Canadian Bitcoin Economic Nodes Unite Against Bitcoin Unlimited

[moli]

https://medium.com/@francispouliot/canadian-bitcoin-economic-nodes-unite-against-bitcoin-unlimited-412786fb4bb6

Canadian Bitcoin Economic Nodes Unite Against Bitcoin Unlimited and Propose Industry Guidelines for Hard Forks

The following statement is published here on behalf of its signatories and was prepared on March 22nd 2017 by Dave Bradley and Francis Pouliot.

Statement on Hard Fork by Canadian Economic Nodes
We, the undersigned, represent the Canadian users, investors and merchants which interact on a daily basis with the Bitcoin network. We are the frontlines of Bitcoin adoption and act as stewards of the Bitcoin brand in Canada. As Canadian Bitcoin exchanges, brokers, payment processors and service providers we are major economic nodes within one of the world’s most active and developed Bitcoin economies.
As economic nodes representing end-users, providing legitimacy and value to the blockchain, we hereby assert our role as core components in achieving consensus on the rules of the Bitcoin system.
We support the activation of Segregated Witness as an immediate solution to Bitcoin scaling and as a fundamental component of a long-term capacity increases roadmap.
We also believe that industry-wide consensus around a technically sound and conservative blocksize increase could be achieved following the activation of Segregated Witness.
We strongly believe that a hard-fork, as actively considered by Bitcoin Unlimited or Bitcoin Classic, would cause massive disruption in our ability to onboard new Bitcoin users and would create irreparable damage to Bitcoin and to our businesses. We unequivocally oppose the Bitcoin Unlimited network split proposal.
Collectively, we adopt the following principles regarding potential splits of the Bitcoin Network, particularly the network split resulting from activation of the Bitcoin Unlimited hard fork.

Contentious hard forks
We consider Bitcoin Core, the direct descendant of the original Satoshi Bitcoin client, to be the official reference implementation of the Bitcoin protocol and consensus rules.
Any contentious hard fork of the Bitcoin blockchain shall be considered an alternative cryptocurrency (altcoin), regardless of the relative hashing power on the forked chain.
We consider any proposed hard fork to be contentious by default. Any hard fork proposal which is not supported by the near-unanimous consensus of the entire Bitcoin ecosystem, as outlined below, will be treated as contentious.The burden of proof when establishing status of ecosystem’s consensus shall be on the parties proposing the hard fork.
We will never support a hard fork whose implementation or features put our users at risk or which fundamentally alters Bitcoin’s core features.
We may, after careful analysis over a sustained period of time, individually or collectively determine that a hard fork proposal is not contentious.
Under a scenario where a hard fork is not contentious, is technically secure and does not fundamentally alter the nature of Bitcoin, we will explicitly state our support for a specific hard fork proposal at our discretion.
We encourage the development and use of alternative implementations of Bitcoin (e.g. bcoin, libbitcoin, bitcore, bitcoin knots) as long as they are compliant with the current consensus rules as defined in the Bitcoin Core reference implementation.

Non-contentious hard-forks
Proposed hard forks that are driven by a reasonably provable industry-wide consensus using the criteria listed below may be supported as the official version of Bitcoin provided that the following security safeguards are guaranteed:
Clear activation and on-chain coordination processes.
Long grace period which reflects a pessimistic and conservative assessment of node upgrade capacity.
Strong 2-way replay protection which does not place excessive burden on the users.
Wipe-out protection, meaning that the hard fork must be permanent.
Must be entirely open-source at all times of the development and implementation process.
Must be peer-reviewed and tested extensively over a sustained period of time.

Bitcoin Unlimited consensus assessment and risks
We believe to be part of the ecosystem consensus currently predominantly in favor of the Bitcoin Core capacity increases roadmap. As active participants, we will strive to keep the consensus around the Bitcoin Core project as long as it protects the interests of our users.
We do not believe there is overwhelming consensus for the Bitcoin Unlimited hardfork proposal. We therefore consider the Bitcoin Unlimited proposal to be contentious.
In addition to being contentious, this proposed hard fork and software project pose severe risks to users and our businesses, such as:
Unpredictable hard-fork activation and disruption of business processes.
Remote shutting down of nodes leading to unavailability of funds.
Replay attacks leading to loss of funds.
Reorganization back to original chain leading to loss of funds.
Unpredictable increases in network resources leading to increased operational costs.
Spontaneous network splits due to varying block-size configurations across the network.
In addition, we believe Emergent Consensus fundamentally alters the nature of Bitcoin by increasing the responsibilities and powers of the Bitcoin miners, disrupting the existing checks and balances system. This could lead to a gradual and irreversible centralization process in the hands of Bitcoin miners and pool operators, which would compromise core Bitcoin features such as censorship-resistance, privacy and open participation.

Treatment of Bitcoin Unlimited as an altcoin
We will consider any fork of Bitcoin under the current Bitcoin Unlimited proposal to be an altcoin.
We will continue to use the denominations “Bitcoin” and symbols “BTC” and “XBT” as referring to the longest blockchain valid according to the consensus rules of Bitcoin Core, the reference implementation of the Bitcoin protocol.
Under no circumstance will the current Bitcoin Unlimited proposal be considered by the undersigned to be the original Bitcoin cryptocurrency as described in the Satoshi whitepaper and as currently used under the denomination “Bitcoin” in our businesses.

Protecting the Bitcoin brand
We believe that any knowledge of or interaction with another coin bearing the name Bitcoin would confuse numerous casual everyday users of Bitcoin, particularly those unaware of Bitcoin development processes who are simply looking to make use of the incredible utility of the bitcoin network.
In order to protect the Bitcoin brand, to which our business are inherently associated with, and in accordance to our respective efforts to educate the public and foster clear understanding of what Bitcoin is, in the case of a hard fork:
We will refuse to integrate the Bitcoin Unlimited coin (BTU) in our products and services offerings.
We will not list BTU as an alternative currency option alongside BTC
We will not publicly offer services to buy, sell or trade BTU

Determining consensus: guidelines
When assessing the state of consensus, we will require reasonable proof that there is near-unanimous support and technical readiness by:
The Bitcoin development community, including protocol and non-protocol developers, signalled by public statements.
Bitcoin miners, signalled using hashing power.
Individual Bitcoin full-nodes, signalled by software version.
Delegated “super nodes”, such as Bitcoin wallets and block explorers as signalled by public statements and software version if nodes are public.
Economic nodes, such as Bitcoin exchanges, Peer-to-peer trading platforms, brokers, liquidity providers and payment processors, signalled by public statements and software version if nodes are public.
We may also assess consensus in part using the opinion on and knowledge of hard fork proposals of non full-node-running end users of Bitcoin, as represented by our own users.
We consider that any “neutral” or “absentee” stance on the hard fork is by default in opposition to the hard fork.

Moving forward
We believe that Bitcoin will emerge from this period of contention and controversy stronger than ever.
We remain committed to facilitating the adoption of Bitcoin, providing value and usefulness to our users’ bitcoin holdings and to contributing constructively to the Bitcoin ecosystem.
We encourage economic nodes all around the world to make their stance clear and to assert their role as core components of the global Bitcoin consensus.

Signatories
Honey Badger, Bitcoin brokerage and ATM operators (British Columbia)
Bitcoiniacs, world’s first physical Bitcoin exchange, ATM operators (British Columbia)
Bitcoin Brains, leading Bitcoin brokerage, ATM operators (Alberta)
Bitcoin Embassy, world’s first and Canada’s largest physical Bitcoin hub (Québec)
Bitcoin Outlet, online Bitcoin exchange website (Québec)
Bylls, bitcoin payment processor specializing in bill payments (Québec)
Coincards, service allowing Canadian to spend bitcoins for Canadian gift cards (British Columbia)
Coinkite, Bitcoin Point-of-Sale and secure hardware manufacturers, Inventors of Opendime (Ontario)
Crypto Broker, Bitcoin broker and digital currency experts (Ontario)
Crypto Jeweler, Service to purchase jewelry with Bitcoin (Ontario)
Échange de Montréal, Forex and Bitcoin physical exchange (Québec)
Jordan Samulaitis, Bitcoin broker (Manitoba)
Satoshi Counter, Physical Bitcoin exchange and services center, ATM operators (Québec)
Satoshi Portal, Bitcoin brokerage and fintech app development (Québec)
QuickBT, popular online Bitcoin buying service (Ontario)
Yuri Yerofeyev, Bitcoin broker (British Columbia)
___________________________________________________________________
Authors note
We surveyed around 25 Bitcoin economic nodes. None was in favor of the Bitcoin Unlimited proposals. Those that declined either couldn’t commit to our pledge to specifically never list Bitcoin Unlimited or opposed the Sewgit soft-fork because it was already too much of a blocksize increase.
We did not have time to survey numerous Bitcoin businesses, and may add their signatures over time.
For more information, contact: francis@bitcoinembassy.ca

https://i.imgur.com/1Un8JyJ.png

[AgentofCoin]

...

Thanks for taking to time to do this. It is very important for the Bitcoin community.

Bitcoin economies, like this Canadian Group,  should be doing this already and
providing statements as to their positions. Determining if the hardfork and it new rules
has any value based on hashrate alone, is a falsehood. We need the economies to take
positions on what they think, what they will do, and what they will support.

These businesses and economies are the current leaders and what they say is more
important than what the miners want the Bitcoin community to believe. Without these
people, the miners go back to 2009 to 2010 levels. The time has ended where people
should be sitting on the fences or hedging their bets. Decisions need to be made soon.

Thanks for doing your job properly and informing the community.

[franky1]

16/25 have signed to say:

Determining consensus: guidelines
...
Individual Bitcoin full-nodes, signalled by software version.

meaning 16/25 have also determined core do not meet the guidelines of consensus..(by going soft and avoiding node consensus)

whats next. let core have a look hole by then twisting the narrative to 'well its only guidelines not rules'?

also.. empty statement

We will consider any fork of Bitcoin under the current Bitcoin Unlimited proposal to be an altcoin.
We will continue to use the denominations “Bitcoin” and symbols “BTC” and “XBT” as referring to the longest blockchain valid according to the consensus rules of Bitcoin Core, the reference implementation of the Bitcoin protocol.
Under no circumstance will the current Bitcoin Unlimited proposal be considered by the undersigned to be the original Bitcoin cryptocurrency as described in the Satoshi whitepaper and as currently used under the denomination “Bitcoin” in our businesses.

which can be twisted to mean in the future it can be...

in short meaningless pledge that holds no weight to stick to its word... too many flimsy words.
nice effort to write something that can make the blockstreamists praise.. but in reality.. meaningless.

the reality is that the exchanges are saying they will add it to an exchange(no matter what its called) so people can use/trade/spend. meaning it wont be a useless coin.

[clickerz]

Glad that the Canadians voice out their sentiments on this bitcoin unlimited or the BTU hard fork. This is also an  important inputs to the bitcoin community that they even made a suggestion. Hope more opinion comes out so that we the community can weights in what is better for bitcoin and cryptocurrency as a whole.

[Vaskiy]

Glad that the Canadians voice out their sentiments on this bitcoin unlimited or the BTU hard fork. This is also an  important inputs to the bitcoin community that they even made a suggestion. Hope more opinion comes out so that we the community can weights in what is better for bitcoin and cryptocurrency as a whole.

These too serve as an important factor to take bitcoin higher as the hard forking is becoming a serious issue. I don't think this to be an unexpected outcome, everyone connected with the bitcoin community has the same thinking and it looks to be the right time to reveal their views to experience the power of bitcoin.

[moli]

...

Thanks for taking to time to do this. It is very important for the Bitcoin community.

Bitcoin economies, like this Canadian Group,  should be doing this already and
providing statements as to their positions. Determining if the hardfork and it new rules
has any value based on hashrate alone, is a falsehood. We need the economies to take
positions on what they think, what they will do, and what they will support.

These businesses and economies are the current leaders and what they say is more
important than what the miners want the Bitcoin community to believe. Without these
people, the miners go back to 2009 to 2010 levels. The time has ended where people
should be sitting on the fences or hedging their bets. Decisions need to be made soon.

Thanks for doing your job properly and informing the community.

Thank you for your support. And much appreciation to Dave Bradley, Francis Pouliot, and the Canadian Bitcoin Businesses and Users for their strong support. I've just wanted to post their announcement here to let Bitcoin users know what is at stake.  

Thank you.

[Killerpotleaf]

We also believe that industry-wide consensus around a technically sound and conservative blocksize increase could be achieved following the activation of Segregated Witness.

what is it that gave you that impression?

[Slark]

We also believe that industry-wide consensus around a technically sound and conservative blocksize increase could be achieved following the activation of Segregated Witness.

what is it that gave you that impression?

I assume they simply 'believe' that SegWit is better because it is safer. They do not claim SegWit is the ultimate solution.
I like the idea of Node Community united against Bitcoin Unlimited, but what end users can do exactly other than voice their concern?
Core nodes were always majority, we have 5613 running Core nodes and only 792 BU nodes. Core 82.22% vs. BU 11.6%
I don't see that huge difference changed state of the war between BU and SegWit.

[Killerpotleaf]

We also believe that industry-wide consensus around a technically sound and conservative blocksize increase could be achieved following the activation of Segregated Witness.

what is it that gave you that impression?

I assume they simply 'believe' that SegWit is better because it is safer. They do not claim SegWit is the ultimate solution.
I like the idea of Node Community united against Bitcoin Unlimited, but what end users can do exactly other than voice their concern?
Core nodes were always majority, we have 5613 running Core nodes and only 792 BU nodes. Core 82.22% vs. BU 11.6%
I don't see that huge difference changed state of the war between BU and SegWit.

they appear to assume a blocksize incress with "industry-wide consensus" will fallow segwit.
I like their optimizeme, not sure why they seem so sure about this.

I can't blame them for rejecting BU as is.... i guess.
The statement reads as tho they would be willing to revisit the idea if some problems are solved:

Proposed hard forks that are driven by a reasonably provable industry-wide consensus using the criteria listed below may be supported as the official version of Bitcoin provided that the following security safeguards are guaranteed:

which i like...

basicly they are saying  " segwit Now, aaaannnddd slightly bigger blocks HF later" ?