[2017-09-01] F2Pool Reneges: Bitcoin Pool Pulls Segwit2x Support Over Hard Fork

[bbc.reporter]

I reckon this is only the beginning. We may see more mining pools and miners pulling out from their support of the New York Agreement. To put it candidly, what gain does another hard fork present and is the risk worth the reward?

I speculate F2Pool and Slushpool's hashrate will start to increase because more miners will not take the risk of another hard fork.



Chinese mining pool F2Pool no longer supports the controversial scaling agreement Segwit2x.

Though the proposal has garnered support from many large bitcoin companies and the majority of mining pools, many take issue with its aim to boost bitcoin capacity by way of a hard fork, a mechanism that could lead the cryptocurrency to split into separate blockchain networks.

Tension has been high with developers already hotly debating the merits of the hard fork (a grassroots movement has sprung up in opposition as well), even though the change is not slated for more than two months from now.

Although F2Pool was an original signatory of the agreement, its operator Wang Chun is now among the proposal's detractors.

Read the article in full https://www.coindesk.com/f2pool-reneges-mining-pool-pulls-segwit2x-support-hard-fork/

[1713478780]

1713478780

[1713478780]

1713478780

[1713478780]

1713478780

[1713478780]

1713478780

[hatshepsut93]

They are not stupid. Miners can't dictate users what chain to follow, so 2x fork would be only a disaster - Bitcoin network will slow down because majority of miners leave to mine new coin, while those miners will be wasting their electricity on a coin that won't be accepted almost anywhere. Exchanges will have to add 2x coin only as an alt, otherwise they will face legal lawsuits if they'll try to treat 2x coin as if it were original Bitcoin. But Bitcoin users have the upper hand here - most of us can endure long delays and wait for difficulty adjustments, while miners will suffer huge losses if they will switch to weaker chain. This is why some pool are already breaking their promises to fork - on D-day 2x chain will have much less than current 90% of Bitcoins hashpower.

[Zoltan450]

Wang Chun changes his mind every week. Don't be surprised if soon he will say that again supports Segwit2x. No one expected an easy victory, so it's not the last surprise from the Chinese miners.

[Samarkand]

I reckon this is only the beginning. We may see more mining pools and miners pulling out from their support of the New York Agreement. To put it candidly, what gain does another hard fork present and is the risk worth the reward?

More transaction capacity per block. The real question is not, if a hard fork is worth the reward, but rather, which
chain gets the desired BTC ticker symbol at the exchanges.

Your fear of hard forks is unsubstantiated in my opinion, because smaller coins like Monero hard fork all the time
and it works fine, if the majority of the hashrate supports the forked chain.

[Carlton Banks]

what gain does another hard fork present and is the risk worth the reward?

More transaction capacity per block.

Hmmm.

Maybe we should wait for the recent quadrupling of the blocksize before we start deciding that another doubling of the blocksize is going to be a risk worth taking.

Oh, and you forgot to mention that the fork is being run by a completely different group of programmers to those that developed the Bitcoin over the past 7-8 years?

The real question is not, if a hard fork is worth the reward, but rather, which
chain gets the desired BTC ticker symbol at the exchanges.

Your fear of hard forks is unsubstantiated in my opinion, because smaller coins like Monero hard fork all the time
and it works fine, if the majority of the hashrate supports the forked chain.

Yeah, but these are scheduled hard forks for technical upgrades. Segwit2x is an unneeded technical upgrade, the real motive is political.

There's no proven need to sack the present developers, this new team only wants control of the Bitcoin source code, and they're pretty desperate to make it happen. It's impossible to know their motive for taking control, but it's pretty clear (looking at the technical details) that upgrading the network is not the reason.

Note that Segwit2x's lead programmer, Jeff Garzik, has been part of (taking junior cheerleader duties) the first 3 failed attempts to capture the Bitcoin source code. And he's a big fan of interventionist, authoritarian government (check out his twitter feed history and speaking work). Not Bitcoin compatible, IMO.

[cr1776]

I reckon this is only the beginning. We may see more mining pools and miners pulling out from their support of the New York Agreement. To put it candidly, what gain does another hard fork present and is the risk worth the reward?

More transaction capacity per block. The real question is not, if a hard fork is worth the reward, but rather, which
chain gets the desired BTC ticker symbol at the exchanges.

Your fear of hard forks is unsubstantiated in my opinion, because smaller coins like Monero hard fork all the time
and it works fine, if the majority of the hashrate supports the forked chain.

Hard forks in general are problematic because they establish precedent that for a "good reason"(tm) as determined by someone else changes to the root protocol can be made at whim. 

Don't like the fact that someone made a coding error?  Roll it back and fork the coin.   "Distribution" isn't "fair"?  Fine, we'll change the rules to redistribute coins. 

Hard forks should be few and far between (if ever) because they are both poor precedent, seem to make a small group a single point of failure (e.g. a few individuals in control of mining pools) and can be dangerous to the stability of the coin.  Like TCP/IP, DNS etc, changes are extremely rare, rolled out with plenty of warning and extremely well tested.  The 2X portion of Segwit2X is even more problematic due to the speed of the rollout and testing issues.

[bbc.reporter]

I am sorry for bringing this news from an author who was not good enough to research what is going on. Wang Chun has already declared, months ago, that he will support Segwit2x until July only. The author was so quick to jump the gun and show his bias.

Segwit support developers, mining pools and merchants is shown here https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support

Comments in that article have been disabled.

[error08]

They are not stupid. Miners can't dictate users what chain to follow, so 2x fork would be only a disaster - Bitcoin network will slow down because majority of miners leave to mine new coin, while those miners will be wasting their electricity on a coin that won't be accepted almost anywhere. Exchanges will have to add 2x coin only as an alt, otherwise they will face legal lawsuits if they'll try to treat 2x coin as if it were original Bitcoin. But Bitcoin users have the upper hand here - most of us can endure long delays and wait for difficulty adjustments, while miners will suffer huge losses if they will switch to weaker chain. This is why some pool are already breaking their promises to fork - on D-day 2x chain will have much less than current 90% of Bitcoins hashpower.

It's like double edge sword for me. I'd like to get another free coin from segwit2x hard fork, whatever they will named it.
without hard fork there is no any issue in November to shake the weak hands to sell out their bitcoin too, so I could purchase more cheaper coins.
On the other hand, without hard fork issue, bitcoin could continue to rise until next correction occurs, hard to tell when it will happen or how much bitcoin price could rise until the end of this year.

[Samarkand]

...
Maybe we should wait for the recent quadrupling of the blocksize before we stat deciding that another doubling of the blocksize is going to be a risk worth taking.

Oh, and you forgot to mention that the fork is being run by a completely different group of programmers to those that developed the Bitcoin over the past 7-8 years?

...

If I look at the current Segwit "adoption rate", not many users are using Segwit transactions. Therefore I´m highly skeptical that Segwit usage will reach a level where it really quadruples the blocksize.

I know that the fork is run by a different group of programmers. Is that a bad thing? Maybe they are actually better than the current Core Devs. Besides, many of the current Core Devs joined just a few years ago. Many of the original Core Devs are not around anymore and have quit the Bitcoin community and Bitcoin development for a variety of reasons.

[Carlton Banks]

If I look at the current Segwit "adoption rate", not many users are using Segwit transactions. Therefore I´m highly skeptical that Segwit usage will reach a level where it really quadruples the blocksize.

Really?

That's not a very astute observation, it appears that you have no informed reasoning about either the system itself, or the design behind it, and you are even incapable of reasoning about basic trend extrapolation

It's simply not possible for everyone to begin using Segwit immediately, that's inherent to it's design and rollout. If you're unfamiliar with the details of Segwit's design and rollout, do please educate yourself before you attempt to make a meaningful comment

I know that the fork is run by a different group of programmers. Is that a bad thing? Maybe they are actually better than the current Core Devs. Besides, many of the current Core Devs joined just a few years ago. Many of the original Core Devs are not around anymore and have quit the Bitcoin community and Bitcoin development for a variety of reasons.

Not necessarily a bad thing, it's an important part of Bitcoin's design that users can follow any fork they like.

But that's for the users to decide, and my individual judgement is that the new group are self-interested, that is not interested in benefiting Bitcoin's users at all. The new group of programmers are represented by the very largest interests in Bitcoin businesses, and a persistently pernicious character to Bitcoin development, Jeff Garzik, is leading the new programming team. Jeff makes anti-Bitcoin rhetoric all the time, he prefers authoritarianism to liberty. Bitcoin is about giving people choices free from moral interventionists, and Jeff is a proud moral interventionist.

As i commented in the other Segwit news article topping the Press board atm, Bitcoin will always survive as a liberty based money, no matter how much dust people like Barry Silbert and Jeff Garzik kick up. Satoshi came with such a well though out design, there is always a way to sidestep authoritarians. They can cause setbacks, but freedom will always rise from the ashes. They can't win against an idea, without successfully banning thought.

[eckmar]

They are not stupid. Miners can't dictate users what chain to follow, so 2x fork would be only a disaster - Bitcoin network will slow down because majority of miners leave to mine new coin, while those miners will be wasting their electricity on a coin that won't be accepted almost anywhere. Exchanges will have to add 2x coin only as an alt, otherwise they will face legal lawsuits if they'll try to treat 2x coin as if it were original Bitcoin. But Bitcoin users have the upper hand here - most of us can endure long delays and wait for difficulty adjustments, while miners will suffer huge losses if they will switch to weaker chain. This is why some pool are already breaking their promises to fork - on D-day 2x chain will have much less than current 90% of Bitcoins hashpower.

In short, you think it's too much hassle and don't want to bother in order to improve Bitcoin. Well In my mind that is not right. Miners and everyone else should follow whatever makes BTC better and currently that is Segwit2x

[Carlton Banks]

Miners and everyone else should follow whatever makes BTC better and currently that is Segwit2x

You forgot to mention why. Why?

[eckmar]

Miners and everyone else should follow whatever makes BTC better and currently that is Segwit2x

You forgot to mention why. Why?

It's pretty logical. Bitcoin does need that larger block size now. So do you actually think it's better to stay at 1mb instead increasing to 2mb ?

[Variogam]

I am sorry for bringing this news from an author who was not good enough to research what is going on.

He should also check how Wang Chun behaved when activating SegWit on Litecoin (changing positions few times - pretty funny stuff). So what Wang Chun real intentions with SegWit2x are? Only Wang Chun really know.

[hatshepsut93]

They are not stupid. Miners can't dictate users what chain to follow, so 2x fork would be only a disaster - Bitcoin network will slow down because majority of miners leave to mine new coin, while those miners will be wasting their electricity on a coin that won't be accepted almost anywhere. Exchanges will have to add 2x coin only as an alt, otherwise they will face legal lawsuits if they'll try to treat 2x coin as if it were original Bitcoin. But Bitcoin users have the upper hand here - most of us can endure long delays and wait for difficulty adjustments, while miners will suffer huge losses if they will switch to weaker chain. This is why some pool are already breaking their promises to fork - on D-day 2x chain will have much less than current 90% of Bitcoins hashpower.

It's like double edge sword for me. I'd like to get another free coin from segwit2x hard fork, whatever they will named it.
without hard fork there is no any issue in November to shake the weak hands to sell out their bitcoin too, so I could purchase more cheaper coins.
On the other hand, without hard fork issue, bitcoin could continue to rise until next correction occurs, hard to tell when it will happen or how much bitcoin price could rise until the end of this year.

In the long run forks like BCH and SegWit2x don't matter, if we are going to the moon the impact of forks would be unnoticeable in a year or two. This is why they are treated as airdrops by some people here, since you will essentially be able to increase your BTC portfolio by 10-20%. If this fork will be even more stillborn than Bcash and no exchange will support it (due to lack of replay protection for example), I will try to claim by B2X coins via Bitpay or some other service that will switch to 2x.

[Carlton Banks]

Miners and everyone else should follow whatever makes BTC better and currently that is Segwit2x

You forgot to mention why. Why?

It's pretty logical. Bitcoin does need that larger block size now. So do you actually think it's better to stay at 1mb instead increasing to 2mb ?

You're a bit confused, you don't understand what's going on


Here is a post from a few days ago where I list the >1MB Bitcoin blocks since Segwit activated last week


>1MB blocks are becoming increasingly more common (and ever larger), Armory wallet supports Segwit addresses now, and I think Electrum might have Segwit addresses too.

So, how is this magic happening, if Bitcoin is still using a 1MB blocksize limit? I suggest you take some time to learn about what's really going on, as you clearly don't know

[eckmar]

Miners and everyone else should follow whatever makes BTC better and currently that is Segwit2x

You forgot to mention why. Why?

It's pretty logical. Bitcoin does need that larger block size now. So do you actually think it's better to stay at 1mb instead increasing to 2mb ?

You're a bit confused, you don't understand what's going on


Here is a post from a few days ago where I list the >1MB Bitcoin blocks since Segwit activated last week


>1MB blocks are becoming increasingly more common (and ever larger), Armory wallet supports Segwit addresses now, and I think Electrum might have Segwit addresses too.

So, how is this magic happening, if Bitcoin is still using a 1MB blocksize limit? I suggest you take some time to learn about what's really going on, as you clearly don't know

You are not so smart as you think you are. I took my time and I suggest you do too. If you did you would find this:

SegWit2x seeks to upgrade bitcoin in two ways:
1. It would enact the long-proposed code optimization Segregated Witness (SegWit), which alters how some data is stored on the network.
2. It would set a timeline for increasing the network's block size to 2MB, up from 1MB today, to be triggered about three months after the SegWit activation.

And based on your post, you wanted to say that Bitcoin is using 2MB blocks now ?

[Carlton Banks]

The blockchain doesn't lie, that's precisely how it's designed


There is no "1MB Bitcoin" anymore, you're howling into the wind.

(and Segwit is already activated over a week ago, you're one of those "alternative facts" people, aren't you?)

[Karartma1]

Miners and everyone else should follow whatever makes BTC better and currently that is Segwit2x

You forgot to mention why. Why?

It's pretty logical. Bitcoin does need that larger block size now. So do you actually think it's better to stay at 1mb instead increasing to 2mb ?

You're a bit confused, you don't understand what's going on


Here is a post from a few days ago where I list the >1MB Bitcoin blocks since Segwit activated last week


>1MB blocks are becoming increasingly more common (and ever larger), Armory wallet supports Segwit addresses now, and I think Electrum might have Segwit addresses too.

So, how is this magic happening, if Bitcoin is still using a 1MB blocksize limit? I suggest you take some time to learn about what's really going on, as you clearly don't know

You are not so smart as you think you are. I took my time and I suggest you do too. If you did you would find this:

SegWit2x seeks to upgrade bitcoin in two ways:
1. It would enact the long-proposed code optimization Segregated Witness (SegWit), which alters how some data is stored on the network.
2. It would set a timeline for increasing the network's block size to 2MB, up from 1MB today, to be triggered about three months after the SegWit activation.

And based on your post, you wanted to say that Bitcoin is using 2MB blocks now ?

A Legendary account from 2011 who does not know what is going on with Bitcoin, very strange I would say (bought account maybe)

So let's put some order:
1. segwit2x does not enact what you say because SEGWIT is already live on the network
2. yes that was the orginal plan of segwit2x if it will ever go in place.

And based on your missing knowledge go and have a look at the latest blocks in the blockchain: surprise, surprise you will find blocks larger than 1MB.

[Foxpup]

It's pretty logical. Bitcoin does need that larger block size now. So do you actually think it's better to stay at 1mb instead increasing to 2mb ?

SegWit already increased the block size limit to 4MB, in case you haven't been keeping up with the latest news.

[Iranus]

To understand SegWit block size it's important to recognise that it's an efficiency upgrade rather than a simple block size increase.

By segregating witness data from the rest of the transaction, it manages to include more transactions into a block while legacy nodes still see the block size as being 1MB.  So while it's not a simple block size increase, it's an effective block size increase.

It's also not as simple as "the block size is now 4MB" either.  There may be a limit of 4MB but there's a lower effective limit.  To quote Bitcoin Core:  

Since old nodes will only download the witness-stripped block, they only enforce the 1 MB block size limit rule on that data. New nodes, which understand the full block with witness data, are therefore free to replace this limit with a new one, allowing for larger block sizes. Segregated witness therefore takes advantage of this opportunity to raise the block size limit to nearly 4 MB, and adds a new cost limit to ensure blocks remain balanced in their resource use (this effectively results in an effective limit closer to 1.6 to 2 MB).

So it's neither "still 1MB" nor "now 4MB".

[DooMAD]

I'm starting to wonder how much influence some pool operators actually have over their pools.  If Wang Chun has gone on record via email stating explicitly that he doesn't support the proposal, why is their coinbase still commenting NYA?  Why is declared intention for 2x not dropping?  F2Pool's latest block utilised some of the witness space, so clearly they're happy with SegWit itself.  But the article clearly jumped to the conclusion that 2x support would be reducing to 85% with F2Pool and Slush Pool "dropping out".  But declared intention is still ~95% and both pools are still commenting NYA in their blocks.  Something doesn't add up.  Either the pool operators have changed their mind, or those who actually contribute the hashpower aren't listening to them.  If it's the latter, then the popular "miner cartel" theory goes out the window.

Is it possible that the scales have tipped so far in favour of 2x that the miners have effectively painted themselves into a corner in that they don't want to risk mining a minority chain even if they now disagree with the idea?  Or are they just waiting before they change their coinbase text to match for other pools to verbally oppose the idea, so they know they aren't alone?  There's possibly some herd mentality going on.  I guess we've had precedents of things changing remarkably quickly in terms of miner support, so perhaps it'll all come to a head soon.

It's also not as simple as "the block size is now 4MB" either.  There may be a limit of 4MB but there's a lower effective limit.  To quote Bitcoin Core: 

Since old nodes will only download the witness-stripped block, they only enforce the 1 MB block size limit rule on that data. New nodes, which understand the full block with witness data, are therefore free to replace this limit with a new one, allowing for larger block sizes. Segregated witness therefore takes advantage of this opportunity to raise the block size limit to nearly 4 MB, and adds a new cost limit to ensure blocks remain balanced in their resource use (this effectively results in an effective limit closer to 1.6 to 2 MB).

So it's neither "still 1MB" nor "now 4MB".

Seconded.  That's an impartial and neutral assessment.  Those who keep describing it as either 1MB or 4MB in absolute terms need to keep in mind how telling their bias now is.

[Samarkand]

It's pretty logical. Bitcoin does need that larger block size now. So do you actually think it's better to stay at 1mb instead increasing to 2mb ?

SegWit already increased the block size limit to 4MB, in case you haven't been keeping up with the latest news.

Please show me a recently mined Bitcoin block that is bigger than 1.1 MB  

I think the 4MB calculation is too optimistic. This would require that blocks are basically full of Segwit
transactions, which is cleary a ridiculous proposition, because a big part of users still wants to use
the "traditional transaction" type and some users still use outdated wallet software, which will never support Segwit.

Nevertheless, I think that Segwit adoption will increase in the long-term and therefore in the future blocks will be bigger than they are now,
but still I expect an average blocksize that doesn´t even get close to 4MB.

[Carlton Banks]

I think the 4MB calculation is too optimistic. This would require that blocks are basically full of Segwit
transactions,

Nope.

They need to be Segwit, but they also need to be signature-heavy. People using Multisig transactions are still pretty rare, and that's the only way to use more than 2MB per block using the Segwit capacity upgrade.

Lightning will bolster this (Lightining involves multi-sig at the blockchain level), but this depends alot on the patterns of usage Lightning attracts. Realistically, alot of BTC will stay permanently hopping around/through Lightning channels, and so the increase in Multisigs may well be a major surge as the Lightning network accumulates it's natural useful quantity of BTC. After that, mined coins will gradually leak in to maintain that balance (whatever it turns out to be), but that doesn't seem to me like a feasible way to fill up an extra 2MB of every block.

After that, other 2nd layer networks (which are planned, but not as well developed as Lightning yet) may well provide the extra. We will see, the 1MB:3MB ratio was apparently chosen very carefully by the Segwit designers, so it's a big test of their engineering analysis.

which is cleary a ridiculous proposition, because a big part of users still wants to use
the "traditional transaction" type and some users still use outdated wallet software, which will never support Segwit.

Nevertheless, I think that Segwit adoption will increase in the long-term and therefore in the future blocks will be bigger than they are now,
but still I expect an average blocksize that doesn´t even get close to 4MB.

I expect that a combination of the lower fees, 2nd layer networks and Bech32 addresses will convince the overwhelming majority to adopt Segwit addresses (Bech32 addresses will be easier to handle, no UPPER CASE lower case distinction, you can almost read them out verbally to someone reliably)

[Samarkand]

...

After that, other 2nd layer networks (which are planned, but not as well developed as Lightning yet) may well provide the extra. We will see, the 1MB:3MB ratio was apparently chosen very carefully by the Segwit designers, so it's a big test of their engineering analysis.


...

Once again, you seem to be more knowledgeable than me @Carlton Banks 
Thank you for the detailed reply.

I have a question regarding the statement above. What other 2nd layer networks are you talking about? Rootstock? Merkelized Abstract Syntax Trees?
Something entirely different?

Besides, I was under the impression that Lightning was basically still in an early stage of development as well (i.e. they have not
even a beta on the mainnet right now).

[Carlton Banks]

What other 2nd layer networks are you talking about? Rootstock? Merkelized Abstract Syntax Trees?
Something entirely different?

Mimblewimble is one. There was a payment channels concept that wasn't compatible with Lightning too, but I've forgotten the name :/ It'll pop up again if it's viable tech.

Rootstock is one in a way, but I think it was troubled the last I heard. MAST is complex, I forgot the details totally, someone please fill us all in if it's relevant...


There are bound to be more, I've been lazy keeping up to date over the summer this year.

Besides, I was under the impression that Lightning was basically still in an early stage of development as well (i.e. they have not
even a beta on the mainnet right now).

I think Lightning has been tested on mainnet, but it's don't get me wrong, it's still early on. All I mean is that Lightning is closer to commerical implementations & deployment than other 2nd layer concepts.

[DooMAD]

Declared 2x support still isn't dropping.  NYA text is still present in every single one of F2Pool's blocks today.  I'm now strongly considering the possibility in that Chun is a bit like Trump in that he generally just spouts out the first thought that pops into his head and then completely contradicts himself later.  Anyone remember this little doozy?  And yet they support it just fine now (Size 1000.012 KB, so clearly some Witness space utilised).  Whatever he says he does or doesn't support wouldn't appear to carry much weight.  Yet more reason not to place so much emphasis on the personalities involved in this debate and just go by the numbers.  That's all that really matters.

[Samarkand]

Declared 2x support still isn't dropping.  NYA text is still present in every single one of F2Pool's blocks today.  I'm now strongly considering the possibility in that Chun is a bit like Trump in that he generally just spouts out the first thought that pops into his head and then completely contradicts himself later.  Anyone remember this little doozy?  And yet they support it just fine now (Size 1000.012 KB, so clearly some Witness space utilised).  Whatever he says he does or doesn't support wouldn't appear to carry much weight.  Yet more reason not to place so much emphasis on the personalities involved in this debate and just go by the numbers.  That's all that really matters.

I think the more relevant question is how much influence he actually has as a mining pool operator. Even if he is in favor of something that
doesn´t mean that the users of the mining pool and the hashrate provided by them support the same thing. If Chun would do something that contradicts the
interest of the users of F2Pool, they could easily switch their hashrate to some of the other pools.
This would obviously hurt F2Pool, unless Chun is owning a huge percentage of F2Pool´s hashrate personally.