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 95D13895 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:55:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f174.google.com (mail-io0-f174.google.com [209.85.223.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D1D41B5 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:55:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iodb91 with SMTP id b91so116812085iod.1 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:55:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=wtDLflsjrqi+do9jCvgOaRl9Fkmi/91TC7Hax2Crj2M=; b=YrRrhnjjHssdh0mBy+50qDiXf1Noc5aJqA78npvli7nua7AzCMvje0OQKrK3mbzPUZ DsXb4Ch+7zIAoYUyeKCszN/YwTEXoY5+cXYE+finfVm6tp8fDfIVGJL3qx1/e2CnwQQi aE1vd/6Ot8DX3JTi3jHeg8Oo5UTnO1VAlxeB9RdJvxPj89fchqXEpzYA/JItbiJBFVcB ge6yt/DYjCBLrigDuVrU7T1chHy2RxU1oXh250wuic2A2wXFQ2VSS214QW2dIiq2VH2U 03xZrbo+NcEqRcHxsspp7qfyvP7O+C91jtBAcWGTKlFQKILiAvfi3FBeADNR7fffb9sS y9pg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkx+TZHvDko14jHLjNE3UI4SrVlEzxk0aoFKriQPSmkBUg4EI1McDLizLFgttqeGLTBZjwL MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.11.67 with SMTP id v64mr56328821ioi.105.1439679317672; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:55:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.138.14 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:55:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [172.56.40.188] Received: by 10.107.138.14 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:55:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:55:17 -0700 Message-ID: From: Mark Friedenbach To: Ken Friece Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113f9694521c21051d61760e X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, 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] Bitcoin XT 0.11A 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: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:55:20 -0000 --001a113f9694521c21051d61760e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I would like very much to know how it is that we're supposed to be making money off of lightning, and therefore how it represents a conflict of interest. Apparently there is tons of money to be made in releasing open-source protocols! I would hate to miss out on that. We are working on lightning because Mike of all people said, essentially, " if you're so fond of micro payment channels, why aren't you working on them?" And he was right! So we looked around and found the best proposal and funded it. On Aug 15, 2015 3:28 PM, "Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I know full well who works for Blockstream and I know you're not one of > those folks. The Blockstream core devs are very vocal against a reasonabl= e > blocksize increase (17% growth per year in Pieter's BIP is not what I > consider reasonable because it doesn't come close to keeping with > technological increases). I think we can both agree that more on-chain > space means less demand for lightning, and vice versa, which is a blatant > conflict of interest. > > I'm also trying to figure out how things like lightning are not competing > directly with miners for fees. More off-chain transactions means less > blockchain demand, which would lower on-chain fees. I'm not sure what is > controversial about that statement. > > The lightning network concept is actually a brilliant way to take fees > away from miners without having to make any investment at all in SSH-256 > ASIC mining hardware. > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Eric Lombrozo > wrote: > >> >> On Aug 15, 2015, at 3:01 PM, Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >> What are you so afraid of, Eric? If Mike's fork is successful, consensus >> is reached around larger blocks. If it is rejected, the status quo will >> remain for now. Network consensus, NOT CORE DEVELOPER CONSENSUS, is the >> only thing that matters, and those that go against network consensus wil= l >> be severely punished with complete loss of income. >> >> >> I fully agree that core developers are not the only people who should >> have a say in this. But again, we=E2=80=99re not talking about merely fo= rking some >> open source project - we=E2=80=99re talking about forking a ledger repre= senting >> real assets that real people are holding=E2=80=A6and I think it=E2=80=99= s fair to say that >> the risk of permanent ledger forks far outweighs whatever benefits any >> change in the protocol might bring. And this would be true even if there >> were unanimous agreement that the change is good (which there clearly IS >> NOT in this case) but the deployment mechanism could still break things. >> >> If anything we should attempt a hard fork with a less contentious change >> first, just to test deployability. >> >> I'm not sure who appointed the core devs some sort of Bitcoin Gods that >> can hold up any change that they happen to disagree with. It seems like = the >> core devs are scared to death that the bitcoin network may change withou= t >> their blessing, so they go on and on about how terrible hard forks are. >> Hard forks are the only way to keep core devs in check. >> >> >> Again, let=E2=80=99s figure out a hard fork mechanism and test it with a= far less >> contentious change first >> >> Despite significant past technical bitcoin achievements, two of the most >> vocal opponents to a reasonable blocksize increase work for a company >> (Blockstream) that stands to profit directly from artificially limiting = the >> blocksize. The whole situation reeks. Because of such a blatant conflict= of >> interest, the ethical thing to do would be for them to either resign fro= m >> Blockstream or immediately withdraw themselves from the blocksize debate= . >> This is the type of stuff that I hoped would end with Bitcoin, but alas,= I >> guess human nature never changes. >> >> >> For the record, I do not work for Blockstream. Neither do a bunch of >> other people who have published a number of concerns. Very few of the >> concerns I=E2=80=99ve seen from the technical community seem to be motiv= ated >> primarily by profit motives. >> >> It should also be pointed out that *not* making drastic changes is the >> default consensus policy=E2=80=A6and the burden of justifying a change f= alls on >> those who want to make the change. Again, the risk of permanent ledger >> forks far outweighs whatever benefits protocol changes might bring. >> >> Personally, I think miners should give Bitcoin XT a serious look. Miners >> need to realize that they are in direct competition with the lightning >> network and sidechains for fees. Miners, ask yourselves if you think you= 'll >> earn more fees with 1 MB blocks and more off-chain transactions or with = 8 >> MB blocks and more on-chain transactions=E2=80=A6 >> >> >> Miners are NOT in direct competition with the lightning network and >> sidechains - these claims are patently false. I recommend you take a loo= k >> at these ideas and understand them a little better before trying to make >> any such claims. Again, I do not work for Blockstream=E2=80=A6and my age= nda in this >> post is not to promote either of these ideas=E2=80=A6but with all due re= spect, I do >> not think you properly understand them at all. >> >> The longer this debate drags on, the more I agree with BIP 100 and Jeff >> Garzik because the core devs are already being influenced by outside for= ces >> and should not have complete control of the blocksize. It's also >> interesting to note that most of the mining hashpower is already voting = for >> 8MB blocks BIP100 style. >> >> >> I don=E2=80=99t think the concern here is so much that some people want = to >> increase block size. It=E2=80=99s the *way* in which this change is bein= g pushed >> that is deeply problematic. >> >> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >>> You deeply disappoint me, Mike. >>> >>> Not only do you misrepresent many cogent, well thought out positions >>> from a great number of people who have published and posted a number of >>> articles detailing an explaining in-depth technical concerns=E2=80=A6yo= u also seem >>> to fancy yourself more capable of reading into the intentions of someon= e >>> who disappeared from the scene years ago, before we even were fully awa= re >>> of many things we now know that bring the original =E2=80=9Cplan=E2=80= =9D into question. >>> >>> I ask of you, as a civilized human being, to stop doing this divisive >>> crap. Despite your protestations to the contrary, YOU are the one who i= s >>> proposing a radical departure from the direction of the project. Also, = as >>> several of us have clearly stated before, equating the fork of an open >>> source project with a fork of a cryptoledger is completely bogus - ther= e=E2=80=99s >>> a lot of other people=E2=80=99s money at stake. This isn=E2=80=99t a de= mocracy - consensus >>> is all or nothing. The fact that a good number of the people most >>> intimately familiar with the inner workings of Satoshi=E2=80=99s invent= ion do not >>> believe doing this is a good idea should give you pause. >>> >>> Please stop using Bitcoin as your own political football=E2=80=A6for th= e sake of >>> Bitcoin=E2=80=A6and for your own sake. Despite your obvious technical a= bilities >>> (and I sincerely do believe you have them) you are discrediting yoursel= f >>> and hurting your own reputation. >>> >>> >>> - Eric >>> >>> On Aug 15, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev < >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> As promised, we have released Bitcoin XT 0.11A which includes the bigge= r >>> blocks patch set. You can get it from >>> >>> https://bitcoinxt.software/ >>> >>> I feel sad that it's come to this, but there is no other way. The >>> Bitcoin Core project has drifted so far from the principles myself and = many >>> others feel are important, that a fork is the only way to fix things. >>> >>> Forking is a natural thing in the open source community, Bitcoin is not >>> the first and won't be the last project to go through this. Often in fo= rks, >>> people say there was insufficient communication. So to ensure everythin= g is >>> crystal clear I've written a blog post and a kind of "manifesto" to >>> describe why this is happening and how XT plans to be different from Co= re >>> (assuming adoption, of course). >>> >>> The article is here: >>> >>> https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1 >>> >>> It makes no attempt to be neutral: this explains things from our point >>> of view. >>> >>> The manifesto is on the website. >>> >>> I say to all developers on this list: if you also feel that Core is no >>> longer serving the interests of Bitcoin users, come join us. We don't b= ite. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > --001a113f9694521c21051d61760e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I would like very much to know how it is that we're supp= osed to be making money off of lightning, and therefore how it represents a= conflict of interest. Apparently there is tons of money to be made in rele= asing open-source protocols! I would hate to miss out on that.

We are working on lightning because Mike of all people said,= essentially, " if you're so fond of micro payment channels, why a= ren't you working on them?" And he was right! So we looked around = and found the best proposal and funded it.

On Aug 15, 2015 3:28 PM, "Ken Friece via bi= tcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
I know full w= ell who works for Blockstream and I know you're not one of those folks.= The Blockstream core devs are very vocal against a reasonable blocksize in= crease (17% growth per year in Pieter's BIP is not what I consider reas= onable because it doesn't come close to keeping with technological incr= eases). I think we can both agree that more on-chain space means less deman= d for lightning, and vice versa, which is a blatant conflict of interest.
I'm also trying to figure out how things like lightning are= not competing directly with miners for fees. More off-chain transactions m= eans less blockchain demand, which would lower on-chain fees. I'm not s= ure what is controversial about that statement.

The light= ning network concept is actually a brilliant way to take fees away from min= ers without having to make any investment at all in SSH-256 ASIC mining har= dware.

On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@= gmail.com> wrote:

On Aug = 15, 2015, at 3:01 PM, Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linu= xfoundation.org> wrote:

Wha= t are you so afraid of, Eric? If Mike's fork is successful, consensus i= s reached around larger blocks. If it is rejected, the status quo will rema= in for now. Network consensus, NOT CORE DEVELOPER CONSENSUS, is the only th= ing that matters, and those that go against network consensus will be sever= ely punished with complete loss of income.

I fully agree that core developers are not the only = people who should have a say in this. But again, we=E2=80=99re not talking = about merely forking some open source project - we=E2=80=99re talking about= forking a ledger representing real assets that real people are holding=E2= =80=A6and I think it=E2=80=99s fair to say that the risk of permanent ledge= r forks far outweighs whatever benefits any change in the protocol might br= ing. And this would be true even if there were unanimous agreement that the= change is good (which there clearly IS NOT in this case) but the deploymen= t mechanism could still break things.

If anything = we should attempt a hard fork with a less contentious change first, just to= test deployability.

I'm not sure who appointed the core devs s= ome sort of Bitcoin Gods that can hold up any change that they happen to di= sagree with. It seems like the core devs are scared to death that the bitco= in network may change without their blessing, so they go on and on about ho= w terrible hard forks are. Hard forks are the only way to keep core devs in= check.

Again, let= =E2=80=99s figure out a hard fork mechanism and test it with a far less con= tentious change first

Despite significant past technical bitcoin achievements, two of th= e most vocal opponents to a reasonable blocksize increase work for a compan= y (Blockstream) that stands to profit directly from artificially limiting t= he blocksize. The whole situation reeks. Because of such a blatant conflict= of interest, the ethical thing to do would be for them to either resign fr= om Blockstream or immediately withdraw themselves from the blocksize debate= . This is the type of stuff that I hoped would end with Bitcoin, but alas, = I guess human nature never changes.
=
For the record, I do not work for Blockstream. Neither do a = bunch of other people who have published a number of concerns. Very few of = the concerns I=E2=80=99ve seen from the technical community seem to be moti= vated primarily by profit motives.

It should also = be pointed out that *not* making drastic changes is the default consensus p= olicy=E2=80=A6and the burden of justifying a change falls on those who want= to make the change. Again, the risk of permanent ledger forks far outweigh= s whatever benefits protocol changes might bring.

Personally, I think miners should give= Bitcoin XT a serious look. Miners need to realize that they are in direct = competition with the lightning network and sidechains for fees. Miners, ask= yourselves if you think you'll earn more fees with 1 MB blocks and mor= e off-chain transactions or with 8 MB blocks and more on-chain transactions= =E2=80=A6

Miners are NOT i= n direct competition with the lightning network and sidechains - these clai= ms are patently false. I recommend you take a look at these ideas and under= stand them a little better before trying to make any such claims. Again, I = do not work for Blockstream=E2=80=A6and my agenda in this post is not to pr= omote either of these ideas=E2=80=A6but with all due respect, I do not thin= k you properly understand them at all.

The longer this debate drags on, the more I agree w= ith BIP 100 and Jeff Garzik because the core devs are already being influen= ced by outside forces and should not have complete control of the blocksize= . It's also interesting to note that most of the mining hashpower is al= ready voting for 8MB blocks BIP100 style. =C2=A0

I don=E2=80=99t think the concern here is so much that s= ome people want to increase block size. It=E2=80=99s the *way* in which thi= s change is being pushed that is deeply problematic.

On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Eric Lom= brozo via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundati= on.org> wrote:
You deeply disappoint me, Mike.
Not only do you misrepresent many cogent, well thought out pos= itions from a great number of people who have published and posted a number= of articles detailing an explaining in-depth technical concerns=E2=80=A6yo= u also seem to fancy yourself more capable of reading into the intentions o= f someone who disappeared from the scene years ago, before we even were ful= ly aware of many things we now know that bring the original =E2=80=9Cplan= =E2=80=9D into question.

I ask of you, as a civili= zed human being, to stop doing this divisive crap. Despite your protestatio= ns to the contrary, YOU are the one who is proposing a radical departure fr= om the direction of the project. Also, as several of us have clearly stated= before, equating the fork of an open source project with a fork of a crypt= oledger is completely bogus - there=E2=80=99s a lot of other people=E2=80= =99s money at stake. This isn=E2=80=99t a democracy - consensus is all or n= othing. The fact that a good number of the people most intimately familiar = with the inner workings of Satoshi=E2=80=99s invention do not believe doing= this is a good idea should give you pause.

Please= stop using Bitcoin as your own political football=E2=80=A6for the sake of = Bitcoin=E2=80=A6and for your own sake. Despite your obvious technical abili= ties (and I sincerely do believe you have them) you are discrediting yourse= lf and hurting your own reputation.


- Eric

On Aug= 15, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.li= nuxfoundation.org> wrote:

Hello,
=
As promised, we have released Bitcoin XT 0.11A which include= s the bigger blocks patch set. You can get it from

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://bitcoinxt.software/

I feel sad= that it's come to this, but there is no other way. The Bitcoin Core pr= oject has drifted so far from the principles myself and many others feel ar= e important, that a fork is the only way to fix things.

Forking is a natural thing in the open source community, Bitcoin is n= ot the first and won't be the last project to go through this. Often in= forks, people say there was insufficient communication. So to ensure every= thing is crystal clear I've written a blog post and a kind of "man= ifesto" to describe why this is happening and how XT plans to be diffe= rent from Core (assuming adoption, of course).

The= article is here:


It makes no attempt to be neutral: this explai= ns things from our point of view.

The manifesto is= on the website.

I say to all developers on this l= ist: if you also feel that Core is no longer serving the interests of Bitco= in users, come join us. We don't bite.

_______________________________________________
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/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


_______________________________________________
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/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--001a113f9694521c21051d61760e--