MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKzdR-qCmuj02yobAj9YDYq7Ed309z2VUaMtbL_i9vF3zkp5mw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKzdR-qCmuj02yobAj9YDYq7Ed309z2VUaMtbL_i9vF3zkp5mw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2017 13:28:11 +0000
Message-ID: <CADJgMzuCcJhoEbaGUv8QgaaL82+UiV6Q9Tbbti++J=Jg5B=sgg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.lerner@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113c552270570c0553ce5374"
Cc: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Segwit2x BIP
Precedence: list

--001a113c552270570c0553ce5374
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

I am utterly appalled by this proposal both technically, ethically, and by
the process which it has adopted. Hard forks require consensus from the
entire ecosystem in order to prevent a fork, funds loss, confusion and harm
to the robust guarantees of the Bitcoin system has thus far displayed.

I know this is a draft, but you are seeking reviews of a proposal that has
just a few weeks remaining before deployment (where "technical review" is
pointless because the is not actually open
<https://pastebin.com/kktB1kaw> unless
you are an approved member
<https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/commit/1719c872b6624c37b0f2d94e7a4a2656fac4804a#diff-6a3371457528722a734f3c51d9238c13>),
making it totally unworkable and irresponsible. For example, exactly how
are other implementations supposed to adopt the BIP in such a short
timeframe? For all the talk of how important "alternative implementations"
are, how does this rash and rushed action promote an ecosystem of multiple
implementors? By encouraging fast upgrades, you are actually centralizing
the ecosystem even further.

The linked coded doesn't uniquely identify itself on the network by
user-agent, something all distinct implementations have done to date.

The draft BIP text looks like an afterthought and doesn't actually specify
the proposal in enough detail to implement from the text. By contrast for
example, BIP141 has a level of detail which allowed others to implement
segwit without looking at any reference code (which consequently results to
more confidence and testing of the specification all round). The Bitcoin
system has a market cap of over $40bn supported by a robust and reliable
network and your proposal is an offence to all Bitcoin has achieved because
due to it's the strong foundations.

I cannot not support this proposal in the current form and timeline, nor do
I support the coercion that has been used behind closed doors to try and
gain more support (not limited to, but including approaching company
investors to twist arms and veiled threats of blacklisting companies from
further funding/collaboration).

I think the best you can hope for this hard fork proposal is for it to be
quietly ignored.


On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:25 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Here is a BIP that matches the reference code that the Segwit2x group has
> built and published a week ago.
>
> This BIP and code satisfies the requests of a large part of the Bitcoin
> community for a moderate increase in the Bitcoin non-witness block space
> coupled with the activation of Segwit.
>
> You can find the BIP draft in the following link:
>
> https://github.com/SergioDemianLerner/BIPs/blob/
> master/BIP-draft-sergiolerner-segwit2x.mediawiki
>
> Reference source was kindly provided by the Segwit2x group.
>
> Best regards,
>  Sergio.
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

--001a113c552270570c0553ce5374
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">I am utterly appalled by this proposal both technically, e=
thically, and by the process which it has adopted. Hard forks require conse=
nsus from the entire ecosystem in order to prevent a fork, funds loss, conf=
usion and harm to the robust guarantees of the Bitcoin system has thus far =
displayed.<div><br></div><div>I know this is a draft, but you are seeking r=
eviews of a proposal that has just a few weeks remaining before deployment =
(where &quot;technical review&quot; is pointless because the is <a href=3D"=
https://pastebin.com/kktB1kaw" target=3D"_blank">not actually open</a>=C2=
=A0unless you are an <a href=3D"https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/commit/1719=
c872b6624c37b0f2d94e7a4a2656fac4804a#diff-6a3371457528722a734f3c51d9238c13"=
 target=3D"_blank">approved member</a>), making it totally unworkable and i=
rresponsible. For example, exactly how are other implementations supposed t=
o adopt the BIP in such a short timeframe? For all the talk of how importan=
t &quot;alternative implementations&quot; are, how does this rash and rushe=
d action promote an ecosystem of multiple implementors? By encouraging fast=
 upgrades, you are actually centralizing the ecosystem even further.=C2=A0<=
/div><div><br></div><div>The linked coded doesn&#39;t uniquely identify its=
elf on the network by user-agent, something all distinct implementations ha=
ve done to date.</div><div><br></div><div>The draft BIP text looks like an =
afterthought and doesn&#39;t actually specify the proposal in enough detail=
 to implement from the text. By contrast for example, BIP141 has a level of=
 detail which allowed others to implement segwit without looking at any ref=
erence code (which consequently results to more confidence and testing of t=
he specification all round). The Bitcoin system has a market cap of over $4=
0bn supported by a robust and reliable network and your proposal is an offe=
nce to all Bitcoin has achieved because due to it&#39;s the strong foundati=
ons.</div><div><br></div><div>I cannot not support this proposal in the cur=
rent form and timeline, nor do I support the coercion that has been used be=
hind closed doors to try and gain more support (not limited to, but includi=
ng approaching company investors to twist arms and veiled threats of blackl=
isting companies from further funding/collaboration).<br></div><div><br></d=
iv><div>I think the best you can hope for this hard fork proposal is for it=
 to be quietly ignored.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class=
=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:2=
5 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D=
"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-de=
v@lists.linuxfoundation.org</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 dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hello,</div><div><br></div><div>Here is a BI=
P that matches the reference code that the Segwit2x group has built and pub=
lished a week ago.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>This BIP and code satisfi=
es the requests of a large part of the Bitcoin community for a moderate inc=
rease in the Bitcoin non-witness block space coupled with the activation of=
 Segwit.</div><div><br></div><div>You can find the BIP draft in the followi=
ng link:</div><div><br></div><a href=3D"https://github.com/SergioDemianLern=
er/BIPs/blob/master/BIP-draft-sergiolerner-segwit2x.mediawiki" target=3D"_b=
lank">https://github.com/<wbr>SergioDemianLerner/BIPs/blob/<wbr>master/BIP-=
draft-sergiolerner-<wbr>segwit2x.mediawiki</a><br><div><br></div><div>Refer=
ence source was kindly provided by the Segwit2x group.</div><div><br></div>=
<div>Best regards,</div><div>=C2=A0Sergio.</div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>

--001a113c552270570c0553ce5374--