public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: odinn <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an experimental hardfork?
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:06:07 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABm2gDr2o82O5jtpv=MovAcsvf9xV5u54d4oFajuvuz1QuKZoA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55D45715.4010107@riseup.net>

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:14 PM, odinn <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Firstly, XT is controversial, not uncontroversial;

XT it's just a software fork.
BIP101 (as currently implemented in Bitcoin XT) is a Schism hardfork
(or an altcoin), but BIP101 could be modified to be deployed like an
uncontroversial hardfork (in current bip99's draft, a given height
plus 95% mining upgrade confirmation after that).

> Third, it poses major risks as a non-peer reviewed alt with a number
> of problematic features (with the privacy problems recently mentioned
> on this list being just one of them)
>
> Fourth, it has not followed any semblance of process in terms of the
> development funnel or BIPS process, with XT developers instead
> choosing instead a dangerous path of hard forking bitcoin while being
> well aware of miner voting on viable solutions which have followed
> process.

I'm not defending the Schism hardfork being proposed. I am very
worried about it and I have publicly said so several times.
If Bitcoin XT didn't contained the Schism bip101 hardfork I wouldn't
be so worried: users are free to use software that is less reviewed at
their own risk.

> The following proposals
> http://bipsxdevs.azurewebsites.net/
> regardless of what you think of any one of them, are deserving of
> attention (BIP 100 / BIP 101) and are being voted on as you read this
> by miners. (BIP sipa is not yet numbered, and BIP 102 is a backup
> /fallback option.)  BIP 100 is probably the best of these (note, in
> part, it schedules a hardfork on testnet in September).

It's users and not miners who decide the consensus rules.

> Contentious hard forks are bad for Bitcoin.
> https://bitcoin.org/en/posts/hard-fork-policy
> You may want to read this again if you haven't recently.

You may want to read BIP99 to understand that I know this, but still
think that Schism hardforks may be necessary in some situations (I
don't think this one is reasonable though).

> There is no basis for further promoting XT by suggesting that it
> should even be tested.

All I'm saying is that Bitcoin XT the software fork is totally fine
(like other alternative Bitcoin implementations). The big problem is
BIP101 being deployed as a Schism hardfork.


  reply	other threads:[~2015-08-19 11:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-08-18  9:54 [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an experimental hardfork? jl2012
2015-08-18 11:57 ` Micha Bailey
2015-08-18 18:52 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-08-18 20:48 ` Danny Thorpe
2015-08-18 20:51   ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-08-18 21:06     ` Danny Thorpe
2015-08-18 21:17       ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-08-18 21:39         ` Danny Thorpe
2015-08-19  9:29       ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-19 10:14         ` odinn
2015-08-19 11:06           ` Jorge Timón [this message]
2015-08-19 11:25             ` odinn
2015-08-19 15:22               ` jl2012
2015-08-19 15:48                 ` Tier Nolan
2015-08-19 15:25               ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-19 17:30         ` Danny Thorpe
2015-08-19 18:33           ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-18 22:51 ` Ahmed Zsales
2015-08-19  2:53   ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-08-19  9:24 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-19 10:34   ` jl2012
2015-08-19 10:53     ` Jorge Timón

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CABm2gDr2o82O5jtpv=MovAcsvf9xV5u54d4oFajuvuz1QuKZoA@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=jtimon@jtimon.cc \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox