diff options
author | yanmaani <yanmaani@cock.li> | 2021-11-05 14:45:36 +0000 |
---|---|---|
committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2021-11-05 14:45:48 +0000 |
commit | d07b44070573e3a5c042f0ad7b89d5aa26e934c7 (patch) | |
tree | ad20446a2f43e84ac8129c6598d1170c2d5c490f | |
parent | d5834121af44919e5577dd1ce9d9503ecd0ebd19 (diff) | |
download | pi-bitcoindev-d07b44070573e3a5c042f0ad7b89d5aa26e934c7.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-d07b44070573e3a5c042f0ad7b89d5aa26e934c7.zip |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin.org missing bitcoin core version 22.0
-rw-r--r-- | 8d/ec222cf6ceddfd60d4755293a8ea447334f3fc | 155 |
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. + |