I understand the basic intention and history of Segwit 2X. Some people got together and agreed that enabling both segwit and a base blocksize increase to 2MB would be a 'reasonable compromise'.
This agreement, plus UASF, finally got segwit activated.
However, in the meantime, a hostile hard fork of bitcoin was created, attempting to brand itself as 'the real bitcoin' and that effort continues unabated to this day.
That fork has 8mb blocks and it's own development team dedicated to 'continuing Satoshi's original vision' of massive on-chain scaling (or so they say), ignoring early statements by Hal Finney and expert opinion by people like Nick Szabo on the topic.
To me that pretty much eliminated the need for any 'compromise' blocksize increase.
At any rate, getting back to the so called 'New York Agreement' I want to know the following:
- How many members of the current development team (active contributors to the bitcoin code base) signed onto this NYA? I believe the answer to that is zero, but I could be wrong.
- If no developers signed onto it, how could it have ever been an agreement to really anything?
- Did the companies who signed onto it know they were signing onto an agreement that also included the bitcoin-cash 8mb blocksize hard fork?
- Did the companies who signed up for it know that it didn't include a single member of the actual dev team and has less than 1% support from the technical community at large?
- Was their plan to let Jeff Garzik essentially completely take over all bitcoin development once Segwit2X activates, and dump the rest of the development team entirely? (Because that is what is about to happen if they go through with this).
- Did these signers know that this hard-fork would not have any replay protection and would put customers funds at risk?
I don't really care how many miners are signaling for this; or how many companies signed up for it. Without the development team there is no rationale for doing this. I didn't sign up for this. I'm worried seriously about my money on the network, which is a substantial sum to me.
Most of the companies who signed this agreement are subject to heavy government regulations and require full AML/KYC.
If they are able to hard fork away the network, without replay protection, does that not set a precedent that they effectively now 'own' what would then be branded as bitcoin? And they could be compelled to hard-fork it again and again and again, by the same government regulators they must answer to today? (Let's be clear, whatever is listed as bitcoin on all of the big exchanges will be 'bitcoin' in the minds of most people.)
Whatever their original motivations for this, the landscape has changed. Since then, rather than the community coming together for some 2X compromise, instead the community split into the big-block on-chain scaling crowd (bitcoin-cash) and those who support the current development team and their careful stewardship of the network.
I think it is reckless to try to fork the software away from the development team responsible for protecting and keeping it secure and safe.
Whether or not the original companies signing onto this were motivated by a clear sense of bringing the community together in the spirit of compromise, that has all been completely blown up by the bitcoin-cash hardfork.
Those involved in the bitcoin-cash hardfork have already proclaimed their intention of dumping on the segwit chains to try to continue to push their narrative that BCH is the 'real bitcoin'. (And if we have a disastrous split without replay protection and losing the development team, they are going to be able to argue push that narrative more strongly.)
The last thing this community needs right now is yet another hard-fork. Especially one without replay protection which would be disastrous.
I have a lot of money at stake. In fact, there are billions and billions of dollars at stake here.
Don't these companies care about protecting the network and that value, especially the value of their customers funds and the future value of the network?
Hard forking the network to split once again, and handing all software development over to Jeff Garzik and a couple of his friends, seems reckless to me.