From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z4HtU-00077C-Jq for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 00:04:52 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from mout.perfora.net ([74.208.4.197]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z4HtT-00058K-7x for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 00:04:52 +0000 Received: from mail-qg0-f52.google.com ([209.85.192.52]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LtH6j-1ZArOI2CNv-012p5Q for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 02:04:45 +0200 Received: by qgfg8 with SMTP id g8so3966150qgf.2 for ; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 17:04:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.97.136 with SMTP id m8mr32270640qge.32.1434326685029; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 17:04:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.96.20.164 with HTTP; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 17:04:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 02:04:44 +0200 Message-ID: From: Adam Back To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:grQlTxRP88Bvrx7A/Soj6DVHkYfzgrUtXFxQNmw9nGc+Ev9lKik WWLHGmzT5RcB6LubwjbbWgL+Zd1/stRDiyLA7HBUx3Nat91aQh3k6eqkxU0MvabYhxFwxyd mxGIEoSUzrzq+hB1F8zq1jMTsKCJT5BdtV4s8IO4O/q9NfJDbL+7WpPJgCjpLVCnXPZFbuN 0S5wtRpSEd81MNqGF1MUA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:sIMuCzD6xNk=:Y/AMqIzjPlRK6pg8qpY40c NnrTaodqEMTR7glJn5GHp4adfG3v79i42teov7vDWKAKlVzBcvJYMsR9ZUCmeI2mzxfIkPJ9b WEi+aoSdOdnJwy9tsIUYyi5EHM/p0EVhv0pbajdQpJDT+sW4YUBWgv8inZGIY+TClJGyM9OyU Dpfb34pyOKlZf8QtdYibCIXqrZhUrfF/idOv/q2z4vw8kvsk1VtPZLdegMES4/+Mx46Yc0N42 b7tN1Zhb6SRHGd1KM+XTr8Z0T5815mKq7HKY9IiIBNA7O4+cviq+/wEHOByHreLewE3KnyxNg gaEHFqxpqz03fGf0wNvY/ybdST99YtHNQ3c10do4JF30bsAm7SYDcJP4KACBYNMEK2mWqlaTP ydsntRxdRg3NuwX+Fw4bXYvi6gghlPzY1sQAEHecpD58u+TFvT3RE/ahCY39jTLdu4p2740ra 087Kha21TlDmald0wljVS7JP/BqaEAVevQ3FkY6neOo40Nomwepp5h796EM1vJwKY0qb/IN9G zlfttV8hA36Pz7MK43x6uzbZ1JB2HB+DO4C7yyFYz9cjtbXrpr3o7Zo4MYheRN1Qeg4RrMly3 jc1PNh+OK/Jz/AQhGYLQuC+Zm26zhRybv3mDdeB4fcFIf8iaF8mN2vySgeA80HpB1oCZf3BEQ 9TlEbfYKmxZFbLMFRO3uLhqfobaFa6R1NEQ3mXdT3B597Zg== X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [74.208.4.197 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record X-Headers-End: 1Z4HtT-00058K-7x Subject: [Bitcoin-development] questions about bitcoin-XT code fork & non-consensus hard-fork X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 00:04:52 -0000 Mike Hearn wrote: > Which is why there will soon be a fork that does it. I understand why you would be keen to scale bitcoin, everyone here is. But as you seem to be saying that you will do a unilateral hard-fork, and fork the code-base simultaneously, probably a number of people have questions, so I'll start with some: ( I noticed some of your initial thoughts are online here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0 or the full podcast https://epicenterbitcoin.com/podcast/082/ ) - Are you releasing a BIP for that proposal for review? - If the reviewers all say NACK will you take on board their suggestions? - On the idea of a non-consensus hard-fork at all, I think we can assume you will get a row of NACKs. Can you explain your rationale for going ahead anyway? The risks are well understood and enormous. - How do you propose to deal with the extra risks that come from non-consensus hard-forks? Hard-forks themselves are quite risky, but non-consensus ones are extremely dangerous for consensus. - If you're going it alone as it were, are you proposing that you will personally maintain bitcoin-XT? Or do you have a plan to later hand over maintenance to the bitcoin developers? - Do you have contingency plans for what to do if the non-consensus hard-fork goes wrong and $3B is lost as a result? As you can probably tell I think a unilateral fork without wide-scale consensus from the technical and business communities is a deeply inadvisable. While apparently some companies have expressed interest in increased scale, I can only assume they do no yet understand the risks. I suggest before they would actually go ahead that they seek independent advice. Of the overall process, I think you can agree we should not be making technical decisions with this level of complexity and consensus risk with financial implications of this magnitude under duress of haste? This seems otherwise a little like the moral hazard of the 2008 financial collapse that Satoshi put the quote in the genesis block about. I think its best that we progress as Jeff Garzik has done to have engineering discussions centre around BIPs, running code for review, simulation and careful analysis. I understand this has been going on for a long time, and some people are frustrated with the rate of progress, but making hasty, contentious or unilateral actions in this space is courting disaster. Please use your considerable skills to, along with the rest of the community, work on this problem collaboratively. I can sincerely assure you everyone does want to scale bitcoin and shares your long term objective on that. Adam