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 0AB9749D for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:05:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com (mail-wi0-f169.google.com [209.85.212.169]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A5F71CB for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:05:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wibxm9 with SMTP id xm9so185210502wib.0 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:05:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=mr8KWD1NkXLbKzYjqOEotzas7Izmm94oYd4G4MwhGxU=; b=IS2fl+QlO94L78adEi7le3yoG/L4sThQNPoBbMLz8NGsqutTBw4Ng0h9WB5YzmKkrP Pw/HSdGMjxHB4ZtfcfI5f0GEyZXhL6XaTNs+EaEs6Exai/3fVOkbStGn3qBYxmlh+BXo T9DwXdFatjYL5lsYrXd8/d64k+gVUopUFlsLxzQRrCzSmalNbxAc1s3zDl4mxgR3AQZ6 S8ljHT4EI8GN1D7+oxKZVfEF/1zPBzTGhbPU1XVkmhdn0gvYG2xl44EKWqeooNaZiPBB ZEKCW2vMaGLXPM21Z26Sulo4ZZJUBH8bAv2X/spKHp/Ql1KWEFRCUmJa8oDWks5X4RC4 KMZQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn90tvqCV6QU6N/TrrytTb+pcncQVx1gWRvDGBkjiXGwaKjiKrb9nNAjnD4GUUfzKCxuL35 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.90.83 with SMTP id bu19mr11112570wib.91.1437609953782; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:05:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.168.167 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:05:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <068B7F93-A1DF-4F8D-84FC-B787C5429D6A@gmail.com> References: <068B7F93-A1DF-4F8D-84FC-B787C5429D6A@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 20:05:53 -0400 Message-ID: From: Cory Fields To: Eric Lombrozo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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] 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: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:05:56 -0000 On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 7:53 PM, Eric Lombrozo wrote: > FWIW, I had worked on something similar a while back: > https://github.com/CodeShark/bitcoin/tree/coinparams_new/altconf > > I like the idea in principle=E2=80=A6but we should require a new genesis = block, > different magic bytes, and a different network port at the very least. :) > Not sure if serious, so I'll assume you are :) Why? The idea in this case would be to allow the user to decide between (say) "./bitcoind -1mbchain" and "./bitcoind -2mbchain" at runtime rather than the likely alternative of "./bitcoind" vs "./bitcoin-fork". Chain params may be identical other than the value of some future event (miner vote for example), in which case the configs would run identically until that point. If your concern is about nodes with different configs communicating with eachother, I'd like to reiterate: the idea really is no different than suggesting that someone fork the codebase and implement their own changes, it just cuts out most of the work required. Cory > On Jul 22, 2015, at 4:42 PM, Cory Fields via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > I'm not sure why Bitcoin Core and the rules and policies that it > enforces are being conflated in this thread. There's nothing stopping > us from adding the ability for the user to decide what their consensus > parameters should be at runtime. In fact, that's already in use: > ./bitcoind -testnet. As mentioned in another thread, the chain params > could even come from a config file that the user could edit without > touching the code. > > I realize that it'd be opening Pandora's Box, and likely met with very > loud and reasonable arguments about the obvious terrible implications, > but it's at least an alternative to the current status quo of Core's > conflation with the consensus rules. The idea really is no different > than suggesting that someone fork the codebase and implement their own > changes, it just cuts out most of the work required. > > With that in place, consensus changes would be more about lobbying and > coalitions, and less about pull requests. > > Cory > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Raystonn via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > If the developers fail to reflect user consensus, the network will let us > know. > > > This is true with the caveat that there must be more than one option pres= ent > for the network to show it's preference. If developers discourage anythi= ng > that forks from the rules enforced by Bitcoin Core, they harm the network= 's > ability to inform us of a failure to reflect user consensus. > > On 22 Jul 2015 3:31 pm, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > I wouldn't go quite that far. The reality is somewhere in the middle, as > Bryan Cheng noted in this thread: > > Quoting BC, > > Upgrading to a version of Bitcoin Core that is incompatible with your > ideals is in no way a forced choice, as you have stated in your email; > forks, alternative clients, or staying on an older version are all valid > choices. If the majority of the network chooses not to endorse a specific > change, then the majority of the network will continue to operate just fi= ne > without it, and properly structured consensus rules will pull the minorit= y > along as well. > > > The developers propose a new version, by publishing a new release. The > individual network nodes choose to accept or reject that. > > So I respectfully disagree with "core devs don't control the network" and > "core devs control the network" both. > > There are checks-and-balances that make the system work. Consensus is mo= st > strongly measured by user actions after software release. If the develop= ers > fail to reflect user consensus, the network will let us know. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > Hi Pieter, > > I think a core area of disagreement is this: > > Bitcoin Core is not running the Bitcoin economy, and its developers have = no > authority to set its rules. > > In fact Bitcoin Core is running the Bitcoin economy, and its developers d= o > have the authority to set its rules. This is enforced by the reality of > ~100% market share and limited github commit access. > > You may not like this situation, but it is what it is. By refusing to mak= e a > release with different rules, people who disagree are faced with only two > options: > > 1. Swallow it even if they hate it > 2. Fork the project and fork the block chain with it (XT) > > There are no alternatives. People who object to (2) are inherently > suggesting (1) is the only acceptable path, which not surprisingly, makes= a > lot of people very angry. > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > >