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 EEB267AA for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:36:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.196]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 539701BD for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:36:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-f181.google.com ([209.85.213.181]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LlXVp-1YtOI20vJ9-00bNaw for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 16:36:49 +0200 Received: by igfj19 with SMTP id j19so56789718igf.1 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:36:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.50.175 with SMTP id d15mr16873943igo.18.1439822208626; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:36:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.104.198 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:36:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <64C86292-6671-4729-8A77-63C081797F62@gmail.com> References: <20150817100918.BD1F343128@smtp.hushmail.com> <1439815244.89850.YahooMailBasic@web173102.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <20150817133438.DDD4243128@smtp.hushmail.com> <64C86292-6671-4729-8A77-63C081797F62@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:36:48 +0100 Message-ID: From: Adam Back To: Eric Lombrozo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:95XvfTwdJauS0ykpMMJSGRpGMZ4Sl3q8OtAg8rh9xgPkO9Sl8Q3 0frZ7oEBPraGPWUXUveOcO9ZvYstWZ2rjuB0Gy0dRRFkebT8vxoNcbLb1DTkXRDLm29zv7X iHfpb+hvnV74qfLkFwC83BkS3cqAJRBmOCKer9aQha+QfZ2cGqwlAWdW7VY9fChdjP7Emxj kRynpPxUttBxeHlIj0YMQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:RZ1wiXbnl0E=:o/O2rLYB8bh8Q7dF3d6r2A OeXxXTPgzndbeIoy7Petu+Jh7oVSApAc1x992OyboVORmqDpi5+lwtyAk7gfDX5Vq8+TDjay2 unx64iRp/xVoDxMzNCFGSHuJ9YfMFnX+Ni6rnkpKKuqj/Nii/Zu2Wd8rqMqyAZDCZU+PDDPwl 8EdKZ/E/rfdu9d4B25rTQnTJ/eDLaHAMe5uVx7QhGwU0cwc14Kt2RQN6Sn/8vhBCTF8AgVjpx ZKghgsGsfgmwh9saWP7XaFx9xa3lbUa38s4pAbMDWk8CgT+epiS3i3FqsOo0uiuZSCiDx5Z5d rA0umWVKiy/GUgG1Ws6HTcSDoe99wVfrkDYxJ8RA1HMvdwMFxANZuVBszg8kd8zOJVrqjUz6S I7GOxcVEsmUyTROtoXIMMMNhY2VsIcZKbJT9ACqJRTDuNcky1qO82svDg4baU8pbBONvDLK9B KMtzUJ25AFSsbC+nlH/FkLLe0zbXbDfgLfD+Hw6MbB22sVTpn0MmtR1RoBDtkrnEWKMC9NvWa qlpyzGKZb/uRywv7ZWYAT/i0Ga1GzLgkoOeSqAX3h5YaNERTXBfvps5Jwz3h4ZLDLVqWy1IM6 edq0fCCuesvAueT0ZEUOvpuU+z0eeZ4U5Spf2obkDU6JP4IRpWmKvLrHNFQCtaMo+GAsI1Ptd IS+VHxaw4Vah7TaQIlvphNdCZj4IzCskSi5LLPqpNGRa3o08dho69AbGM1N0xj/VOlkBGJGsU XHy19ikuFXvwZqOX 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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT 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: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:36:52 -0000 Thank you Eric for saying what needs to be said. Starting a fork war is just not constructive and there are multiple proposals being evaluated here. I think that one thing that is not being so much focussed on is Bitcoin-XT is both a hard-fork and a soft-fork. It's a hard-fork on Bitcoin full-nodes, but it is also a soft-fork attack on Bitcoin core SPV nodes that did not opt-in. It exposes those SPV nodes to loss in the likely event that Bitcoin-XT results in a network-split. The recent proposal here to run noXT (patch to falsely claim to mine on XT while actually rejecting it's blocks) could add enough uncertainty about the activation that Bitcoin-XT would probably have to be aborted. Adam On 17 August 2015 at 15:03, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev wrote: > NxtChg, > > In the entire history of Bitcoin we=E2=80=99ve never attempted anything e= ven closely resembling a hard fork like what=E2=80=99s being proposed here. > > Many of us have wanted to push our own hard-forking changes to the protoc= ol=E2=80=A6and have been frustrated because of the inability to do so. > > This inability is not due to any malice on anyone=E2=80=99s part=E2=80=A6= it is a feature of Satoshi=E2=80=99s protocol. For better or worse, it is *= very hard* to change the rules=E2=80=A6and this is exactly what imbues Bitc= oin with one of its most powerful attributes: very well-defined settlement = guarantees that cannot be suddenly altered nor reversed by anyone. > > We=E2=80=99ve managed to have a few soft forks in the past=E2=80=A6and fo= r the most part these changes have been pretty uncontroversial=E2=80=A6or a= t least, they have not had nearly the level of political divisiveness that = this block size issue is having. And even then, we=E2=80=99ve encountered a= number of problems with these deployments that have at times required good= will cooperation between developers and mining pool operators to fix. > > Again, we have NEVER attempted anything even remotely like what=E2=80=99s= being proposed - we=E2=80=99ve never done any sort of hard fork before lik= e this. If even fairly uncontroversial soft forks have caused problems, can= you imagine the kinds of potential problems that a hard fork over some hig= hly polarizing issue might raise? Do you really think people are going to w= ant to cooperate?!? > > I can understand that some people would like bigger blocks. Other people = might want feature X, others feature Y=E2=80=A6and we can argue the merits = of this or that to death=E2=80=A6but the fact remains that we have NEVER at= tempted any hard forking change=E2=80=A6not even with a simple, totally unc= ontroversial no-brainer improvement that would not risk any sort of ill-wil= l that could hamper remedies were it not to go as smoothly as we like. *THI= S* is the fundamental problem - the whole bigger block thing is a minor iss= ue by comparison=E2=80=A6it could be any controversial change, really. > > Would you want to send your test pilots on their first flight=E2=80=A6the= first time an aircraft is ever flown=E2=80=A6directly into combat without = having tested the plane? This is what attempting a hard fork mechanism that= =E2=80=99s NEVER been done before in such a politically divisive environmen= t basically amounts to=E2=80=A6but it=E2=80=99s even worse. We=E2=80=99re b= asically risking the entire air force (not just one plane) over an argument= regarding how many seats a plane should have that we=E2=80=99ve never flow= n before. > > We=E2=80=99re talking billlions of dollars=E2=80=99 worth of other people= =E2=80=99s money that is on the line here. Don=E2=80=99t we owe it to them = to at least test out the system on a far less controversial, far less divis= ive change first to make sure we can even deploy it without things breaking= ? I don=E2=80=99t even care about the merits regarding bigger blocks vs. sm= aller blocks at this point, to be quite honest - that=E2=80=99s such a pett= y thing compared to what I=E2=80=99m talking about here. If we attempt a no= vel hard-forking mechanism that=E2=80=99s NEVER been attempted before (and = which as many have pointed out is potentially fraught with serious problems= ) on such a politically divisive, polarizing issue, the result is each side= will refuse to cooperate with the other out of spite=E2=80=A6and can easil= y lead to a war, tanking the value of everyone=E2=80=99s assets on both cha= ins. All so we can process 8 times the number of transactions we currently = do? Even if it were 100 times, we wouldn=E2=80=99t even come close to touch= ing big payment processors like Visa. It=E2=80=99s hard to imagine a protoc= ol improvement that=E2=80=99s worth the risk. > > I urge you to at least try to see the bigger picture here=E2=80=A6and to = understand that nobody is trying to stop anyone from doing anything out of = some desire for maintaining control - NONE of us are able to deploy hard fo= rks right now without facing these problems. And different people obviously= have different priorities and preferences as to which of these changes wou= ld be best to do first. This whole XT thing is essentially giving *one* pro= posal special treatment above those that others have proposed. Many of us h= ave only held back from doing this out of our belief that goodwill amongst = network participants is more important than trying to push some pet feature= some of us want. > > Please stop this negativity - we ALL want the best for Bitcoin and are do= ing our best, given what we understand and know, to do what=E2=80=99s right= .