Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0C18109A for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 07:57:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pf0-f182.google.com (mail-pf0-f182.google.com [209.85.192.182]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFBB2101 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 07:57:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf0-f182.google.com with SMTP id x125so38417449pfb.0 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 23:57:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=+T/i07rC53tHSiSVTXqKv1qLpfHH7yWmY8G1w+O2Vvc=; b=jBCahPFUUGSgzAY0imNOicNdhQmIFanIbvWGv3IXIc7f8EXDudPE0+IVjr1QHlrHV+ jxjMcz/5M/rUITyT6XsrnjN4aG+xhGqUuvOp/2t5jsaINADSVLxD4oLvlaAATFkzqBcm IEnMHbqXWmLXYqpoKgjYRddHjLyGKQFJUksxBnGOdFW8wCydzFumTg9ZgPiHl6HIFtP7 M1LyWhaGsX8Nkn7K+Fwe0WxGvlUgnDtwtFnfuZmNDe5NXCbebqXwwOIAqbpdX08ANI2h ZIW8azZLlCqFiUGYWccyOv5j4f6OvGkXGfpNm1k5sNDOAqGirVGI9Izh1hMjSci8EUrY uwRA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=+T/i07rC53tHSiSVTXqKv1qLpfHH7yWmY8G1w+O2Vvc=; b=RSAaiI40ChLv1yzNdSJxLuIn7cspbzmFDyVaEzLou6ksJYWEB94WTSV+t+D7w1BAte 30K9WNdzOMOjj2AJ+TGWrgZhtVAxklwlCNtAoQJMhQI1m8NXa0kNIUWtDrUK09H5azTq Hep9ChZsxd4Lccduub8KbR/aiFM3AE2i53BIKalZhNs2oWz+hkUBZXLf0diz/FDwRoFn lPCJsjUktXw/7DdIRpEwc6vCzj4q/Ao03/GEMG4L9MhcIFFqvcIEZ7qmLIZiLFnTVemR OmtF2GuJNrBLx3R6TUGCE1RL31/cPPmmm7vJndFe7fsNrWmgUONIQ17ep1TSoUKpoLfL ITLw== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOSpZu5kNHxmfgihH5DhIJiNhKP0fdXACmyFCffJOVbGfWcsIms9dDEUNp1RPbiP0g== X-Received: by 10.98.70.151 with SMTP id o23mr11357257pfi.124.1454054222590; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 23:57:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.109] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com. [76.167.237.202]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l9sm21430678pfb.29.2016.01.28.23.57.01 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 28 Jan 2016 23:57:01 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4A2301DB-3FF9-4E20-A56E-18063FB916F0"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.1 From: Eric Lombrozo In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 23:57:00 -0800 Message-Id: <7DA5E08C-DABB-48F8-A47F-0852F059EB74@gmail.com> References: <42F57F58-7C67-43DD-81DE-2C77E03733F2@gmail.com> To: Btc Drak X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Classification Process X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 07:57:03 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_4A2301DB-3FF9-4E20-A56E-18063FB916F0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4A43D1AD-A345-4FD1-B653-BB8277BF773C" --Apple-Mail=_4A43D1AD-A345-4FD1-B653-BB8277BF773C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Codebase forks with nonconsensus features are totally fine! It=E2=80=99s = the bitterness and resentment that arose out of the need to get everyone = to agree on something that not everyone really needs to agree on = that=E2=80=99s the problem. > On Jan 28, 2016, at 11:21 PM, Btc Drak wrote: >=20 > Your proposal does not solve the issue related to Mike creating his = own fork. He created his own for because he had a non-consensus feature = set that Bitcoin Core disagreed with and he wanted. That is to be = _encouraged_. I also maintain my own Bitcoin fork with a specific = (non-consensus) feature for the same reason and I am perfectly happy = with the arrangement, as are my userbase. >=20 > Classification of BIPs is fine, I have no problem with that and I = support your BIP, but your proposition it would have stopped Mike from = creating his own distribution is false (nor desirable): it was down to a = strong differing of technical opinions between Mike and a dozen other = developers as well as node security concerns (which were proved = correct). >=20 >=20 > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 12:52 AM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev = > wrote: > Folks, >=20 > I think the current situation with forks could have been avoided with = a better process that can distinguish between different layers for = bitcoin modification proposals. >=20 > For instance, BIP64 was proposed by Mike Hearn, which does not affect = the consensus layer at all. Many Core devs disliked the proposal and = Mike had lots of pushback. Regardless of whether or not you agree with = the merits of Mike=E2=80=99s ideas here, fact is having nodes that = support BIP64 would not fundamentally break the Bitcoin network. >=20 > This issue prompted Mike to break off from Core and create XT as the = applications he was developing required BIP64 to work. With this split, = Gavin found a new home for his big block ideas=E2=80=A6and the two = teamed up. >=20 > We need to have a process that clearly distinguishes these different = layers and allows much more freedom in the upper layers while requiring = agreement at the consensus layer. Many of these fork proposals are = actually conflating different features, only some of which would = actually be consensus layer changes. When people proposing nonconsensus = features get pushback from Core developers they feel rejected and are = likely to team up with others trying to push for hard forks and the = like. >=20 > A while back I had submitted a BIP - BIP123 - that addresses this = issue. I have updated it to include all the currently proposed and = accepted BIPs and have submitted a PR: = https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/311 = >=20 > I urge everyone to seriously consider getting this BIP accepted as a = top priority before we get more projects all trying their hand at stuff = and not understanding these critical distinctions. >=20 >=20 > - Eric >=20 > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org = > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev = >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_4A43D1AD-A345-4FD1-B653-BB8277BF773C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Codebase forks with nonconsensus features are totally fine! = It=E2=80=99s the bitterness and resentment that arose out of the need to = get everyone to agree on something that not everyone really needs to = agree on that=E2=80=99s the problem.

On = Jan 28, 2016, at 11:21 PM, Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com> = wrote:

Your proposal does not solve the issue related to = Mike creating his own fork. He created his own for because he had a = non-consensus feature set that Bitcoin Core disagreed with and he = wanted. That is to be _encouraged_. I also maintain my own Bitcoin fork = with a specific (non-consensus) feature for the same reason and I am = perfectly happy with the arrangement, as are my userbase.

Classification of BIPs = is fine, I have no problem with that and I support your BIP, but your = proposition it would have stopped Mike from creating his own = distribution is false (nor desirable): it was down to a strong differing = of technical opinions between Mike and a dozen other developers as well = as node security concerns (which were proved correct). 


On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 12:52 AM, = Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> = wrote:
Folks,

I think the current situation with = forks could have been avoided with a better process that can distinguish = between different layers for bitcoin modification proposals.

For instance, BIP64 was = proposed by Mike Hearn, which does not affect the consensus layer at = all. Many Core devs disliked the proposal and Mike had lots of pushback. = Regardless of whether or not you agree with the merits of Mike=E2=80=99s = ideas here, fact is having nodes that support BIP64 would not = fundamentally break the Bitcoin network.

This issue prompted Mike to break off = from Core and create XT as the applications he was developing required = BIP64 to work. With this split, Gavin found a new home for his big block = ideas=E2=80=A6and the two teamed up.

We need to have a process that clearly = distinguishes these different layers and allows much more freedom in the = upper layers while requiring agreement at the consensus layer. Many of = these fork proposals are actually conflating different features, only = some of which would actually be consensus layer changes. When people = proposing nonconsensus features get pushback from Core developers they = feel rejected and are likely to team up with others trying to push for = hard forks and the like.

A while back I had submitted a BIP -  BIP123 - that = addresses this issue. I have updated it to include all the currently = proposed and accepted BIPs and have submitted a PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/311

I urge everyone to = seriously consider getting this BIP accepted as a top priority before we = get more projects all trying their hand at stuff and not understanding = these critical distinctions.


- = Eric

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<= /a>



= --Apple-Mail=_4A43D1AD-A345-4FD1-B653-BB8277BF773C-- --Apple-Mail=_4A2301DB-3FF9-4E20-A56E-18063FB916F0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJWqxtMAAoJEJNAI64YFENUBnAQAItOQxxtgrPM0wq6aRpRi59Q 6AOhMXSUA65R++gi1nkqgcv593pRrmwllAXFA9aSYXnP2eg2B3ttU/LP0kDpzv1M tt75S3meKaX6HR5FBecShFW3i7rAg5IiD+G/6oIE/YHw0i8TFJDhK+FbmUtf9xto sPuRP4PubR2ilI5Au27ugx1+vSyo0O93cRoquat+po1DX+TwW/uDWKkyQHl0AdN+ ydbLfb9KRmLNvP0fvegxXtPLae9Cj+bhDsPnkM+/eEuR9w39MuqqI5nR8CbRHTQs 9pLOUXvp/lDGj+lpR8vr0FSrD5avcOLv/wG6Rj2byGJiQ5yGENGgECI0Mv11R72n iyLz+AJ4MhO8y5MyNotdRcdlFkEdW9mvTlMBjf0U5OjyYfDiUPH8l0quF0VieFdg nuK39/UGALbdD1EDvnJNMqhUQYPR4zbA18bcJSdAfCMWudHotMsF3UqFKh0nMsJc y8uH2j15VCO7ete9/2Yc4WFVw19xmMK8HawV14OziDyIkwfRYN5bOmEqa3+C69qf Ws4aL49JBC2BwxZ52cL+LC8fEw/T0SREgOScVej9HWQQ8blhKPIjHUSg0o5uJvcI 5zSj461E8n6KgRAByOUmoFeV9DGvTR6n9htKnPjSrR5MsDAWewYsInXtRIW/geJA P3rVOFtmSdfAw0zkCJL+ =iBZk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_4A2301DB-3FF9-4E20-A56E-18063FB916F0--