summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authoryanmaani <yanmaani@cock.li>2021-11-05 14:45:36 +0000
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2021-11-05 14:45:48 +0000
commitd07b44070573e3a5c042f0ad7b89d5aa26e934c7 (patch)
treead20446a2f43e84ac8129c6598d1170c2d5c490f
parentd5834121af44919e5577dd1ce9d9503ecd0ebd19 (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-d07b44070573e3a5c042f0ad7b89d5aa26e934c7.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-d07b44070573e3a5c042f0ad7b89d5aa26e934c7.zip
Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin.org missing bitcoin core version 22.0
-rw-r--r--8d/ec222cf6ceddfd60d4755293a8ea447334f3fc155
1 files changed, 155 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/8d/ec222cf6ceddfd60d4755293a8ea447334f3fc b/8d/ec222cf6ceddfd60d4755293a8ea447334f3fc
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..d253ba711
--- /dev/null
+++ b/8d/ec222cf6ceddfd60d4755293a8ea447334f3fc
@@ -0,0 +1,155 @@
+Return-Path: <yanmaani@cock.li>
+Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138])
+ by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5250C000E
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Fri, 5 Nov 2021 14:45:48 +0000 (UTC)
+Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
+ by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8197E82531
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Fri, 5 Nov 2021 14:45:48 +0000 (UTC)
+X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
+X-Spam-Flag: NO
+X-Spam-Score: -2.1
+X-Spam-Level:
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5
+ tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
+ DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001,
+ RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
+ autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
+Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
+ dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cock.li
+Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
+ by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
+ with ESMTP id 47QdFJv4mwFS
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Fri, 5 Nov 2021 14:45:47 +0000 (UTC)
+X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
+Received: from mail.cock.li (mail.cock.li [37.120.193.124])
+ by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F22F482525
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Fri, 5 Nov 2021 14:45:46 +0000 (UTC)
+MIME-Version: 1.0
+DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cock.li; s=mail;
+ t=1636123538; bh=jRDm/9YEfg7FhR1b3kj1r+6Fi06BIQ3IEBVIY+sM/G8=;
+ h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
+ b=avjRwQ3+1fgWvxr5cF/lpj4AbGOwBOyH4qPwUQVyNdryLrafB2wfSyJijD5uWya5y
+ 3G+RvtSTvA/Yr1VDAd3DGYvJe143ppIpIuyFvQbduxfQoDZqo5iOPG+xMlZaLTEf3/
+ tiWGkAiHMMr//YMMUI4gcYPK3psVZHuX7o7yyfRxUqlDJqRQFaoH1uNgK3alNGHpEH
+ ppacBevGYz308aipmsYN9AM5yz2RXQzvKjWycAVNLyA7owvzpXsjhuus5TmUmPqEnp
+ xX+X7olIlpYixSyaFmhZlZ2PqQCbRaV+NW5Fzg+ZnJliFS9DtKbRPLoRoB8sqgraC7
+ NYDZXquW68Ofg==
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
+ format=flowed
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
+Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2021 14:45:36 +0000
+From: yanmaani@cock.li
+To: Prayank <prayank@tutanota.de>, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
+ <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
+In-Reply-To: <MnjA6g0--3-2@tutanota.de>
+References: <MmT9umZ--3-2@tutanota.de>
+ <20211020192054.GA117785@jauntyelephant.191.37.198.vultr.com>
+ <CAHiDt8A30DZtvsPnDDdtyVpho-NKKQhbP_4g8d0MGATawWvg_w@mail.gmail.com>
+ <MnjA6g0--3-2@tutanota.de>
+Message-ID: <3d686c3a100338514c3ebcc264ec24f2@cock.li>
+X-Sender: yanmaani@cock.li
+User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.16
+X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 05 Nov 2021 14:57:59 +0000
+Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin.org missing bitcoin core version 22.0
+X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
+Precedence: list
+List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Fri, 05 Nov 2021 14:45:48 -0000
+
+On 2021-11-05 08:17, Prayank via bitcoin-dev wrote:
+> What followed it (whitepaper being shared on different websites) was
+> true decentralization and we need something similar in other aspects
+> of full node implementations. Few things that can improve
+> decentralization:
+>
+> 1.More people using alternative full node implementations. Right now
+> 98% of nodes use Bitcoin Core.
+
+Unfortunately, this isn't really possible. If they did that, you could
+get consensus splits. This is why all the other stuff is so important -
+if Bitcoin is subverted via soft-fork, you *can't* just run your own
+fork.
+
+Theoretically, I suppose you could run two implementations and do
+something if they differ, but what?
+1. Bitcoin Core and <AltImpl> both say block is valid -> valid
+2. Bitcoin Core and <AltImpl> both say block is invalid -> invalid
+3. Bitcoin Core says valid, <AltImpl> says invalid -> valid (or get
+forked off)
+4. Bitcoin Core says invalid, <AltImpl> says valid -> invalid (or
+hardfork)
+
+> 2.More people like Luke Dashjr and Amir Taaki who do not simp for
+> anyone. Being a contributor or maintainer in Bitcoin full node
+> implementation is different from other open source projects. It was
+> never going to be easy and it will get difficult with time,
+
+This is all about the money - it's easy to have people be independent
+when their source of money is independent. But nobody's crazy enough to
+bite the hand that feeds them, and you couldn't really build a system on
+that basis. Our best hope is gentle hands, or contributors wealthy
+enough not to have to care.
+
+(Whatever happened to Amir Taaki, by the way?)
+
+> 3.More people from different countries getting involved in important
+> roles.
+
+Isn't Bitcoin already plenty distributed? Funding people in
+under-represented countries seems to me like a textbook exercise in
+'box-ticking, but moreover, I'd frankly rather have reasonably well-off
+guys from Western Europe/America who have the financial backbone to not
+worry that much about attacks to their funding, than mercenaries who
+have to follow orders or get fired. Even if they're from West
+Uzbekistan.
+
+(Maybe they need a union?)
+
+> 4.Few anons.
+
+Gonna guess you mean "a few anons," not fewer anons.
+
+Again, problem is money. These days, nobody threatens anyone with
+anything substantive, like murder - the threats all involve cutting off
+some funding. So having anonymous people being funded by non-robust
+sources doesn't really buy you that much, because the weakest link will
+pretty much never be the de-jure, legal freedom of an individual.
+
+Having a system that allows people to fund anonymous people better would
+be interesting, but it has some challenges with trust and so on.
+
+> 5.Individuals and organizations who fund different Bitcoin projects
+> should consider contributing in alternative. full node implementations
+> as well. Maybe start with Bitcoin Knots.
+
+See above. Bitcoin Knots isn't really independent. btcd in Go is, so I
+guess they could try that. But at the end of the day, it wouldn't help -
+btcd has to be bug-for-bug compatible with Core, and it couldn't really
+be any other way.
+
+For my $0.05, what's needed is more "hard money" - if people could make
+donations into a fund, with the fund then paying out to developers, and
+that fund be controlled in a civilized and non-centralized way (that's
+the hard part!), this would somewhat insulate developers from people
+threatening to stop their contributions to The Fund, at the price of
+having developers being able to be coerced by The Fund.
+
+You could also look into a system like Monero's CCS. But at the end of
+the day, funding is really a very difficult problem, no matter how you
+slice it. The money still has to enter the system somehow. Since Bitcoin
+is a public good, you can't really capture its value, and this means
+individuals who can (e.g. by malicious activity) will always have the
+leg up.
+