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 338DF4D3 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:16:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pd0-f178.google.com (mail-pd0-f178.google.com [209.85.192.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2562D109 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:16:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pdrh1 with SMTP id h1so42550304pdr.0 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:16:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=J8A+X4ArPMWpInxOHpHQEKBo0ytMksGXj0JleMCBzy0=; b=le8Wc/QBNGU8VWijWV8ZMwpiqpHL09wIy4EEqRQzNH8i5VQiPBpIwxEvUhP7rLa8hb epk9HBpCgk83X57KSDMCxHgToi8VC2/1RVe8ykNkfqLiJiz+1BtXlMGXvZ6dWeusHQtd Ulq4L4XKvm9Qax7f5biNRcoCmIjuS7Iddn8e//a89quUO38+HRkmjSRqlwHXjFIvT0Ru 3qoyuReD2i2XgG+CIVUM7qloGalXirRLIKgvzzH+4UR1P5VZZuSWQcwYuIg03O1fOp1b qoneSubu0ncHy4fJsAoXM1MYLWLJgEfOefaEswZBiky5WPWsThnifoC5uPpiC93p8b8b iipg== X-Received: by 10.70.65.5 with SMTP id t5mr103760279pds.16.1439676995874; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:16:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.107] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com. [76.167.237.202]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id rd8sm9784945pdb.10.2015.08.15.15.16.11 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:16:35 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1C46CDA0-668E-40FC-AB4A-C5C21E1B6D1C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5 From: Eric Lombrozo In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:16:10 -0700 Message-Id: References: To: Ken Friece X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,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 22:16:37 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_1C46CDA0-668E-40FC-AB4A-C5C21E1B6D1C Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6D2C2DA3-B5B0-489D-BBBD-9A1B81F9AAF7" --Apple-Mail=_6D2C2DA3-B5B0-489D-BBBD-9A1B81F9AAF7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Aug 15, 2015, at 3:01 PM, Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev = wrote: >=20 > 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 will 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 = 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 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 without 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 from 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 = motivated 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 = falls 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 = look 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 agenda in this post is not to promote either of these ideas=E2=80=A6but= with all due respect, 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 forces 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 = being pushed that is deeply problematic. > On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev = > wrote: > You deeply disappoint me, Mike. >=20 > 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=A6you = also seem to fancy yourself more capable of reading into the intentions = of someone who disappeared from the scene years ago, before we even were = fully aware of many things we now know that bring the original = =E2=80=9Cplan=E2=80=9D into question. >=20 > 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 is = 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 - = 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 nothing. 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. >=20 > 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 abilities (and I sincerely do believe you have them) you are = discrediting yourself and hurting your own reputation. >=20 >=20 > - Eric >=20 >> On Aug 15, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev = > wrote: >>=20 >> Hello, >>=20 >> As promised, we have released Bitcoin XT 0.11A which includes the = bigger blocks patch set. You can get it from >>=20 >> https://bitcoinxt.software/ >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> 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 = forks, people say there was insufficient communication. So to ensure = everything 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 Core (assuming adoption, of course). >>=20 >> The article is here: >>=20 >> = https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1 = >>=20 >> It makes no attempt to be neutral: this explains things from our = point of view. >>=20 >> The manifesto is on the website. >>=20 >> 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 = bite. >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org = >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev = >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org = > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev = >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --Apple-Mail=_6D2C2DA3-B5B0-489D-BBBD-9A1B81F9AAF7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
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 will 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 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 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 without 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 from = 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 motivated 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 falls 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 look 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 agenda in = this post is not to promote either of these ideas=E2=80=A6but with all = due respect, 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 forces 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 being 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=A6you also seem to fancy yourself more capable of reading = into the intentions of someone who disappeared from the scene years ago, = before we even were fully 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 = civilized human being, to stop doing this divisive crap. Despite your = protestations to the contrary, YOU are the one who is 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 - there=E2=80=99= s a lot of other people=E2=80=99s money at stake. This isn=E2=80=99t a = democracy - 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 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 abilities (and I sincerely do believe you = have them) you are discrediting yourself 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 bigger = 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 forks, people say there = was insufficient communication. So to ensure everything 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 Core (assuming = adoption, of course).

The article is here:

    https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d2= 2c1

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 bite.

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


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


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev = mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<= br class=3D"">

= --Apple-Mail=_6D2C2DA3-B5B0-489D-BBBD-9A1B81F9AAF7-- --Apple-Mail=_1C46CDA0-668E-40FC-AB4A-C5C21E1B6D1C Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVz7oqAAoJEJNAI64YFENU8BoQALUK1RjVlfUvj4jcr9iaOnEj CoFyQNhk95e3RaAKPYAWSgL1BI1C4eON1ynlgFg2u3pV7UZCCG2LMQhYEAA+IcXg eDuozEaZq3kO/7sUuBkV8WX4wJh9uzOLY0Zix5m5kUskO5FHKL0mfpByClSg8U51 DYPnSLsxWmA9PmOcZCY20r+SGBopbpzsxC4jbV3eMWSvj5ln7+CPTTPLIRzyROVz RVRxof9Irf0ekmM5MpH6svsnhp1tonVsFUw8s/olTuFLtFoP3/+LJ4te773ekFHp SQSyFX1fnWn2jHKe5lr9b276vtJpr8nmeqTLOLZXFyjLPSsr2kYqJ8ADj7JyfZBw mzzvWvL6X6JprBwRn2KjIXJZZffx1nnL7RcgZVvu8wZ7kWNIDcfLJGYMUL5a4QGL YfpNSqYOVaAisSndR5l8+d/BdQQIDinEV3TgqSyYcj4RNG3E2T18TTo81Z6mAhBj C2TSbPStcM5gyTfT068ADkpmUdN7jJAtZcODdWdUvAuEprP/EMEjHeGYQZwn2YI3 diSkpjDACuiFI5waOKuNtu3jZRIaao6n61glxlQTTVEiC5sswdWrkTaoSVhVpHCO 7GJJFa3jQLlEG0DXyGz4sex3iBziYbEWMBju4zU176BXCpc1e3OLCo8IZGFb8wb1 SB0G6dVqgwD1NyR+EoBa =To5Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_1C46CDA0-668E-40FC-AB4A-C5C21E1B6D1C--