MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <90267BA3-06D8-412B-8FF6-BA21BCCA8AB8@gmail.com>
References: <CA+w+GKT7t5OahS-+P=QAmOyFzPnOs4J6KSo+mhSrC0YggmMupg@mail.gmail.com>
	<E7866FD5-9CEC-400F-8270-407499E0B012@gmail.com>
	<CAKujSOFNHNngt0HV=B3YHxOwXksk+JZDaHt+mUVniwMPTM6SaA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CC1B6D0E-F9D5-422B-980D-C589CDC00612@gmail.com>
	<CAKujSOGdXoo4DORHtD7KV1fgjHzvcSQnUr=yNL4ruKhn1Lwjig@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOG=w-vGoPuDBcDkdrLVEoE5Q_UzVR7FfThBT9QALgiSSHDsFg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKujSOHPRmbSx=wydx9bCkUCuQQAzd=Xre_Xa86Zjzm_afpa6A@mail.gmail.com>
	<90267BA3-06D8-412B-8FF6-BA21BCCA8AB8@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 18:30:14 -0500
Message-ID: <CALgxB7vtTNCS5HpN-7TQjoe9EEA9UDuUx=_deJtmBgGCdCWMzw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Naber <mickeybob@gmail.com>
To: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ec7105085e5051d61f3ec
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT 0.11A
Precedence: list

--001a113ec7105085e5051d61f3ec
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Bitcoin has no elections; it has no courts. If not through attempting a
hard-fork, how should we properly resolve irreconcilable disagreements?

On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Please take the lightning 101 discussion to another thread.
>
> The main point I was trying to make was that Mike is clearly
> misrepresenting the views of a great number of people who have deep,
> intimate knowledge of how things work and are almost certainly not
> primarily motivated by their own potential for profits.
>
> On Aug 15, 2015, at 4:04 PM, Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Being an early hub provider would be an obvious place to start
> capitalizing on lightning. Early lightning adopters would be in the best
> position to do this.
>
> Long term, Bitcoin needs to scale the blockchain in a reasonable manner
> and implement things like lightning.
>
> Limiting the blocksize is a blatant conflict of interest because it
> creates artificial demand for lightning that would not otherwise exist if
> the blockchain scaled in a reasonable manner.
>
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
> wrote:
>
>> I would like very much to know how it is that we're supposed to be makin=
g
>> money off of lightning, and therefore how it represents a conflict of
>> interest. Apparently there is tons of money to be made in releasing
>> open-source protocols! I would hate to miss out on that.
>>
>> We are working on lightning because Mike of all people said, essentially=
,
>> " if you're so fond of micro payment channels, why aren't you working on
>> them?" And he was right! So we looked around and found the best proposal
>> and funded it.
>> On Aug 15, 2015 3:28 PM, "Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev" <
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I know full well who works for Blockstream and I know you're not one of
>>> those folks. The Blockstream core devs are very vocal against a reasona=
ble
>>> blocksize increase (17% growth per year in Pieter's BIP is not what I
>>> consider reasonable because it doesn't come close to keeping with
>>> technological increases). I think we can both agree that more on-chain
>>> space means less demand for lightning, and vice versa, which is a blata=
nt
>>> conflict of interest.
>>>
>>> I'm also trying to figure out how things like lightning are not
>>> competing directly with miners for fees. More off-chain transactions me=
ans
>>> less blockchain demand, which would lower on-chain fees. I'm not sure w=
hat
>>> is controversial about that statement.
>>>
>>> The lightning network concept is actually a brilliant way to take fees
>>> away from miners without having to make any investment at all in SSH-25=
6
>>> ASIC mining hardware.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 15, 2015, at 3:01 PM, Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev <
>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What are you so afraid of, Eric? If Mike's fork is successful,
>>>> consensus is reached around larger blocks. If it is rejected, the stat=
us
>>>> quo will remain for now. Network consensus, NOT CORE DEVELOPER CONSENS=
US,
>>>> is the only thing that matters, and those that go against network cons=
ensus
>>>> will be severely punished with complete loss of income.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I fully agree that core developers are not the only people who should
>>>> have a say in this. But again, we=E2=80=99re not talking about merely =
forking some
>>>> open source project - we=E2=80=99re talking about forking a ledger rep=
resenting
>>>> real assets that real people are holding=E2=80=A6and I think it=E2=80=
=99s fair to say that
>>>> the risk of permanent ledger forks far outweighs whatever benefits any
>>>> change in the protocol might bring. And this would be true even if the=
re
>>>> were unanimous agreement that the change is good (which there clearly =
IS
>>>> NOT in this case) but the deployment mechanism could still break thing=
s.
>>>>
>>>> If anything we should attempt a hard fork with a less contentious
>>>> change first, just to test deployability.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure who appointed the core devs some sort of Bitcoin Gods tha=
t
>>>> can hold up any change that they happen to disagree with. It seems lik=
e the
>>>> core devs are scared to death that the bitcoin network may change with=
out
>>>> their blessing, so they go on and on about how terrible hard forks are=
.
>>>> Hard forks are the only way to keep core devs in check.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again, let=E2=80=99s figure out a hard fork mechanism and test it with=
 a far
>>>> less contentious change first
>>>>
>>>> Despite significant past technical bitcoin achievements, two of the
>>>> most vocal opponents to a reasonable blocksize increase work for a com=
pany
>>>> (Blockstream) that stands to profit directly from artificially limitin=
g the
>>>> blocksize. The whole situation reeks. Because of such a blatant confli=
ct of
>>>> interest, the ethical thing to do would be for them to either resign f=
rom
>>>> Blockstream or immediately withdraw themselves from the blocksize deba=
te.
>>>> This is the type of stuff that I hoped would end with Bitcoin, but ala=
s, I
>>>> guess human nature never changes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For the record, I do not work for Blockstream. Neither do a bunch of
>>>> other people who have published a number of concerns. Very few of the
>>>> concerns I=E2=80=99ve seen from the technical community seem to be mot=
ivated
>>>> primarily by profit motives.
>>>>
>>>> It should also be pointed out that *not* making drastic changes is the
>>>> default consensus policy=E2=80=A6and the burden of justifying a change=
 falls on
>>>> those who want to make the change. Again, the risk of permanent ledger
>>>> forks far outweighs whatever benefits protocol changes might bring.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I think miners should give Bitcoin XT a serious look.
>>>> Miners need to realize that they are in direct competition with the
>>>> lightning network and sidechains for fees. Miners, ask yourselves if y=
ou
>>>> think you'll earn more fees with 1 MB blocks and more off-chain
>>>> transactions or with 8 MB blocks and more on-chain transactions=E2=80=
=A6
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Miners are NOT in direct competition with the lightning network and
>>>> sidechains - these claims are patently false. I recommend you take a l=
ook
>>>> at these ideas and understand them a little better before trying to ma=
ke
>>>> any such claims. Again, I do not work for Blockstream=E2=80=A6and my a=
genda in this
>>>> post is not to promote either of these ideas=E2=80=A6but with all due =
respect, I do
>>>> not think you properly understand them at all.
>>>>
>>>> The longer this debate drags on, the more I agree with BIP 100 and Jef=
f
>>>> Garzik because the core devs are already being influenced by outside f=
orces
>>>> and should not have complete control of the blocksize. It's also
>>>> interesting to note that most of the mining hashpower is already votin=
g for
>>>> 8MB blocks BIP100 style.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don=E2=80=99t think the concern here is so much that some people wan=
t to
>>>> increase block size. It=E2=80=99s the *way* in which this change is be=
ing pushed
>>>> that is deeply problematic.
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev <
>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You deeply disappoint me, Mike.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not only do you misrepresent many cogent, well thought out positions
>>>>> from a great number of people who have published and posted a number =
of
>>>>> articles detailing an explaining in-depth technical concerns=E2=80=A6=
you also seem
>>>>> to fancy yourself more capable of reading into the intentions of some=
one
>>>>> who disappeared from the scene years ago, before we even were fully a=
ware
>>>>> of many things we now know that bring the original =E2=80=9Cplan=E2=
=80=9D into question.
>>>>>
>>>>> I ask of you, as a civilized human being, to stop doing this divisive
>>>>> crap. Despite your protestations to the contrary, YOU are the one who=
 is
>>>>> proposing a radical departure from the direction of the project. Also=
, as
>>>>> several of us have clearly stated before, equating the fork of an ope=
n
>>>>> source project with a fork of a cryptoledger is completely bogus - th=
ere=E2=80=99s
>>>>> a lot of other people=E2=80=99s money at stake. This isn=E2=80=99t a =
democracy - consensus
>>>>> is all or nothing. The fact that a good number of the people most
>>>>> intimately familiar with the inner workings of Satoshi=E2=80=99s inve=
ntion do not
>>>>> believe doing this is a good idea should give you pause.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please stop using Bitcoin as your own political football=E2=80=A6for =
the sake
>>>>> of Bitcoin=E2=80=A6and for your own sake. Despite your obvious techni=
cal abilities
>>>>> (and I sincerely do believe you have them) you are discrediting yours=
elf
>>>>> and hurting your own reputation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - Eric
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 15, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev <
>>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> As promised, we have released Bitcoin XT 0.11A which includes the
>>>>> bigger blocks patch set. You can get it from
>>>>>
>>>>>      https://bitcoinxt.software/
>>>>>
>>>>> I feel sad that it's come to this, but there is no other way. The
>>>>> Bitcoin Core project has drifted so far from the principles myself an=
d many
>>>>> others feel are important, that a fork is the only way to fix things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Forking is a natural thing in the open source community, Bitcoin is
>>>>> not the first and won't be the last project to go through this. Often=
 in
>>>>> forks, people say there was insufficient communication. So to ensure
>>>>> everything is crystal clear I've written a blog post and a kind of
>>>>> "manifesto" to describe why this is happening and how XT plans to be
>>>>> different from Core (assuming adoption, of course).
>>>>>
>>>>> The article is here:
>>>>>
>>>>>     https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c=
1
>>>>>
>>>>> It makes no attempt to be neutral: this explains things from our poin=
t
>>>>> of view.
>>>>>
>>>>> The manifesto is on the website.
>>>>>
>>>>> I say to all developers on this list: if you also feel that Core is n=
o
>>>>> longer serving the interests of Bitcoin users, come join us. We don't=
 bite.
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

--001a113ec7105085e5051d61f3ec
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Bitcoin has no elections; it has no courts.=C2=A0If not th=
rough attempting a hard-fork, how should we properly resolve irreconcilable=
 disagreements?=C2=A0</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gma=
il_quote">On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev <s=
pan dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org=
" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wr=
ote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border=
-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word">=
Please take the lightning 101 discussion to another thread.<div><br></div><=
div>The main point I was trying to make was that Mike is clearly misreprese=
nting the views of a great number of people who have deep, intimate knowled=
ge of how things work and are almost certainly not primarily motivated by t=
heir own potential for profits.</div><div><div class=3D"h5"><div><br><div><=
blockquote type=3D"cite"><div>On Aug 15, 2015, at 4:04 PM, Ken Friece via b=
itcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" tar=
get=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:</div><b=
r><div><div dir=3D"ltr">Being an early hub provider would be an obvious pla=
ce to start capitalizing on lightning. Early lightning adopters would be in=
 the best position to do this.<br><div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div=
><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Long term, Bitcoin needs to scale the blockchai=
n in a reasonable manner and implement things like lightning. <br><br></div=
><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Limiting the blocksize is a blatant conflict of=
 interest because it creates artificial demand for lightning that would not=
 otherwise exist if the blockchain scaled in a reasonable manner.<br></div>=
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Aug 15, 2=
015 at 6:55 PM, Mark Friedenbach <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:ma=
rk@friedenbach.org" target=3D"_blank">mark@friedenbach.org</a>&gt;</span> w=
rote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;borde=
r-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"ltr">I would like very mu=
ch to know how it is that we&#39;re supposed to be making money off of ligh=
tning, and therefore how it represents a conflict of interest. Apparently t=
here is tons of money to be made in releasing open-source protocols! I woul=
d hate to miss out on that.</p><p dir=3D"ltr">We are working on lightning b=
ecause Mike of all people said, essentially, &quot; if you&#39;re so fond o=
f micro payment channels, why aren&#39;t you working on them?&quot; And he =
was right! So we looked around and found the best proposal and funded it.</=
p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Aug 15, 2015 3:28 PM, &quot;Ken Friece via bi=
tcoin-dev&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org=
" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br=
 type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0=
 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>=
<div>I know full well who works for Blockstream and I know you&#39;re not o=
ne of those folks. The Blockstream core devs are very vocal against a reaso=
nable blocksize increase (17% growth per year in Pieter&#39;s BIP is not wh=
at I consider reasonable because it doesn&#39;t come close to keeping with =
technological increases). I think we can both agree that more on-chain spac=
e means less demand for lightning, and vice versa, which is a blatant confl=
ict of interest.<br><br></div>I&#39;m also trying to figure out how things =
like lightning are not competing directly with miners for fees. More off-ch=
ain transactions means less blockchain demand, which would lower on-chain f=
ees. I&#39;m not sure what is controversial about that statement.<br><br></=
div><div>The lightning network concept is actually a brilliant way to take =
fees away from miners without having to make any investment at all in SSH-2=
56 ASIC mining hardware.<br></div><div><div><div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"=
><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Eric Lombr=
ozo <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:elombrozo@gmail.com" target=3D"=
_blank">elombrozo@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"g=
mail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-l=
eft:1ex"><div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word"><br><div><blockquote type=3D"c=
ite"><div>On Aug 15, 2015, at 3:01 PM, Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitco=
in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:</div><br><div><div dir=3D"l=
tr"><div><div>What are you so afraid of, Eric? If Mike&#39;s fork is succes=
sful, consensus is reached around larger blocks. If it is rejected, the sta=
tus quo will remain for now. Network consensus, NOT CORE DEVELOPER CONSENSU=
S, is the only thing that matters, and those that go against network consen=
sus will be severely punished with complete loss of income.<br></div></div>=
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I fully agree that core developers =
are not the only people who should have a say in this. But again, we=E2=80=
=99re not talking about merely forking some open source project - we=E2=80=
=99re talking about forking a ledger representing real assets that real peo=
ple are holding=E2=80=A6and I think it=E2=80=99s fair to say that the risk =
of permanent ledger forks far outweighs whatever benefits any change in the=
 protocol might bring. And this would be true even if there were unanimous =
agreement that the change is good (which there clearly IS NOT in this case)=
 but the deployment mechanism could still break things.</div><div><br></div=
><div>If anything we should attempt a hard fork with a less contentious cha=
nge first, just to test deployability.</div><div><div><br></div><blockquote=
 type=3D"cite"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div>I&#39;m not sure who appoint=
ed the core devs some sort of Bitcoin Gods that can hold up any change that=
 they happen to disagree with. It seems like the core devs are scared to de=
ath that the bitcoin network may change without their blessing, so they go =
on and on about how terrible hard forks are. Hard forks are the only way to=
 keep core devs in check.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></di=
v><div>Again, let=E2=80=99s figure out a hard fork mechanism and test it wi=
th a far less contentious change first</div><br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><=
div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Despite significant past technical bitcoin achiev=
ements, two of the most vocal opponents to a reasonable blocksize increase =
work for a company (Blockstream) that stands to profit directly from artifi=
cially limiting the blocksize. The whole situation reeks. Because of such a=
 blatant conflict of interest, the ethical thing to do would be for them to=
 either resign from Blockstream or immediately withdraw themselves from the=
 blocksize debate. This is the type of stuff that I hoped would end with Bi=
tcoin, but alas, I guess human nature never changes.<br></div></div></div><=
/blockquote><div><br></div><div>For the record, I do not work for Blockstre=
am. Neither do a bunch of other people who have published a number of conce=
rns. Very few of the concerns I=E2=80=99ve seen from the technical communit=
y seem to be motivated primarily by profit motives.</div><div><br></div><di=
v>It should also be pointed out that *not* making drastic changes is the de=
fault consensus policy=E2=80=A6and the burden of justifying a change falls =
on those who want to make the change. Again, the risk of permanent ledger f=
orks far outweighs whatever benefits protocol changes might bring.</div><br=
><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Personally, I think m=
iners should give Bitcoin XT a serious look. Miners need to realize that th=
ey are in direct competition with the lightning network and sidechains for =
fees. Miners, ask yourselves if you think you&#39;ll earn more fees with 1 =
MB blocks and more off-chain transactions or with 8 MB blocks and more on-c=
hain transactions=E2=80=A6<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div=
>Miners are NOT in direct competition with the lightning network and sidech=
ains - these claims are patently false. I recommend you take a look at thes=
e ideas and understand them a little better before trying to make any such =
claims. Again, I do not work for Blockstream=E2=80=A6and my agenda in this =
post is not to promote either of these ideas=E2=80=A6but with all due respe=
ct, I do not think you properly understand them at all.<br><br><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>The longer this debate drags on, t=
he more I agree with BIP 100 and Jeff Garzik because the core devs are alre=
ady being influenced by outside forces and should not have complete control=
 of the blocksize. It&#39;s also interesting to note that most of the minin=
g hashpower is already voting for 8MB blocks BIP100 style. =C2=A0</div></di=
v></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I don=E2=80=99t think the concern here =
is so much that some people want to increase block size. It=E2=80=99s the *=
way* in which this change is being pushed that is deeply problematic.</div>=
<div><br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><di=
v class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at =
5:32 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mai=
lto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@li=
sts.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail=
_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:=
1ex"><div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word"><div>You deeply disappoint me, Mik=
e.</div><div><br></div><div>Not only do you misrepresent many cogent, well =
thought out positions from a great number of people who have published and =
posted a number of articles detailing an explaining in-depth technical conc=
erns=E2=80=A6you also seem to fancy yourself more capable of reading into t=
he intentions of someone who disappeared from the scene years ago, before w=
e even were fully aware of many things we now know that bring the original =
=E2=80=9Cplan=E2=80=9D into question.</div><div><br></div><div>I ask of you=
, as a civilized human being, to stop doing this divisive crap. Despite you=
r protestations to the contrary, YOU are the one who is proposing a radical=
 departure from the direction of the project. Also, as several of us have c=
learly stated before, equating the fork of an open source project with a fo=
rk of a cryptoledger is completely bogus - there=E2=80=99s a lot of other p=
eople=E2=80=99s money at stake. This isn=E2=80=99t a democracy - consensus =
is all or nothing. The fact that a good number of the people most intimatel=
y familiar with the inner workings of Satoshi=E2=80=99s invention do not be=
lieve doing this is a good idea should give you pause.</div><div><br></div>=
<div>Please stop using Bitcoin as your own political football=E2=80=A6for t=
he sake of Bitcoin=E2=80=A6and for your own sake. Despite your obvious tech=
nical abilities (and I sincerely do believe you have them) you are discredi=
ting yourself and hurting your own reputation.</div><div><br></div><div><br=
></div><div>- Eric</div><div><br></div><div><div><blockquote type=3D"cite">=
<div>On Aug 15, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin=
-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:</div><br><div><div dir=3D"ltr=
">Hello,<div><br></div><div>As promised, we have released Bitcoin XT 0.11A =
which includes the bigger blocks patch set. You can get it from</div><div><=
br></div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<a href=3D"https://bitcoinxt.software/" t=
arget=3D"_blank">https://bitcoinxt.software/</a><br></div><div><br></div><d=
iv>I feel sad that it&#39;s come to this, but there is no other way. The Bi=
tcoin Core project has drifted so far from the principles myself and many o=
thers feel are important, that a fork is the only way to fix things.</div><=
div><br></div><div>Forking is a natural thing in the open source community,=
 Bitcoin is not the first and won&#39;t be the last project to go through t=
his. Often in forks, people say there was insufficient communication. So to=
 ensure everything is crystal clear I&#39;ve written a blog post and a kind=
 of &quot;manifesto&quot; to describe why this is happening and how XT plan=
s to be different from Core (assuming adoption, of course).</div><div><br><=
/div><div>The article is here:</div><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <a hr=
ef=3D"https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1" t=
arget=3D"_blank">https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647=
312d22c1</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>It makes no attempt to be neutral=
: this explains things from our point of view.</div><div><br></div><div>The=
 manifesto is on the website.</div><div><br></div><div>I say to all develop=
ers on this list: if you also feel that Core is no longer serving the inter=
ests of Bitcoin users, come join us. We don&#39;t bite.</div><div><br></div=
></div>
_______________________________________________<br>bitcoin-dev mailing list=
<br><a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_bla=
nk">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br><a href=3D"https://lists.l=
inuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" target=3D"_blank">https://=
lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br></div></block=
quote></div><br></div></div><br>___________________________________________=
____<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>bitcoin-dev mailing list=
<br><a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_bla=
nk">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br><a href=3D"https://lists.l=
inuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" target=3D"_blank">https://=
lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br></div></block=
quote></div><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>bitcoin-dev mailing list=
<br><a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_bla=
nk">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br><a href=3D"https://lists.l=
inuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" target=3D"_blank">https://=
lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br></div></block=
quote></div><br></div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________=
________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>

--001a113ec7105085e5051d61f3ec--