Bitcoin Software Wars: The Case Against Replay Attack Protection

[jamie.redman1]

The month of September is wrapping up, and the planned November Segwit2x (BTC1) hard fork is steadily approaching. According to the BTC1 roadmap, a block between 1MB and 2MB in size will be generated by miners raising the block size limit at block height 494,784. Over the past few months, Core developers and supporters have been vehemently against the block size increase but are also upset that the Segwit2x working group will not add replay attack protection.

The Question Remains — Who Should Add Replay Attack Protection?

The Segwit2x hard fork is drawing near, and we may see another blockchain split in the near future. At press time the intention to upgrade the block size to 2MB is backed by 93.8 percent of the entire Bitcoin network hashrate. However, the 2MB increase is not supported by a particular group of Core supporters, and the Core client’s developers are also outspoken against the fork. One of the biggest controversies about the fork is the lack of replay attack protection, and bitcoin proponents have been quarreling about this issue for quite some time.

Read More Here >>> https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-softwa ... rotection/

[GreyWyvern]

It seems to me it's the ultimate act of self-delusion to see that +93% of miners are supporting SegWit2x, and insisting that they should take precautions that a minority chain would make. How do these people justify their positions? Do they really believe the miners are just playing and will follow Core when the chips are down?

A second thought... what would be the best way to trade this split? I'm thinking of buying back some BTC to get two coins. But I'm worried it won't be as peaceful a split as the Bitcoin Cash fork in August. Both chains might lose a significant amount of value: 2x because now miners are in charge, and 1x because the community will have directly shown a lack of trust in them.