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 E70F483D for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:03:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pd0-f176.google.com (mail-pd0-f176.google.com [209.85.192.176]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C968319E for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:03:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pdbfa8 with SMTP id fa8so56234625pdb.1 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:03:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=mntY8HRdou7vNjqcSBqgVZhDLzl7xjzeMv02BjL1wuQ=; b=Mbyx0N362MSx3Q3jJyl8i+itjWcORzFtzrIcBU6U6dKLmiOh+8tSm52PgAYPvP7TOO 7yQN6Q9FtDwgAMvLrUs7cb4LMKtGEYd/u/q6MDas485vNZGmA38Gtx0JFqU9/bp74O9d Dz+kObC5XRAoOWqF2VtVU/53lo9c5hjI2jhvWUf4qSDlik0mCyHtD852DvRieXPM0FwG Tc9FAMCZskjyoc2VFlJ9hVALHitiPG3ZdlAUwvNYHPsNC3+Xc0KlidK5U8OhtFLaDr4G 6p6NbhInut9yzrnduPMGwSNzC5id9SzlV4BG/g0yxtNZObMi6IJQaBtARwiq0RHsJzK6 G82A== X-Received: by 10.70.123.226 with SMTP id md2mr2989728pdb.29.1439820184511; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:03:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.107] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com. [76.167.237.202]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id fa1sm14799952pbb.35.2015.08.17.07.03.03 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:03:03 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3A40EF2E-722A-4E7B-86EA-1BEF054F06B6"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5 From: Eric Lombrozo In-Reply-To: <20150817133438.DDD4243128@smtp.hushmail.com> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:03:02 -0700 Message-Id: <64C86292-6671-4729-8A77-63C081797F62@gmail.com> References: <20150817100918.BD1F343128@smtp.hushmail.com> <1439815244.89850.YahooMailBasic@web173102.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <20150817133438.DDD4243128@smtp.hushmail.com> To: NxtChg X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT 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: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:03:06 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_3A40EF2E-722A-4E7B-86EA-1BEF054F06B6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 NxtChg, In the entire history of Bitcoin we=E2=80=99ve never attempted anything = even closely resembling a hard fork like what=E2=80=99s being proposed = here. Many of us have wanted to push our own hard-forking changes to the = protocol=E2=80=A6and have been frustrated because of the inability to do = so. This inability is not due to any malice on anyone=E2=80=99s part=E2=80=A6i= t is a feature of Satoshi=E2=80=99s protocol. For better or worse, it is = *very hard* to change the rules=E2=80=A6and this is exactly what imbues = Bitcoin with one of its most powerful attributes: very well-defined = settlement guarantees that cannot be suddenly altered nor reversed by = anyone. We=E2=80=99ve managed to have a few soft forks in the past=E2=80=A6and = for the most part these changes have been pretty uncontroversial=E2=80=A6o= r at least, they have not had nearly the level of political divisiveness = that this block size issue is having. And even then, we=E2=80=99ve = encountered a number of problems with these deployments that have at = times required goodwill cooperation between developers and mining pool = operators to fix. Again, we have NEVER attempted anything even remotely like what=E2=80=99s = being proposed - we=E2=80=99ve never done any sort of hard fork before = like this. If even fairly uncontroversial soft forks have caused = problems, can you imagine the kinds of potential problems that a hard = fork over some highly polarizing issue might raise? Do you really think = people are going to want to cooperate?!? I can understand that some people would like bigger blocks. Other people = might want feature X, others feature Y=E2=80=A6and we can argue the = merits of this or that to death=E2=80=A6but the fact remains that we = have NEVER attempted any hard forking change=E2=80=A6not even with a = simple, totally uncontroversial no-brainer improvement that would not = risk any sort of ill-will that could hamper remedies were it not to go = as smoothly as we like. *THIS* is the fundamental problem - the whole = bigger block thing is a minor issue by comparison=E2=80=A6it could be = any controversial change, really. Would you want to send your test pilots on their first flight=E2=80=A6the = first time an aircraft is ever flown=E2=80=A6directly into combat = without having tested the plane? This is what attempting a hard fork = mechanism that=E2=80=99s NEVER been done before in such a politically = divisive environment basically amounts to=E2=80=A6but it=E2=80=99s even = worse. We=E2=80=99re basically risking the entire air force (not just = one plane) over an argument regarding how many seats a plane should have = that we=E2=80=99ve never flown before. We=E2=80=99re talking billlions of dollars=E2=80=99 worth of other = people=E2=80=99s money that is on the line here. Don=E2=80=99t we owe it = to them to at least test out the system on a far less controversial, far = less divisive change first to make sure we can even deploy it without = things breaking? I don=E2=80=99t even care about the merits regarding = bigger blocks vs. smaller blocks at this point, to be quite honest - = that=E2=80=99s such a petty thing compared to what I=E2=80=99m talking = about here. If we attempt a novel hard-forking mechanism that=E2=80=99s = NEVER been attempted before (and which as many have pointed out is = potentially fraught with serious problems) on such a politically = divisive, polarizing issue, the result is each side will refuse to = cooperate with the other out of spite=E2=80=A6and can easily lead to a = war, tanking the value of everyone=E2=80=99s assets on both chains. All = so we can process 8 times the number of transactions we currently do? = Even if it were 100 times, we wouldn=E2=80=99t even come close to = touching big payment processors like Visa. It=E2=80=99s hard to imagine = a protocol improvement that=E2=80=99s worth the risk. I urge you to at least try to see the bigger picture here=E2=80=A6and to = understand that nobody is trying to stop anyone from doing anything out = of some desire for maintaining control - NONE of us are able to deploy = hard forks right now without facing these problems. And different people = obviously have different priorities and preferences as to which of these = changes would be best to do first. This whole XT thing is essentially = giving *one* proposal special treatment above those that others have = proposed. Many of us have only held back from doing this out of our = belief that goodwill amongst network participants is more important than = trying to push some pet feature some of us want. Please stop this negativity - we ALL want the best for Bitcoin and are = doing our best, given what we understand and know, to do what=E2=80=99s = right. > On Aug 17, 2015, at 6:34 AM, NxtChg via bitcoin-dev = wrote: >=20 >=20 >> We should have the highest respect for what these people are doing, = and we should try to do something constructive, not waste time with = anger and disrespect. >=20 > Why, exactly, should I have any respect for what these people are = doing (and supposedly not have any respect for what the other side is = doing)? >=20 > =46rom my point of view, the XT side _does_ something constructive. = It's the Core side that resorts to dirty tactics and tries to sabotage = community's free choice instead. >=20 >=20 >> Nobody should be forced to do anything. >=20 > Great, so how about you go tell theymos to stop censoring XT posts and = banning the other side on /r/Bitcoin? >=20 > Let users decide what Bitcoin is or isn't. >=20 >=20 >> The developers are not telling you what to do, they are trying to do = what they consider is best for the ecosystem given their technical = abilities. >=20 > The developers & Co are doing their best to stay in power, so they = could continue imposing their will on Bitcoin ecosystem. This is the = real power grab, not Gavin and Hearn, who merely provided an = alternative. >=20 > And the fear they show is most telling. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --Apple-Mail=_3A40EF2E-722A-4E7B-86EA-1BEF054F06B6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJV0emWAAoJEJNAI64YFENUMzcP/0Z8e7+zXpj0J5NE+ypH1dCz IutU1zCrTKSmz6EGsKtVttrWeyKuj6enTtJaY50DtpeUGkUq1kNOiTg+DbLOiMc7 YbhuQqigN7b5Jiu3bOkuonRV440atekQ16JAgHT2qKueLp51eulivO7nylnyKByc pzG9f3J8BfvPObOeqdgKjePPhFEo3XFvWMV30nFUb7PVtIFJj8U0d4AvlYOwrakx OICivRNoic6ncX7hNKAA79eLueep+ZOyAxMgsniCeuM0H2ZEOExdlUALt2AB3skI IuRL4meD25602iW6PYjeEJlAj0Xu37V0vbCJAuEDnIn4PZeoqmmIeU8NXmcfS88H Vahcst92Oa1ZdzGa3XskZRSlwJivcFrwBhIMvH9v/zLPer6DyaYO3LgcBNYuaygL Og05GZNbcjkdUNGYX9JfZyIti+uNHJaZUcYgRzAFWgmeX0Ut5RYeObm3JbQ1e/LZ XAhOfujVfRSdL5aHFYDkDx1w88wXISaIhfH8J0zQwqkeO9G3GGq9lwsYoqCOx/iV IjjENkPL1g7UjGYTwsOh3qWLsdY4YKwq94kxYEuTD5vUkQYXAK6v8fuQQofSF7rw W8msyCf3jDJDtr9RL2Xje5t12CQTxQ24R/TZtDHf0LeP3LUX3Sq7tn94t7Gb9tyR D4Y/EnhqgAIXKaAWL4fr =2KxU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_3A40EF2E-722A-4E7B-86EA-1BEF054F06B6--