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 675A1A7C for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 11:51:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qk0-f171.google.com (mail-qk0-f171.google.com [209.85.220.171]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C280171 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 11:51:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk0-f171.google.com with SMTP id 16so70891330qkg.2 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 04:51:15 -0700 (PDT) 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; bh=xFgAz28+cdnBCC8Fx3o2+IUazhPtvbLXK2G3/rzXs6o=; b=rAFFVQSv9IMS9pKFJcBectnWJQ2dAeoBXcU7XsUlk3oyzY/hlt/6LGS8faB8h2xt1R yQCHzsWLY/5BHppXdU9UZJkBTFzr8Aebox8KnlObUqpzm1WvAD4uDTUo3Qm/PzsCqVoM d1T6wJL+RAsbwg6QSi36/EUNd6hKBH7QAs010Agjuv5bK9Kq8uacaYnAowJSuUrULTaE qlUVphiWpPYwn1DUwIw8UvG38r5wLqCtQR31r1cnlEI3S4AsvLsMls9vkKg4lgiI8pLw wflFOipPORQ016vhFukeHbmTgA9QlLlUKSAMEyXTmtr5vAawhNu2tceQ2i2XxgjWW71M +onQ== 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; bh=xFgAz28+cdnBCC8Fx3o2+IUazhPtvbLXK2G3/rzXs6o=; b=LgAmzSU1tnOZnIW1YE/IFwaCJ+5bWDOGwebD5EAVXkXQl36llMrBhuhBnsHT7z2VE3 NglnmRRKZwHFMcNX+1zbrQRacTeJpV9FsYFoIjh0ATimINsSpIVvr1HR+p3M7JZGU5Ev zABV1qcFTRIWbxizHtNgxNGTTgiwuBjWNcPtxv3Ba212he3A+3eKJTjus5lI0pTKed0x OI6VyXWWu7thG6tdRvPd1721TDQhAjF+RQenX4Cvapnwf6UmgniJ71YlDfvT74qGO7Pn PcajpB/88WMH9/nSb6xmiEeCKvaORg+x8vedRKlCumkAZQ4IM5KgWhzSef89q72UW2DX Sv8g== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw110Gf/H9Jxfyi9qjFwqH82fybTZQ1XrLpgGdgOJyJE+Iw8hsJ1gd 3Id28Vc6KmdgLHtEHCrG7qulDOcDS5nZ5JY= X-Received: by 10.55.165.200 with SMTP id o191mr3226657qke.47.1499687474420; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 04:51:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.135.113 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 04:50:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Sergio Demian Lerner Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 08:50:33 -0300 Message-ID: To: bitcoin-dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c06ad2a2fe33d0553f533e4" X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,TVD_APPROVED autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Segwit2x BIP 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: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 11:51:16 -0000 --94eb2c06ad2a2fe33d0553f533e4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Thank you for all your comments. I will improve the BIP based on the technical suggestions received. On the subjective/political side that has slipped into this discussion. Skip this part if not interested in politics. Regarding the timeline, its certainly rather short, but also is the UASF BIP 148 ultimatum. If Bitcoin were a democracy and we had somehow a way to securely perform a referendum, then this will solve easily. But neither is true. At least now. More than 80% of the miners and many users are willing to go in the Segwit2x direction. With the support and great talent of the Bitcoin Core developers, Segwit2x activation will not cause any major disruptions. Without Core, there will be a temporary split. Both sides will have to hard-fork. I want a Bitcoin united. But maybe a split of Bitcoin, each side with its own vision, is not so bad. On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Brian Hoffman wrote: > I don't feel threatened by investors. You're full of shit btcdrak. > > Proofread your emails. You just declared support for segwit2x. > > On Jul 8, 2017, at 9:28 AM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > I am utterly appalled by this proposal both technically, ethically, and by > the process which it has adopted. Hard forks require consensus from the > entire ecosystem in order to prevent a fork, funds loss, confusion and harm > to the robust guarantees of the Bitcoin system has thus far displayed. > > I know this is a draft, but you are seeking reviews of a proposal that has > just a few weeks remaining before deployment (where "technical review" is > pointless because the is not actually open unless > you are an approved member > ), > making it totally unworkable and irresponsible. For example, exactly how > are other implementations supposed to adopt the BIP in such a short > timeframe? For all the talk of how important "alternative implementations" > are, how does this rash and rushed action promote an ecosystem of multiple > implementors? By encouraging fast upgrades, you are actually centralizing > the ecosystem even further. > > The linked coded doesn't uniquely identify itself on the network by > user-agent, something all distinct implementations have done to date. > > The draft BIP text looks like an afterthought and doesn't actually specify > the proposal in enough detail to implement from the text. By contrast for > example, BIP141 has a level of detail which allowed others to implement > segwit without looking at any reference code (which consequently results to > more confidence and testing of the specification all round). The Bitcoin > system has a market cap of over $40bn supported by a robust and reliable > network and your proposal is an offence to all Bitcoin has achieved because > due to it's the strong foundations. > > I cannot not support this proposal in the current form and timeline, nor > do I support the coercion that has been used behind closed doors to try and > gain more support (not limited to, but including approaching company > investors to twist arms and veiled threats of blacklisting companies from > further funding/collaboration). > > I think the best you can hope for this hard fork proposal is for it to be > quietly ignored. > > > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:25 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> Here is a BIP that matches the reference code that the Segwit2x group has >> built and published a week ago. >> >> This BIP and code satisfies the requests of a large part of the Bitcoin >> community for a moderate increase in the Bitcoin non-witness block space >> coupled with the activation of Segwit. >> >> You can find the BIP draft in the following link: >> >> https://github.com/SergioDemianLerner/BIPs/blob/master/BIP- >> draft-sergiolerner-segwit2x.mediawiki >> >> Reference source was kindly provided by the Segwit2x group. >> >> Best regards, >> Sergio. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > --94eb2c06ad2a2fe33d0553f533e4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thank you for all your comments. I will improve the BIP ba= sed on the technical suggestions received.=C2=A0

On the = subjective/political side that has slipped into this discussion. Skip this = part if not interested in politics.

Regarding the = timeline, its certainly rather short, but also is the UASF BIP 148 ultimatu= m.=C2=A0

If Bitcoin were a democracy and we had so= mehow a way to securely perform a referendum, then this will solve easily. = But neither is true. At least now.

More than = 80% of the miners and many users are willing to go in the Segwit2x directio= n. With the support and great talent of the Bitcoin Core developers, Segwit= 2x activation will not cause any major disruptions. Without Core, there wil= l be a temporary split. Both sides will have to hard-fork.

I want a Bitcoin united. But maybe a split of Bitcoin, each side w= ith its own vision, is not so bad.
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Brian Hoffman = <bri= an@ob1.io> wrote:
I don't feel threatened by investors. You're full of= shit btcdrak.

Proofread your emails. You just declared support for = segwit2x.

On Jul 8, 2017, at 9:28 AM, = Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org= > wrote:

I = am utterly appalled by this proposal both technically, ethically, and by th= e process which it has adopted. Hard forks require consensus from the entir= e ecosystem in order to prevent a fork, funds loss, confusion and harm to t= he robust guarantees of the Bitcoin system has thus far displayed.

=
I know this is a draft, but you are seeking reviews of a proposa= l that has just a few weeks remaining before deployment (where "techni= cal review" is pointless because the is not actually open=C2=A0unless you are an = ap= proved member), making it totally unworkable and irresponsible. For exa= mple, exactly how are other implementations supposed to adopt the BIP in su= ch a short timeframe? For all the talk of how important "alternative i= mplementations" are, how does this rash and rushed action promote an e= cosystem of multiple implementors? By encouraging fast upgrades, you are ac= tually centralizing the ecosystem even further.=C2=A0

<= div>The linked coded doesn't uniquely identify itself on the network by= user-agent, something all distinct implementations have done to date.

The draft BIP text looks like an afterthought and does= n't actually specify the proposal in enough detail to implement from th= e text. By contrast for example, BIP141 has a level of detail which allowed= others to implement segwit without looking at any reference code (which co= nsequently results to more confidence and testing of the specification all = round). The Bitcoin system has a market cap of over $40bn supported by a ro= bust and reliable network and your proposal is an offence to all Bitcoin ha= s achieved because due to it's the strong foundations.

I cannot not support this proposal in the current form and timelin= e, nor do I support the coercion that has been used behind closed doors to = try and gain more support (not limited to, but including approaching compan= y investors to twist arms and veiled threats of blacklisting companies from= further funding/collaboration).

I think the b= est you can hope for this hard fork proposal is for it to be quietly ignore= d.



=
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:25 PM, Sergio Demian L= erner via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfou= ndation.org> wrote:
Hello,

Here is a BIP that matches t= he reference code that the Segwit2x group has built and published a week ag= o.=C2=A0

This BIP and code satisfies the requests = of a large part of the Bitcoin community for a moderate increase in the Bit= coin non-witness block space coupled with the activation of Segwit.

You can find the BIP draft in the following link:

https://gi= thub.com/SergioDemianLerner/BIPs/blob/master/BIP-draft-sergiolern= er-segwit2x.mediawiki

Reference source was = kindly provided by the Segwit2x group.

Best regard= s,
=C2=A0Sergio.

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


___________________= ____________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list<= /span>
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listin= fo/bitcoin-dev

--94eb2c06ad2a2fe33d0553f533e4--