From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C36A4504 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:18:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from homiemail-a9.g.dreamhost.com (homie.mail.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.208]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAC2015A for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:18:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from homiemail-a9.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a9.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C75D62606E for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:18:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=jrn.me.uk; h=subject:to :references:from:message-id:date:mime-version:in-reply-to: content-type; s=jrn.me.uk; bh=CTN0xNU5fvcOe3Q1xN21bKwngg8=; b=Ae mQp8bxpUxkUJDa3sp2y41quEo/Xn+N7WkAGwXBxI4yUG9KJXkFmTeOwa9I2/gMdO rCi6Y2gF5ql6qHGxwPHTvsDZUZYYFvgT0sftWlaQrQxg7rvW51Q7ERD/zg8jsSMW RcB5AulT2VYplK5uKQv6xVXHnxjv8Li63pQWeu3e0= Received: from [10.9.1.133] (unknown [89.238.129.18]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jrn@jrn.me.uk) by homiemail-a9.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8E96062606A for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:18:45 -0700 (PDT) To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: From: Ross Nicoll Message-ID: <55AFD075.1000806@jrn.me.uk> Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 18:18:45 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070905090506060105050601" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core and hard forks X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:18:47 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070905090506060105050601 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit So, if consensus shouldn't really be between the developers (which is fine), should we empower users to control consensus? I've been working on a fork framework anyway, which can support reasonably arbitrary consensus changes (currently against block height, but moving towards block time). Theoretically it could be modified to load consensus parameters (which block size would have to be added to) from disk at startup, rather than having them hard-coded. Is that considered desirable? Will raise as a PR if so. If not, where do we draw a line between developer and user consensus? Ross On 22/07/2015 17:52, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > Hello all, > > I'd like to talk a bit about my view on the relation between the > Bitcoin Core project, and the consensus rules of Bitcoin. > > I believe it is the responsibility of the maintainers/developers of > Bitcoin Core to create software which helps guarantee the security and > operation of the Bitcoin network. > > In addition to normal software maintenance, bug fixes and performance > improvements, this includes DoS protection mechanism deemed necessary > to keep the network operational. Sometimes, such (per-node > configurable) policies have had economic impact, for example the dust > rule. > > This also includes participating in discussions about consensus > changes, but not the responsibility to decide on them - only to > implement them when agreed upon. It would be irresponsible and > dangerous to the network and thus the users of the software to risk > forks, or to take a leading role in pushing dramatic changes. Bitcoin > Core developers obviously have the ability to make any changes to the > codebase or its releases, but it is still up to the community to > choose to run that code. > > Some people have called the prospect of limited block space and the > development of a fee market a change in policy compared to the past. I > respectfully disagree with that. Bitcoin Core is not running the > Bitcoin economy, and its developers have no authority to set its > rules. Change in economics is always happening, and should be > expected. Worse, intervening in consensus changes would make the > ecosystem more dependent on the group taking that decision, not less. > > So to point out what I consider obvious: if Bitcoin requires central > control over its rules by a group of developers, it is completely > uninteresting to me. Consensus changes should be done using consensus, > and the default in case of controversy is no change. > > === > > My personal opinion is that we - as a community - should indeed let a > fee market develop, and rather sooner than later, and that "kicking > the can down the road" is an incredibly dangerous precedent: if we are > willing to go through the risk of a hard fork because of a fear of > change of economics, then I believe that community is not ready to > deal with change at all. And some change is inevitable, at any block > size. Again, this does not mean the block size needs to be fixed > forever, but its intent should be growing with the evolution of > technology, not a panic reaction because a fear of change. > > But I am not in any position to force this view. I only hope that > people don't think a fear of economic change is reason to give up > consensus. > > -- > Pieter > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --------------070905090506060105050601 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit So, if consensus shouldn't really be between the developers (which is fine), should we empower users to control consensus? I've been working on a fork framework anyway, which can support reasonably arbitrary consensus changes (currently against block height, but moving towards block time). Theoretically it could be modified to load consensus parameters (which block size would have to be added to) from disk at startup, rather than having them hard-coded.

Is that considered desirable? Will raise as a PR if so. If not, where do we draw a line between developer and user consensus?

Ross

On 22/07/2015 17:52, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:

Hello all,

I'd like to talk a bit about my view on the relation between the Bitcoin Core project, and the consensus rules of Bitcoin.

I believe it is the responsibility of the maintainers/developers of Bitcoin Core to create software which helps guarantee the security and operation of the Bitcoin network.

In addition to normal software maintenance, bug fixes and performance improvements, this includes DoS protection mechanism deemed necessary to keep the network operational. Sometimes, such (per-node configurable) policies have had economic impact, for example the dust rule.

This also includes participating in discussions about consensus changes, but not the responsibility to decide on them - only to implement them when agreed upon. It would be irresponsible and dangerous to the network and thus the users of the software to risk forks, or to take a leading role in pushing dramatic changes. Bitcoin Core developers obviously have the ability to make any changes to the codebase or its releases, but it is still up to the community to choose to run that code.

Some people have called the prospect of limited block space and the development of a fee market a change in policy compared to the past. I respectfully disagree with that. Bitcoin Core is not running the Bitcoin economy, and its developers have no authority to set its rules. Change in economics is always happening, and should be expected. Worse, intervening in consensus changes would make the ecosystem more dependent on the group taking that decision, not less.

So to point out what I consider obvious: if Bitcoin requires central control over its rules by a group of developers, it is completely uninteresting to me. Consensus changes should be done using consensus, and the default in case of controversy is no change.

===

My personal opinion is that we - as a community - should indeed let a fee market develop, and rather sooner than later, and that "kicking the can down the road" is an incredibly dangerous precedent: if we are willing to go through the risk of a hard fork because of a fear of change of economics, then I believe that community is not ready to deal with change at all. And some change is inevitable, at any block size. Again, this does not mean the block size needs to be fixed forever, but its intent should be growing with the evolution of technology, not a panic reaction because a fear of change.

But I am not in any position to force this view. I only hope that people don't think a fear of economic change is reason to give up consensus.

--
Pieter



_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--------------070905090506060105050601--