summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/40/f0a038f5ac41cfd90e4f347fd01d65ecb1afbd
blob: d5acfbedd03dc5bc1641508f7dd3b052c4bf1a69 (plain)
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
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
Return-Path: <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 694291034
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 29 Jan 2016 07:21:31 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qg0-f42.google.com (mail-qg0-f42.google.com
	[209.85.192.42])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB62E101
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 29 Jan 2016 07:21:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id o11so59032651qge.2
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 28 Jan 2016 23:21:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
	:cc:content-type;
	bh=msakhUkyVYwIaX8sOPxjZiO0feN6uwMAw6U8rdQ2y4g=;
	b=pgJBOU3A6Xh5YmOLr7w4n+Ky8kCZPFJqN0AolX4J/7CzSKy57NRGIDP+yawXT7wPXn
	j0s2fB/VzwZ91FIbpfI0Q78eiIYyZzTsXsWVxYdw+Iw2kAlxN/gVcdmoRpr+TIwlz8xx
	pziIr+PUiaN9vGpgb51zMJdVf7Z3egEqNcO1Qf1TiFStpC+EqC7GZXIz4rCQs1nF5dXq
	iUiBBoGa3oeZXSWYAL1al39UQQXwNNsL7h6n0kfck+H2jXruHsI1NwDLvV5RRuUHi3JT
	qw8Sgai2/aMhu5QBclYM/XCuPo0jm8iD8ti/WjT1UBw11d512B9WXw1crZbECn8wPYUF
	rQZA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
	h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
	:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type;
	bh=msakhUkyVYwIaX8sOPxjZiO0feN6uwMAw6U8rdQ2y4g=;
	b=cTcIJMYdjBzRYAemRuS0KS3ErrBOifgpP5MxAMdix/kgK04LHyqH+Va20wcueVAIZe
	kf/p5jTKrflQWUCpPYny+BG9FwCJHWgMTW1M4qMfXra/niMnzhQ+wgGe5vEUWN7GCcP+
	BUycgGqW8PlU+z7Xj5rL6JjU2zwnVotZVIf3YlMuqIRWDvHILRf1O6ofHovXVVYLrw/4
	3N1p7mvR1kK12zEYbD+AmQ8SZzAlrHC4XcyM62HKxmJ/BxfNYd7+m+jbHi0iJydBLcQd
	nJkmR8gxMRR91wkVDkwvAgJHPZEygM1+KWGzBlJBG8FL5KthINRd/txC6iRZnytbYjvC
	r64g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOTjrq8PgB1Szq3RHVrf1cDQruOf+KSgW5qidQmuUInUG3NhZ8oZASNcRBoq8L0EbgwfXCG7MSY46X8h8w==
X-Received: by 10.140.30.229 with SMTP id d92mr8682319qgd.69.1454052090071;
	Thu, 28 Jan 2016 23:21:30 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.55.65.210 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 23:21:10 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <42F57F58-7C67-43DD-81DE-2C77E03733F2@gmail.com>
References: <42F57F58-7C67-43DD-81DE-2C77E03733F2@gmail.com>
From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 07:21:10 +0000
Message-ID: <CADJgMzv8o8fewFa7nsFf6-2N=Qo8S2bLsTpYd7F6jcsO1oYrXA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a777e50547a052a73e23c
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM,
	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
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 07:36:26 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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 <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: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 07:21:31 -0000

--001a113a777e50547a052a73e23c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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 actual=
ly
> 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 u=
p
> 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 n=
ot
> understanding these critical distinctions.
>
>
> - Eric
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

--001a113a777e50547a052a73e23c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Your proposal does not solve the issue related to Mike cre=
ating his own fork. He created his own for because he had a non-consensus f=
eature set that Bitcoin Core disagreed with and he wanted. That is to be _e=
ncouraged_. I also maintain my own Bitcoin fork with a specific (non-consen=
sus) feature for the same reason and I am perfectly happy with the arrangem=
ent, as are my userbase.<div><br></div><div>Classification of BIPs is fine,=
 I have no problem with that and I support your BIP, but your proposition i=
t 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).=C2=A0</div><div><br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_=
extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 12:52 AM, Eri=
c Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-=
dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfou=
ndation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" styl=
e=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div st=
yle=3D"word-wrap:break-word">Folks,<div><br></div><div>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.</=
div><div><br></div><div>For instance, BIP64 was proposed by Mike Hearn, whi=
ch 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 ag=
ree with the merits of Mike=E2=80=99s ideas here, fact is having nodes that=
 support BIP64 would not fundamentally break the Bitcoin network.</div><div=
><br></div><div>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 t=
eamed up.</div><div><br></div><div>We need to have a process that clearly d=
istinguishes these different layers and allows much more freedom in the upp=
er layers while requiring agreement at the consensus layer. Many of these f=
ork proposals are actually conflating different features, only some of whic=
h would actually be consensus layer changes. When people proposing nonconse=
nsus 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.</=
div><div><br></div><div>A while back I had submitted a BIP - =C2=A0BIP123 -=
 that addresses this issue. I have updated it to include all the currently =
proposed and accepted BIPs and have submitted a PR: <a href=3D"https://gith=
ub.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/311" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/bitcoin/=
bips/pull/311</a></div><div><br></div><div>I urge everyone to seriously con=
sider getting this BIP accepted as a top priority before we get more projec=
ts all trying their hand at stuff and not understanding these critical dist=
inctions.</div><span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><div><br></di=
v><div><br></div><div>- Eric</div></font></span></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>

--001a113a777e50547a052a73e23c--