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 1CAB4481 for ; Sat, 7 Jan 2017 21:15:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-yw0-f179.google.com (mail-yw0-f179.google.com [209.85.161.179]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15898CD for ; Sat, 7 Jan 2017 21:15:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-f179.google.com with SMTP id a10so397374738ywa.3 for ; Sat, 07 Jan 2017 13:15:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=JgwgPXTgRoSC/mFK+66CQmqOkkmBD9zV0RJy7CY09Ak=; b=ZIQxKvrxbio8z2EZX93Fgoi7ee9pyrFbtitnxNEUxgv2BPkAkXNytwco4UMa6RgdIh 3c1eN6wISLm/inA3py3Adqm2D2edMUiyTTKfc4N0Gr/tnlGJnjvTGDVy/iZgBd1PZ65o GfMcmLfw/AkXKut0uEHdnUKQhVVK5Vvs0/0urciw0oIyamaN2m5dDZfwgJxVJNblEgvK hhnQtvJh0uVYndRpqXE1k4QO/etQ4MTJZQ7ckM+5Dh8JMPqhY8+HXYl+mJkO4oB6EDPc 35p34X+KbSXjzbXNuiTAU2rxnwYelol29E4FsqJTaotua7cvx/tCAyIZmnmXVvJLJJFH ruEg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JgwgPXTgRoSC/mFK+66CQmqOkkmBD9zV0RJy7CY09Ak=; b=RSz4CxyE8p30KZeRj83OsBibSMECRHE6LCybkB/cLzC0JkT+1RNgyZjzqyuRC37oto xLCVp3KxqyyiwLByBquU9lj7CbP1q/IZpxDs8X7t/f77L/QPH6WJ0Wg9GG58xT2G9atx 2iiUL61QwtO4QZJBoN0onWuGSHEf3kTepnVDz6bZ3mUxc7d9makR4qnLxC1+B93DH3pl lcjLOoFazm/Vn4YLRY1l5iK7/xVZ5/PiLh9JviksohnE46wFHgpce6RhNWPLpWTeBNqH 74j/u+4Z0NbFr34+C7kMW1n9214NrhTJbbRP1SZ+AbENlC8h76BYd1d4pc9sFuqmz++X 9uQw== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXL0ZTCwSHanEkjBxebR4DE4C2WcExT2deQKdY0YfshaIuuV86bgfMMqTOftr9kkSfuUMn6Or5OJKBhpKQ== X-Received: by 10.13.202.13 with SMTP id m13mr7905639ywd.251.1483823732156; Sat, 07 Jan 2017 13:15:32 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.129.161.70 with HTTP; Sat, 7 Jan 2017 13:15:11 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <7169224.bI6Cz5OEL8@cherry> From: Btc Drak Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2017 21:15:11 +0000 Message-ID: To: Chris Priest , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114f1e5476eeb6054587a247 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 07 Jan 2017 21:18:25 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Classic 1.2.0 released X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2017 21:15:34 -0000 --001a114f1e5476eeb6054587a247 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 There actually isn't an activation threshold in Bitcoin Classic. The hard fork rules are active the moment you install the software. As was noted, there aren't any release notes, so you can be forgiven for not knowing that BIP109 support was removed and the proposal rejected. Classic recently adopted a new set of hard fork rules for which there is no written specification. Bitcoin software vendors should take great pains to document software features and changes from version to version. Bitcoin Core for example, always has extensive release notes, and a full changelog extracted from the source code for each version. In the case of consensus rule change proposals, we follow the BIPs process which exists to help ecosystem-wide co-ordination. A detailed and complete specification allows others to re-implement the BIP in their own software and also acts as part of the consensus building process and peer review process. There's nothing wrong with hard forks per se, and this list is certain a good place to discuss proposals, but releasing hard fork software without establishing community wide consensus and without clearly labelling your product as such is just not cricket. If I may cast your attention back a few weeks ago, Johnson Lau released a hard fork client _testnet_ as part of his research project which was announced on this list. It was clearly labelled. This Bitcoin Classic announcement was not clearly labelled (and released on mainnet). On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Chris Priest via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Bitcoin Classic only activates if 75% of the network adopts it. That > is not irresponsible or dangerous. It would only be dangerous if it > activates at 50%, because that would create a situation where its not > clear which side of the fork has the most proof of work. > > On 1/7/17, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > Your release announcement does not make it clear that Bitcoin Classic is > > incompatible with the current Bitcoin network and its consensus rules. It > > is a hard fork on mainnet with no safe activation as well as including > > other unsafe changes. There is also no BIP for the hard fork. There is > also > > no evidence of community wide consensus for such a hard fork. This is > > dangerous and irresponsible. > > > > > > It's wrong to announce software without correctly informing people about > > the contents or risks. Furthermore, there are no release notes in > > https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/tree/v1.2.0/doc nor > > changelog. Without those, it is almost impossible for average users to > know > > what is under the hood or what has changed and time consuming for > > developers to assess. > > > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev < > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > >> Bitcoin Classic version 1.2.0 is now available from; > >> > >> > >> > >> This is a new major version release, including new features, various > >> bugfixes and performance improvements. > >> > >> This release marks a change in strategy for Bitcoin Classic, moving from > >> the > >> very conservative block size proposal based on compromise to one where > >> Classic truly innovates and provides a long term solution for the market > >> to > >> choose and leave behind the restrictions of the old. > >> > >> The most visible change in this version is the decentralised block size > >> solution where node operators decide on the maximum size. > >> > >> Bitcoin Classic is focused on providing users a way to get onto the > >> Bitcoin > >> network using a high quality validating node for a large set of use > >> cases. > >> Classic presents top notch quality processes in this release, to help > >> anyone > >> running Bitcoin. > >> > >> We include in this release various projects with the beta label. People > >> who > >> want to use the Classic node as an on-ramp to Bitcoin will find them > >> interesting. These projects will need to be enabled in the config by > >> those > >> that want to test them. > >> > >> More background information on this release and Classic can be seen in > >> this > >> video: https://vimeo.com/192789752 > >> The full release notes are on github at > >> https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/releases/tag/v1.2.0 > >> > >> -- > >> Tom Zander > >> Blog: https://zander.github.io > >> Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > --001a114f1e5476eeb6054587a247 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There actually isn't an activation threshold in Bitcoi= n Classic. The hard fork rules are active the moment you install the softwa= re. As was noted, there aren't any release notes, so you can be forgive= n for not knowing that BIP109 support was removed and the proposal rejected= . Classic recently adopted a new set of hard fork rules for which there is = no written specification.

Bitcoin software vendors shoul= d take great pains to document software features and changes from version t= o version. Bitcoin Core for example, always has extensive release notes, an= d a full changelog extracted from the source code for each version. In the = case of consensus rule change proposals, we follow the BIPs process which e= xists to help ecosystem-wide co-ordination. A detailed and complete specifi= cation allows others to re-implement the BIP in their own software and also= acts as part of the consensus building process and peer review process.

There's nothing wrong with hard forks per se, an= d this list is certain a good place to discuss proposals, but releasing har= d fork software without establishing community wide consensus and without c= learly labelling your product as such is just not cricket. If I may cast yo= ur attention back a few weeks ago, Johnson Lau released a hard fork client = _testnet_ as part of his research project which was announced on this list.= It was clearly labelled. This Bitcoin Classic announcement was not clearly= labelled (and released on mainnet).


On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 8:12= PM, Chris Priest via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.l= inuxfoundation.org> wrote:
= Bitcoin Classic only activates if 75% of the network adopts it. That
is not irresponsible or dangerous. It would only be dangerous if it
activates at 50%, because that would create a situation where its not
clear which side of the fork has the most proof of work.

On 1/7/17, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>= ; wrote:
> Your release announcement does not make it clear that Bitcoin Classic = is
> incompatible with the current Bitcoin network and its consensus rules.= It
> is a hard fork on mainnet with no safe activation as well as including=
> other unsafe changes. There is also no BIP for the hard fork. There is= also
> no evidence of community wide consensus for such a hard fork. This is<= br> > dangerous and irresponsible.
>
>
> It's wrong to announce software without correctly informing people= about
> the contents or risks. Furthermore, there are no release notes in
> https://github.com/bitcoin= classic/bitcoinclassic/tree/v1.2.0/doc nor
> changelog. Without those, it is almost impossible for average users to= know
> what is under the hood or what has changed and time consuming for
> developers to assess.
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@l= ists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Bitcoin Classic version 1.2.0 is now available from;
>>
>>=C2=A0 <https://bitcoinclassic.com/get= tingstarted.html>
>>
>> This is a new major version release, including new features, vario= us
>> bugfixes and performance improvements.
>>
>> This release marks a change in strategy for Bitcoin Classic, movin= g from
>> the
>> very conservative block size proposal based on compromise to one w= here
>> Classic truly innovates and provides a long term solution for the = market
>> to
>> choose and leave behind the restrictions of the old.
>>
>> The most visible change in this version is the decentralised block= size
>> solution where node operators decide on the maximum size.
>>
>> Bitcoin Classic is focused on providing users a way to get onto th= e
>> Bitcoin
>> network using a high quality validating node for a large set of us= e
>> cases.
>> Classic presents top notch quality processes in this release, to h= elp
>> anyone
>> running Bitcoin.
>>
>> We include in this release various projects with the beta label. P= eople
>> who
>> want to use the Classic node as an on-ramp to Bitcoin will find th= em
>> interesting. These projects will need to be enabled in the config = by
>> those
>> that want to test them.
>>
>> More background information on this release and Classic can be see= n in
>> this
>> video: https://vimeo.com/192789752
>> The full release notes are on github at
>> https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/releases/tag/v1.2.0
>>
>> --
>> Tom Zander
>> Blog: https://zander.github.io
>> Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscrypt= ochannel
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-d= ev@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

--001a114f1e5476eeb6054587a247--