Bitcoin consensus can be gained through a simple voting mechanism.
BIP148 (UASF) additionally creates the scaffolding required for large influential groups to take ownership of the global Bitcoin protocol which is a significant departure from the original decentralized nature of Bitcoin. The presence of this scaffolding creates extraordinary risk of centralization within the Bitcoin community and must be resisted. This BIP takes a red-team-centric approach and proposes multiple legally acceptable covert and overt means to resist and eradicate BIP148 and SegWit from the global Bitcoin network in the event it is non-consensually activated.
More details: https://gist.github.com/joshuayabut/0b4f58bd31cb3becf4630002acac884d
Sent from [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.ch), encrypted email based in Switzerland.
On Sat, 3 Jun 2017 07:54:59 -0700
Razer
As far as I can tell Btc and it's ilk is simply techno-gambling and will always be,
bitcoin is a patch and it is worse than even government cash in some ways, but describing it as 'techno gambling' means little, or nothing.
because vulture-capitalists hijacked it, almost 'from the git'
and the evidence is? (sic, americanism), as surely as they hijacked the whole
personal computer industry over the years.
Rr
On 06/02/2017 11:51 PM, Joshua wrote:
I haven't really figured it out and there's lots of idiocy going on. It seems the marketers have told all the employees and contractors in the Blockchain industry to claim they are all decentralists and cypherpunks. I've only been full-time in the Bitcoin space for a few months and I don't think many carry the appropriate vision of Bitcoin.
There's a great deal of commercial enterprises seeking to capitalize on Bitcoin. Segregated Witness is just another commercially produced protocol that allows functions to work at higher levels of abstraction. Think of going from BIOS to OS...
In itself it's not such a bad thing... but there's major repercussions. This can also allow them to backdoor the Bitcoin Proposal process and further build upon the layer 2 platform.
The way I view it is that these corporate fucks are attempting to privatizing a community resource. And they need to fuck off.
-movrcx
Sent from ProtonMail https://protonmail.ch, encrypted email based in Switzerland.
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: BIP200 - Mandatory de-activation of forced segwit deployment Local Time: June 2, 2017 10:19 PM UTC Time: June 3, 2017 2:19 AM From: juan.g71@gmail.com To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org
Do you mind elaborating on the factions at war here? I haven't fully figured them out I must admit.
My take is that blockstream has some sort of vested interest...and so do the the "bitcoin unlimited" crowd.
I'm not sure where the "user activated soft fork" thing fits. Is that what blockstream is backing?
Abstract This BIP supercedes BIP148 and outlines the methods and actions necessary to prevent unwanted network segmentation and forced isolation caused by non-consensual BIP148 and Segregated Witness deployment.
The Bitcoin protocol was initially designed as a decentralized standard. Unfortunately BIP148 establishes and assigns significant standards-implementation authority to large and more influential commercial organizations and away from independent parties. The author of this proposal fully rejects BIP148 as being contrary to the spirit of Bitcoin and rejects the premise that overall Bitcoin consensus can be gained through a simple voting mechanism.
BIP148 (UASF) additionally creates the scaffolding required for large influential groups to take ownership of the global Bitcoin protocol which is a significant departure from the original decentralized nature of Bitcoin. The presence of this scaffolding creates extraordinary risk of centralization within the Bitcoin community and must be resisted. This BIP takes a red-team-centric approach and proposes multiple legally acceptable covert and overt means to resist and eradicate BIP148 and SegWit from the global Bitcoin network in the event it is non-consensually activated.
More details: https://gist.github.com/joshuayabut/0b4f58bd31cb3becf4630002acac884d
Sent from [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.ch), encrypted email based in Switzerland.
participants (3)
-
Joshua -
juan -
Razer