+Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>

+Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org

+ [172.17.192.35])

+ by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60F1225A

+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;

+ Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:47:25 +0000 (UTC)

+X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6

+Received: from mail-la0-f49.google.com (mail-la0-f49.google.com

+ [209.85.215.49])

+ by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82EE2F2

+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;

+ Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:47:24 +0000 (UTC)

+Received: by lagz9 with SMTP id z9so116030707lag.3

+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;

+ Wed, 19 Aug 2015 02:47:23 -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=NqvshBxTiNpX/zoiVcmFJ7gOpsXEl7/47SBuFSTRqro=;

+ b=DG4Kq9y8FNiqFKEVULXhqW3IxYcymEAdWDTAtduLGMEhN13c/lp2VCo3xPQpBoa0aV

+ mr4aGyEgLXcw9cQgbA3W5WcmsS6BmPzrfxJu3dZi1u/hTGeoM5ez9hFiQuT6Vv/MZOht

+ pPNjihJRWAlNekPu+AdU8uevWkNseYISXtF9UN1Xe0CWJ6eLAFiCQFjxqNP5dbyqhCmT

+ B43Q1av+tZTW/UxJ3uyfvaeMxyRxhvdbTdihUNQVsoLZkVy6tEiYhX28crHTLOpK8Lmo

+ jE7yOPYkS5e+X0jP6R0mLsGjEpdxBqaheQ5/tqlTTbsclEjpiuGNoM/Kofq9rFFIlKff

+ kz9A==

+X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnpmiXtBkAwger80IpsXbuW7piI6qDf/BSzeMyWaN/EjfG2cHV6oWHn1S/Js47tjs0chkSU

+MIME-Version: 1.0

+X-Received: by 10.153.7.66 with SMTP id da2mr10239399lad.117.1439977643015;

+ Wed, 19 Aug 2015 02:47:23 -0700 (PDT)

+Received: by 10.25.15.22 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 02:47:22 -0700 (PDT)

+In-Reply-To: <20150818094612.2344943128@smtp.hushmail.com>

+References: <20150817100918.BD1F343128@smtp.hushmail.com>

+ <1439815244.89850.YahooMailBasic@web173102.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>

+ <20150817133438.DDD4243128@smtp.hushmail.com>

+ <CE3B7411-2863-4D6B-85B0-4F28D4D7F391@gmail.com>

+ <20150818094612.2344943128@smtp.hushmail.com>

+Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 11:47:22 +0200

+Message-ID: <CABm2gDp1h_iQKkyS5MUE0R85_DJcCZBKwop1731CbLR-AGOX1A@mail.gmail.com>

+From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>

+To: NxtChg <nxtchg@hush.com>

+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

+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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>

+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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>

+List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,

+ <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>

+List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>

+List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>

+List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>

+List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,

+ <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>

+X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:47:25 -0000

+

+On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:46 AM, NxtChg via bitcoin-dev

+<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

+> Eric,

+>

+>>FWIW...

+>

+> These are all good points and I agree with most of them. Yes, the block size debate is a lucky historical accident, which makes it easier for XT to pull off the split, but that's not the point.

+>

+> The point is, the split _must_ happen because the centralized governance of Bitcoin became a bigger problem than the risks of a fork or larger blocks.

+>

+> You cannot govern a decentralized currency with a centralized entity.

+

+Nobody has complained about Bitcoin-XT (nor libbitcoin, nor libcoin,

+nor against any other of the multiple alternative implementations of

+bitcoin).

+Please, understand that people are worried about the schism hardfork,

+not about the software fork (which happened long ago when some of

+Hearn's changes were reverted due to security concerns). If Bitcoin-XT

+didn't had a schism hardfork, nobody would be calling it "an altcoin".

+For consensus rules we use "the implementation is the specification"

+as a principle for multiple reasons. By separating libconsensus (a

+work in progress [far less progress than I would like]) we remove

+Bitcoin Core's privileged position: Bitcoin Core wouldn't be "the

+specification of the consensus rules" anymore, just a reference

+implementation that is not "consensus-safer" compared to alternative

+implementations (since they can use libconsensus directly [or a

+software fork of it in the case of a reasonable schism hardfork]).

+

+> That's why we shouldn't fear hard forks - they are the new reality, and if we cannot set up a reliable process for them to happen then there _is_ no decentralized Bitcoin and we all might as well just give up and go home.

+

+We have many reasons to fear schism hardforks (

+https://github.com/jtimon/bips/blob/bip-forks/bip-0099.mediawiki#Schism1_hardforks

+), even though they may be unavoidable at some point (ie for an

+ASIC-reset hardfork).

+