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
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D12038A6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 11:06:10 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-la0-f43.google.com (mail-la0-f43.google.com
[209.85.215.43])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2263134
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 11:06:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by lalv9 with SMTP id v9so673422lal.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 04:06:08 -0700 (PDT)
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:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=guXb1h7F0KwE1B/xCK/XdTPEen0F5lc0LDofYJ91B1s=;
b=dlqMhdU1zsty8q8s2xDjmOMMVm8XhrvcMuIXs5/Bsc6QBolChIwfYRHPQDaFaAGOY/
GaGMxRwXi9eLZj/Ix4XGB4e5uz4SEQNBvStJnL5X46trc9XpxhaPHKo8k4Vrfanj4Xt2
4oOYXsmNkJ000g5PrPqP2x7Ah/bJYyDKdQeM24/+trrDaDL2APe5DnovtXPWG7IeFRc3
3ta2xM3fmSozUojnQhFEeu9eW8JDQk18qb2oyfIS1BlhaFkilQ0rsEpUdZh0Wu426aVq
YndZsNR0rZx3oC2OUUolgGO/1Bx5D8l7Aof+x30Dmx+HrHjHeEvbCnIzahGLkgDciIQI
0CTQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQku7nRbkKCf0dMyQz+WF4ZYFXoKxgBynjSq4shxHUYx/SzxspVL7pNjTIW/q9NhFfLbpXaX
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.136.201 with SMTP id qc9mr10805245lbb.94.1439982368006;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 04:06:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.15.22 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 04:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55D45715.4010107@riseup.net>
References: <d17549688c0c747b2077c1f6f96b6445@xbt.hk>
<CAJN5wHV-qyOcEw5spQc74nT7_b29WMiDTmi4Jj0ri_rGCQz2ng@mail.gmail.com>
<E9543641-9D73-4A00-9CB3-FAB62BFB490E@gmail.com>
<CAJN5wHXRwQZ6YmiZiCE9Gx4d-3FTzy1Zv7i2noia0mwtRwVL+w@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDp69g8H4Was2qzixPq3qwQ_smzzeFpE+y2GYEK6F4kUrw@mail.gmail.com>
<55D45715.4010107@riseup.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:06:07 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDr2o82O5jtpv=MovAcsvf9xV5u54d4oFajuvuz1QuKZoA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: odinn <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an
experimental hardfork?
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: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 11:06:11 -0000
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:14 PM, odinn <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Firstly, XT is controversial, not uncontroversial;
XT it's just a software fork.
BIP101 (as currently implemented in Bitcoin XT) is a Schism hardfork
(or an altcoin), but BIP101 could be modified to be deployed like an
uncontroversial hardfork (in current bip99's draft, a given height
plus 95% mining upgrade confirmation after that).
> Third, it poses major risks as a non-peer reviewed alt with a number
> of problematic features (with the privacy problems recently mentioned
> on this list being just one of them)
>
> Fourth, it has not followed any semblance of process in terms of the
> development funnel or BIPS process, with XT developers instead
> choosing instead a dangerous path of hard forking bitcoin while being
> well aware of miner voting on viable solutions which have followed
> process.
I'm not defending the Schism hardfork being proposed. I am very
worried about it and I have publicly said so several times.
If Bitcoin XT didn't contained the Schism bip101 hardfork I wouldn't
be so worried: users are free to use software that is less reviewed at
their own risk.
> The following proposals
> http://bipsxdevs.azurewebsites.net/
> regardless of what you think of any one of them, are deserving of
> attention (BIP 100 / BIP 101) and are being voted on as you read this
> by miners. (BIP sipa is not yet numbered, and BIP 102 is a backup
> /fallback option.) BIP 100 is probably the best of these (note, in
> part, it schedules a hardfork on testnet in September).
It's users and not miners who decide the consensus rules.
> Contentious hard forks are bad for Bitcoin.
> https://bitcoin.org/en/posts/hard-fork-policy
> You may want to read this again if you haven't recently.
You may want to read BIP99 to understand that I know this, but still
think that Schism hardforks may be necessary in some situations (I
don't think this one is reasonable though).
> There is no basis for further promoting XT by suggesting that it
> should even be tested.
All I'm saying is that Bitcoin XT the software fork is totally fine
(like other alternative Bitcoin implementations). The big problem is
BIP101 being deployed as a Schism hardfork.
|
