MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <55CFA2E0.9040301@bitcoins.info>
References: <CA+w+GKT7t5OahS-+P=QAmOyFzPnOs4J6KSo+mhSrC0YggmMupg@mail.gmail.com>
	<55CF871E.9050500@sky-ip.org>
	<CA+w+GKTG6a_v4Jop3FZ2O2WG9Fi=o0Lnh58OH4Y4sM-vPjFHSQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55CFA2E0.9040301@bitcoins.info>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:55:25 +0300
Message-ID: <CAAmoQf1gfsN=KFs=rWOs+sYn-=kemXEvpCXWsANR7OpMqLVG4A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Micha Bailey <michabailey@gmail.com>
To: Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0122f08e9e5ec9051d5fc9fb
Cc: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT 0.11A
Precedence: list

--089e0122f08e9e5ec9051d5fc9fb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

If this proposal has less than half of the total hashpower (or is it even
less than 75%? Haven't quite thought it through completely) supporting it,
I can see the following happening if the sum of supporters and people who
want to screw the supporters out of money is at least 75%:
Non-supporters create blocks with the new version, but don't actually
implement the rule. Then after the new rule is locked in, miners will
create too-large blocks that are rejected by the majority. If the
percentage is less than half, then from their perspective, they will
essentially be on the losing  side of a soft fork, and they'll be losing
money by mining for nothing, even from their perspective and that of e.g.
users and merchants who have upgraded.

On Saturday, August 15, 2015, Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> So if you want a user vote, that's an issue that'd have to be tackled:
>> the people who admin the main communication channels Bitcoin users have
>> vowed to censor any program that doesn't slavishly follow 51%+ hash
>> power. That attempt to control the conversation is certainly not
>> libertarian or democratic in nature, but there you go.
>>
>
> These types of actions are immediately apparent to anyone who looks at the
> Bitcoin ecosystem (Bitcoin.org, Githib, Wiki, bitcointalk, etc.) and were
> readily apparent long before any block size debate.  It is almost a taboo
> subject and anyone who raises these types of issues is immediately labeled
> as a "troll."  These are the people who used to run around saying that
> Bitcoin development is "decentralized" because anyone can fork the code and
> now many of the same people claim a fork will destroy everything.
>
> The problem is that a small group of highly irrational and inexperienced
> people (outside of the small and unusual Bitcoin ecosystem) have control
> over the majority of the resources.  I think over time the problem will
> even itself out but currently it is an obstacle in moving Bitcoin forward.
>
> Russ
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--089e0122f08e9e5ec9051d5fc9fb
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

If this proposal has less than=C2=A0half=C2=A0of the total hashpower (or is=
 it even less than 75%? Haven&#39;t quite thought it through completely)=C2=
=A0supporting it, I can see the following happening if the sum of supporter=
s and people who want to screw the supporters out of money is at least 75%:=
<div>Non-supporters create blocks with the new version, but don&#39;t actua=
lly implement the rule. Then after the new rule is locked in, miners will c=
reate too-large blocks that are rejected by the majority. If the percentage=
 is less than half, then from their perspective, they will essentially be o=
n the losing=C2=A0=C2=A0side of a soft fork, and they&#39;ll be losing mone=
y by mining for nothing, even from their perspective and that of e.g. users=
 and merchants who have upgraded.=C2=A0<span></span><br><br>On Saturday, Au=
gust 15, 2015, Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-=
dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt=
; wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bo=
rder-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote=
" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
So if you want a user vote, that&#39;s an issue that&#39;d have to be tackl=
ed:<br>
the people who admin the main communication channels Bitcoin users have<br>
vowed to censor any program that doesn&#39;t slavishly follow 51%+ hash<br>
power. That attempt to control the conversation is certainly not<br>
libertarian or democratic in nature, but there you go.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
These types of actions are immediately apparent to anyone who looks at the =
Bitcoin ecosystem (Bitcoin.org, Githib, Wiki, bitcointalk, etc.) and were r=
eadily apparent long before any block size debate.=C2=A0 It is almost a tab=
oo subject and anyone who raises these types of issues is immediately label=
ed as a &quot;troll.&quot;=C2=A0 These are the people who used to run aroun=
d saying that Bitcoin development is &quot;decentralized&quot; because anyo=
ne can fork the code and now many of the same people claim a fork will dest=
roy everything.<br>
<br>
The problem is that a small group of highly irrational and inexperienced pe=
ople (outside of the small and unusual Bitcoin ecosystem) have control over=
 the majority of the resources.=C2=A0 I think over time the problem will ev=
en itself out but currently it is an obstacle in moving Bitcoin forward.<br=
>
<br>
Russ<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a>bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoi=
n-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>

--089e0122f08e9e5ec9051d5fc9fb--