BIP200 - Mandatory de-activation of forced segwit deployment

[juan]

On Sat, 3 Jun 2017 07:54:59 -0700
Razer <g2s at riseup.net> wrote:


> 
> 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 at gmail.com
> >> To: cypherpunks at 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.
> >
>