1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
|
Return-Path: <michabailey@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F06B9B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 20:55:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ig0-f180.google.com (mail-ig0-f180.google.com
[209.85.213.180])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE68311F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 20:55:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by igui7 with SMTP id i7so32374268igu.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:55:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=/xZe1RFP+8ApnwM3ecbNSeOOTOKoVzHQU5sY6RcuWV0=;
b=yrk/b4i8zUyys0YorpgkEp6QclgVPbwmqBe3V3+J+l86DclmQkIGpqlCRj7gMgWGDD
5rIWY4BkI0a+atATxsTh1SuWV5FlgJB8Uc4nJZzMwT0uh/fMM6HnpBSf2rA/nUopJ+We
kM2/B05o3y3CaQ/Ym9ktRb6rGlewLtRIzjsjDqptpY7gwNfQnoqZlUpT5sqLkyzILWwU
1FCRRJKZ+HctKyQxN7SIBKJswdToMOv1OtqfoQq0GrJLBvugy1hxvIJhDTRnfjDI+7V7
1sE37MgItBCvYNBWlO2+PutxashOwnqBOvDmxg3yvILBIZc+BO4KTjWkwe2aKuSVSCwW
zv9w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.78.133 with SMTP id b5mr9998297igx.32.1439672125249; Sat,
15 Aug 2015 13:55:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.79.37.13 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:55:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55CFA2E0.9040301@bitcoins.info>
References: <CA+w+GKT7t5OahS-+P=QAmOyFzPnOs4J6KSo+mhSrC0YggmMupg@mail.gmail.com>
<55CF871E.9050500@sky-ip.org>
<CA+w+GKTG6a_v4Jop3FZ2O2WG9Fi=o0Lnh58OH4Y4sM-vPjFHSQ@mail.gmail.com>
<55CFA2E0.9040301@bitcoins.info>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:55:25 +0300
Message-ID: <CAAmoQf1gfsN=KFs=rWOs+sYn-=kemXEvpCXWsANR7OpMqLVG4A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Micha Bailey <michabailey@gmail.com>
To: Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0122f08e9e5ec9051d5fc9fb
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@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT 0.11A
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 20:55:26 -0000
--089e0122f08e9e5ec9051d5fc9fb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
If this proposal has less than half of the total hashpower (or is it even
less than 75%? Haven't quite thought it through completely) supporting it,
I can see the following happening if the sum of supporters and people who
want to screw the supporters out of money is at least 75%:
Non-supporters create blocks with the new version, but don't actually
implement the rule. Then after the new rule is locked in, miners will
create too-large blocks that are rejected by the majority. If the
percentage is less than half, then from their perspective, they will
essentially be on the losing side of a soft fork, and they'll be losing
money by mining for nothing, even from their perspective and that of e.g.
users and merchants who have upgraded.
On Saturday, August 15, 2015, Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> So if you want a user vote, that's an issue that'd have to be tackled:
>> the people who admin the main communication channels Bitcoin users have
>> vowed to censor any program that doesn't slavishly follow 51%+ hash
>> power. That attempt to control the conversation is certainly not
>> libertarian or democratic in nature, but there you go.
>>
>
> These types of actions are immediately apparent to anyone who looks at the
> Bitcoin ecosystem (Bitcoin.org, Githib, Wiki, bitcointalk, etc.) and were
> readily apparent long before any block size debate. It is almost a taboo
> subject and anyone who raises these types of issues is immediately labeled
> as a "troll." These are the people who used to run around saying that
> Bitcoin development is "decentralized" because anyone can fork the code and
> now many of the same people claim a fork will destroy everything.
>
> The problem is that a small group of highly irrational and inexperienced
> people (outside of the small and unusual Bitcoin ecosystem) have control
> over the majority of the resources. I think over time the problem will
> even itself out but currently it is an obstacle in moving Bitcoin forward.
>
> Russ
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
--089e0122f08e9e5ec9051d5fc9fb
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
If this proposal has less than=C2=A0half=C2=A0of the total hashpower (or is=
it even less than 75%? Haven't quite thought it through completely)=C2=
=A0supporting it, I can see the following happening if the sum of supporter=
s and people who want to screw the supporters out of money is at least 75%:=
<div>Non-supporters create blocks with the new version, but don't actua=
lly implement the rule. Then after the new rule is locked in, miners will c=
reate too-large blocks that are rejected by the majority. If the percentage=
is less than half, then from their perspective, they will essentially be o=
n the losing=C2=A0=C2=A0side of a soft fork, and they'll be losing mone=
y by mining for nothing, even from their perspective and that of e.g. users=
and merchants who have upgraded.=C2=A0<span></span><br><br>On Saturday, Au=
gust 15, 2015, Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-=
dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>>=
; wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bo=
rder-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote=
" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
So if you want a user vote, that's an issue that'd have to be tackl=
ed:<br>
the people who admin the main communication channels Bitcoin users have<br>
vowed to censor any program that doesn't slavishly follow 51%+ hash<br>
power. That attempt to control the conversation is certainly not<br>
libertarian or democratic in nature, but there you go.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
These types of actions are immediately apparent to anyone who looks at the =
Bitcoin ecosystem (Bitcoin.org, Githib, Wiki, bitcointalk, etc.) and were r=
eadily apparent long before any block size debate.=C2=A0 It is almost a tab=
oo subject and anyone who raises these types of issues is immediately label=
ed as a "troll."=C2=A0 These are the people who used to run aroun=
d saying that Bitcoin development is "decentralized" because anyo=
ne can fork the code and now many of the same people claim a fork will dest=
roy everything.<br>
<br>
The problem is that a small group of highly irrational and inexperienced pe=
ople (outside of the small and unusual Bitcoin ecosystem) have control over=
the majority of the resources.=C2=A0 I think over time the problem will ev=
en itself out but currently it is an obstacle in moving Bitcoin forward.<br=
>
<br>
Russ<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a>bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoi=
n-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
--089e0122f08e9e5ec9051d5fc9fb--
|
