Message-ID: <55D467AF.5030203@riseup.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 04:25:35 -0700
From: odinn <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
References: <d17549688c0c747b2077c1f6f96b6445@xbt.hk>	<CAJN5wHV-qyOcEw5spQc74nT7_b29WMiDTmi4Jj0ri_rGCQz2ng@mail.gmail.com>	<E9543641-9D73-4A00-9CB3-FAB62BFB490E@gmail.com>	<CAJN5wHXRwQZ6YmiZiCE9Gx4d-3FTzy1Zv7i2noia0mwtRwVL+w@mail.gmail.com>	<CABm2gDp69g8H4Was2qzixPq3qwQ_smzzeFpE+y2GYEK6F4kUrw@mail.gmail.com>	<55D45715.4010107@riseup.net>
	<CABm2gDr2o82O5jtpv=MovAcsvf9xV5u54d4oFajuvuz1QuKZoA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDr2o82O5jtpv=MovAcsvf9xV5u54d4oFajuvuz1QuKZoA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an
 experimental hardfork?
Precedence: list

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 08/19/2015 04:06 AM, Jorge Timón wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:14 PM, odinn
> <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> Firstly, XT is controversial, not uncontroversial;
> 
> XT it's just a software fork.


You must be really tired.

Please read the whole pull request discussing this loathsome subject her
e:

https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/899

It was fairly detailed and conclusive. I'm not being a dumdum when I
say that it is controversial.

> BIP101 (as currently implemented in Bitcoin XT) is a Schism
> hardfork (or an altcoin), but BIP101 could be modified to be
> deployed like an uncontroversial hardfork (in current bip99's
> draft, a given height plus 95% mining upgrade confirmation after
> that).

Everybody here is well aware of what this sad proposal is.  See
detailed reply to the moaning and groaning of Hearn on this subject,
where he claimed that "the difference between hard and soft forks is
actually quite small, has got smaller with time and is thus hardly the
policy-founding chasm you seem to think it is."  He was wrong, of
course.  Thus, my reply to that, which I won't bother to quote in
detail but which you can read here:
https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/899#issuecomment-117
815987

> 
>> Third, it poses major risks as a non-peer reviewed alt with a
>> number of problematic features (with the privacy problems
>> recently mentioned on this list being just one of them)
>> 
>> Fourth, it has not followed any semblance of process in terms of
>> the development funnel or BIPS process, with XT developers
>> instead choosing instead a dangerous path of hard forking bitcoin
>> while being well aware of miner voting on viable solutions which
>> have followed process.
> 
> I'm not defending the Schism hardfork being proposed. I am very 
> worried about it and I have publicly said so several times. If
> Bitcoin XT didn't contained the Schism bip101 hardfork I wouldn't 
> be so worried: users are free to use software that is less reviewed
> at their own risk.
> 
>> The following proposals http://bipsxdevs.azurewebsites.net/ 
>> regardless of what you think of any one of them, are deserving
>> of attention (BIP 100 / BIP 101) and are being voted on as you
>> read this by miners. (BIP sipa is not yet numbered, and BIP 102
>> is a backup /fallback option.)  BIP 100 is probably the best of
>> these (note, in part, it schedules a hardfork on testnet in
>> September).
> 
> It's users and not miners who decide the consensus rules.
> 
>> Contentious hard forks are bad for Bitcoin. 
>> https://bitcoin.org/en/posts/hard-fork-policy You may want to
>> read this again if you haven't recently.
> 
> You may want to read BIP99 to understand that I know this, but
> still think that Schism hardforks may be necessary in some
> situations (I don't think this one is reasonable though).


Given the state in which bitcoin is in now, one could say that things
are fairly horrible, but by no means necessitating, as you put it, a
schism hardfork.  It is clear and evidenced by my previous posts and
others that Hearn's efforts are an attack on the bitcoin network.

> 
>> There is no basis for further promoting XT by suggesting that it 
>> should even be tested.
> 
> All I'm saying is that Bitcoin XT the software fork is totally
> fine (like other alternative Bitcoin implementations).

It's not totally fine at all.  It shouldn't even exist.  People are
doing other unsuspecting users a disservice by even suggesting that it
should be downloaded.

 The big problem is
> BIP101 being deployed as a Schism hardfork.

This is certainly a problem.

> 

#GAVEL

- -- 
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJV1GevAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CJXwH/3XX7Osr48MmcJ9mrPyOJ4Zn
WxRmdJ99mbO5KhrjD8+eRtFjURQNsQYAJ6ftnQEGaksuprSYCPQQR6WsV9mqRKZ2
/zdSz/5RjdADsjB2FDN6gWpwpyg7tzUpB6D4rCjuL1fcRmieCxwNUxnnFTbedxpE
MdT2oj9uSB7tTvU4AYs2VzJq0QeRn/c0pTJkBDwU0c4PN1tv/IQnOzmS+LnQDQJJ
eaunhpbmphRzqC9Mh8N7pD40ZyVoM5ysxVv86OaqmsOQL4W01CahQKADB4T/pBla
AOPh3LLxp7aamC9aYnBfxIaWXj28BZCwVasDkJdQ/Qg/rV5/Kze7TjJs9G2sowc=
=OvDj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----