Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_BBF039CD-20BD-475A-A77E-FD262494B09C";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG86ZOxWBMaBKzgRUp=Q5TvaT1v3OjNRFx2Xofd4FdLvpg9dGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:30:24 -0700
Message-Id: <83343736-3F56-4F94-946E-3FBB9525FCD9@gmail.com>
References: <20150817100918.BD1F343128@smtp.hushmail.com>
	<1439815244.89850.YahooMailBasic@web173102.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
	<20150817133438.DDD4243128@smtp.hushmail.com>
	<64C86292-6671-4729-8A77-63C081797F62@gmail.com>
	<CAG86ZOxWBMaBKzgRUp=Q5TvaT1v3OjNRFx2Xofd4FdLvpg9dGQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Levin Keller <post@levinkeller.de>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT
Precedence: list


--Apple-Mail=_BBF039CD-20BD-475A-A77E-FD262494B09C
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

Levin,

The hope is that eventually the network will be sufficiently resilient =
and robust to be able to handle anything that=E2=80=99s thrown at it. =
But it=E2=80=99s still a baby=E2=80=A6and this is a serious problem =
indeed, because on the one hand we don=E2=80=99t want any central =
authority but on the other it still needs some guardians=E2=80=A6and we =
don=E2=80=99t have anything resembling the kind of institution that =
could possibly be entrusted to nurture and care for this baby until it =
is ready to go out on its own.

Imagine, when the US Constitution was being written, if suddenly =
everyone started to just propose their own different version of it and =
insisting (under threat of fork) on their own versions before any sort =
of government could be created. Yes, I know the US federal government is =
not exactly the paragon of decentralization=E2=80=A6but regardless of =
your views on the US government, it=E2=80=99s still a somewhat analogous =
situation. Until the system was in place, some people (who at the time =
were unelected) had to bootstrap the process.

For better or worse, Satoshi has left the picture=E2=80=A6and no clear =
succession model was put in place. The Bitcoin Foundation, which for a =
time attempted to be a guardian institution, ended up self-destructing. =
It was an utter failure.

We don=E2=80=99t have any sort of institution like this=E2=80=A6and we =
don=E2=80=99t really want one. But the system is still not fully in =
place. Importantly, we lack any mechanisms to be able to make =
potentially controversial changes without serious risks.

It would be amazing if despite this trial-by-fire we still survived and =
managed to pull through. And if we do we=E2=80=99ll be stronger for it. =
But quite sincerely, I would have wanted the system to be a little more =
mature before putting it through this trial. At least I would have liked =
to have gone through a test hard-fork using a far less politically =
divisive issue.

Anyhow, completely separate from my views on governance, etc=E2=80=A6my =
main point is that we=E2=80=99re ALL trying to do what=E2=80=99s best =
given our understanding and resources=E2=80=A6and we=E2=80=99ve all =
poured our hearts and souls into this. We might disagree on certain =
things, but let=E2=80=99s stop this negativity and misrepresentation and =
try to figure out a way forward that is less likely to lead to a war.


- Eric

>=20
>=20
> Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> =
schrieb am Mo., 17. Aug. 2015 um 16:03 Uhr:
> NxtChg,
>=20
> In the entire history of Bitcoin we=E2=80=99ve never attempted =
anything even closely resembling a hard fork like what=E2=80=99s being =
proposed here.
>=20
> Many of us have wanted to push our own hard-forking changes to the =
protocol=E2=80=A6and have been frustrated because of the inability to do =
so.
>=20
> This inability is not due to any malice on anyone=E2=80=99s part=E2=80=A6=
it is a feature of Satoshi=E2=80=99s protocol. For better or worse, it =
is *very hard* to change the rules=E2=80=A6and this is exactly what =
imbues Bitcoin with one of its most powerful attributes: very =
well-defined settlement guarantees that cannot be suddenly altered nor =
reversed by anyone.
>=20
> We=E2=80=99ve managed to have a few soft forks in the past=E2=80=A6and =
for the most part these changes have been pretty uncontroversial=E2=80=A6o=
r at least, they have not had nearly the level of political divisiveness =
that this block size issue is having. And even then, we=E2=80=99ve =
encountered a number of problems with these deployments that have at =
times required goodwill cooperation between developers and mining pool =
operators to fix.
>=20
> Again, we have NEVER attempted anything even remotely like what=E2=80=99=
s being proposed - we=E2=80=99ve never done any sort of hard fork before =
like this. If even fairly uncontroversial soft forks have caused =
problems, can you imagine the kinds of potential problems that a hard =
fork over some highly polarizing issue might raise? Do you really think =
people are going to want to cooperate?!?
>=20
> I can understand that some people would like bigger blocks. Other =
people might want feature X, others feature Y=E2=80=A6and we can argue =
the merits of this or that to death=E2=80=A6but the fact remains that we =
have NEVER attempted any hard forking change=E2=80=A6not even with a =
simple, totally uncontroversial no-brainer improvement that would not =
risk any sort of ill-will that could hamper remedies were it not to go =
as smoothly as we like. *THIS* is the fundamental problem - the whole =
bigger block thing is a minor issue by comparison=E2=80=A6it could be =
any controversial change, really.
>=20
> Would you want to send your test pilots on their first flight=E2=80=A6th=
e first time an aircraft is ever flown=E2=80=A6directly into combat =
without having tested the plane? This is what attempting a hard fork =
mechanism that=E2=80=99s NEVER been done before in such a politically =
divisive environment basically amounts to=E2=80=A6but it=E2=80=99s even =
worse. We=E2=80=99re basically risking the entire air force (not just =
one plane) over an argument regarding how many seats a plane should have =
that we=E2=80=99ve never flown before.
>=20
> We=E2=80=99re talking billlions of dollars=E2=80=99 worth of other =
people=E2=80=99s money that is on the line here. Don=E2=80=99t we owe it =
to them to at least test out the system on a far less controversial, far =
less divisive change first to make sure we can even deploy it without =
things breaking? I don=E2=80=99t even care about the merits regarding =
bigger blocks vs. smaller blocks at this point, to be quite honest - =
that=E2=80=99s such a petty thing compared to what I=E2=80=99m talking =
about here. If we attempt a novel hard-forking mechanism that=E2=80=99s =
NEVER been attempted before (and which as many have pointed out is =
potentially fraught with serious problems) on such a politically =
divisive, polarizing issue, the result is each side will refuse to =
cooperate with the other out of spite=E2=80=A6and can easily lead to a =
war, tanking the value of everyone=E2=80=99s assets on both chains. All =
so we can process 8 times the number of transactions we currently do? =
Even if it were 100 times, we wouldn=E2=80=99t even come close to =
touching big payment processors like Visa. It=E2=80=99s hard to imagine =
a protocol improvement that=E2=80=99s worth the risk.
>=20
> I urge you to at least try to see the bigger picture here=E2=80=A6and =
to understand that nobody is trying to stop anyone from doing anything =
out of some desire for maintaining control - NONE of us are able to =
deploy hard forks right now without facing these problems. And different =
people obviously have different priorities and preferences as to which =
of these changes would be best to do first. This whole XT thing is =
essentially giving *one* proposal special treatment above those that =
others have proposed. Many of us have only held back from doing this out =
of our belief that goodwill amongst network participants is more =
important than trying to push some pet feature some of us want.
>=20
> Yadayadayada.
>=20
> If someone could threaten the network by releasing a hard-forking =
bitcoind version, then already all is lost. Bitcoins stability does not =
(and cannot) depend on the "good will" of anyone. If it would, we should =
all abandon this silly project. Relying on the good will of people is =
the worst idea one could have.
>=20
> So please (please please) go ahead and release your hardforking =
bitcoinds you have been holding back. Competition is everything.
>=20
> Cheers
>=20
> Levin
>=20
>=20
> Please stop this negativity - we ALL want the best for Bitcoin and are =
doing our best, given what we understand and know, to do what=E2=80=99s =
right.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> > On Aug 17, 2015, at 6:34 AM, NxtChg via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> We should have the highest respect for what these people are doing, =
and we should try to do something constructive, not waste time with =
anger and disrespect.
> >
> > Why, exactly, should I have any respect for what these people are =
doing (and supposedly not have any respect for what the other side is =
doing)?
> >
> > =46rom my point of view, the XT side _does_ something constructive. =
It's the Core side that resorts to dirty tactics and tries to sabotage =
community's free choice instead.
> >
> >
> >> Nobody should be forced to do anything.
> >
> > Great, so how about you go tell theymos to stop censoring XT posts =
and banning the other side on /r/Bitcoin?
> >
> > Let users decide what Bitcoin is or isn't.
> >
> >
> >> The developers are not telling you what to do, they are trying to =
do what they consider is best for the ecosystem given their technical =
abilities.
> >
> > The developers & Co are doing their best to stay in power, so they =
could continue imposing their will on Bitcoin ecosystem. This is the =
real power grab, not Gavin and Hearn, who merely provided an =
alternative.
> >
> > And the fear they show is most telling.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--Apple-Mail=_BBF039CD-20BD-475A-A77E-FD262494B09C
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
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=YpdG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_BBF039CD-20BD-475A-A77E-FD262494B09C--