path: root/4a/f5488129ee0d963cc8883978c864042c88eff0

Return-Path: <santino.napolitano@yandex.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3D2E951
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 19 Aug 2015 19:20:39 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 00:07:36 by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from forward12p.cmail.yandex.net (forward12p.cmail.yandex.net
	[87.250.241.138])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFBA8272
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 19 Aug 2015 19:20:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from web1g.yandex.ru (web1g.yandex.ru [95.108.252.101])
	by forward12p.cmail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id 3B62E21792;
	Wed, 19 Aug 2015 22:12:58 +0300 (MSK)
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by web1g.yandex.ru (Yandex) with ESMTP id 959946240EE3;
	Wed, 19 Aug 2015 22:12:57 +0300 (MSK)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.com; s=mail;
	t=1440011577; bh=mdeQBHL81Cn+GxNmu402/5XflAe17unlO87KdJfmzk8=;
	h=From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:Date;
	b=HIDcvgW/1AvUYs2lZVUaJtz1Pm6ONoTVjKngrz9ozGa9InAu+RWOJEbt8+P9jeEoI
	HW/JlwbbowBBaBBFNqUwFCKlGhULNEmZn6PVRqSAd6PFfSvBdoJ5YFvCkIYqp1oygZ
	xhsHT2+tBLGHTk1c2LfuFnIWN2zNRd+MrLOpDRzY=
Received: by web1g.yandex.ru with HTTP;
	Wed, 19 Aug 2015 22:12:56 +0300
From: Santino Napolitano <santino.napolitano@yandex.com>
Envelope-From: santino-napolitano@yandex.ru
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>,
	Angel Leon <gubatron@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTFkgGx0FxMiZ77inOZSs_+TQ88Wpj-q-c12COkO9tP4gQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALqxMTFkgGx0FxMiZ77inOZSs_+TQ88Wpj-q-c12COkO9tP4gQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <694691440011576@web1g.yandex.ru>
X-Mailer: Yamail [ http://yandex.ru ] 5.0
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 22:12:56 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
	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 XT Fork
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 19:20:40 -0000

Gavin has been very clear about the fact that he's on vacation. I'm not sure what you want Mike to say. It's obvious the Bitcoin Core developer pitchforks are out for him so there isn't really anything he can possibly say which will be constructively received on this highly adversarial and increasingly ridiculous charade of a mailing list. I feel as though they've made their case abundantly clear to anyone paying attention.

The community will weigh the independent merit of the two points of view and that community is not as naive and uninformed as everyone on this list likes to portray them to be. Your concern for companies' welfare is appreciated but I'm confident they can manage their own independent assessments of this matter as well as seek out enough varied expert opinions such that they can make an informed decision.

19.08.2015, 19:53, "Adam Back via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
> It seems to be a recurring meme that BIP 101 is somehow "a solution
> put forward" where BIP 100, 102, 103, flexcap, extension blocks etc
> etc are not.
>
> That is not at ALL the case, and is insulting (present company excluded).
>
> It is just that no one else is reckless enough to bypass the review
> process and risk a controversial hard fork deployment war. Myself and
> many other people warned Gavin a network fork "war" would start (ie
> someone would think of some way to sabotage or attack the deployment
> of Bitcoin-XT via protocol, code, policy, consensus soft-fork etc. He
> ignored the warnings. Many also warned that 75% was an optimally BAD
> trigger ratio (and that in a hard fork it is not a miner vote really
> as in soft-forks). Gavin & Mike ignored that warning to. I know they
> heard those warnings because I told them 1:1 in person or via email
> and had on going conversations. Others did too.
>
> People can not blame bitcoin core or me, that this then predictably
> happened exactly as we said it would - it was completely obvious and
> predictable.
>
> In fact noBitcoinXT is even more dangerous and therefore amplified in
> effect in creating mutual assured destruction kind of risk profile
> than the loose spectrum of technical counters imagined. I did not
> personally put much effort into thinking about counters because I
> though it counter productive and hoped that Gavin & Mike would have
> the maturity to not start down such a path.
>
> Again any of the other proposals can easily be implemented. They
> *could* also spin up a web page and put up binaries, however no one
> else was crazy enough to try to start a deployment in that way.
>
> It is also puzzling timing - with all these BIPs and ongoing
> discussion and workshops coming imminently to then release ahead of
> that process where as far as I know Gavin said he was equally happy
> with BIP 100 or other proposal which ever is best, and on basically
> the eve of workshops planned to progress this collaboratively.
> Bitcoin-XT is also under tested, people are finding privacy bugs and
> other issues. (Not even mentioning the above 75% optimally bad
> parameter, and the damage to community reputation and collaborative
> environment that this all causes.)
>
> Very disappointing Gavin and Mike.
>
> I find it quite notable that Gavin and Mike have been radio silent on
> the bitcoin-dev list and yet we see a stream of media articles, blog
> posts, pod casts, and from what I can tell ongoing backroom lobbying
> of companies to run bitcoin-XT without trying AT ALL to offer a
> neutral or balanced or multi proposal information package so that
> companies technical people can make a balanced informed decision.
> That is what the workshops are trying to provide.
>
> Gavin, Mike - anything to say here?
>
> Adam
>
> On 18 August 2015 at 19:59, Angel Leon via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> š"How then to end this XT madness?"
>>
>> šInstead of bashing on someone that has actually put a solution forward, make
>> šyour own fork and see if your ideas on how to solve the issue are any
>> šbetter.
>>
>> šAs of now, 1Mb blocks are pure madness, and people are voting over an 8mb
>> šblock increase every day that passes, even with a "useless project" like you
>> šcall it.
>>
>> šGo out there and see how bitcoin is actually used.
>>
>> šhttp://twitter.com/gubatron
>>
>> šOn Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 10:54 PM, odinn via bitcoin-dev
>> š<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> šThe "XT Fork" (better said, a POS alt*) and those behind it make not
>>> ševen a pretense to work through process involved with bitcoin developmen
>>> št.
>>>
>>> š(*This is not intended as a slight toward any other alts, as here in
>>> šthis post I am focusing solely on XT.)
>>>
>>> šInstead of abandoning their useless project, or at least conceding
>>> šthat their alt is operating essentially outside of the development
>>> šfunnel (by this I mean BIP process), the developers of XT, via their
>>> šlatest presentation of XT give nothing more than an attack on bitcoin
>>> š(albeit one that, more than anything, is designed to sidetrack real
>>> šdiscussion necessary to resolve the issues so as to achieve some level
>>> šof consensus in block size debates). Curiously, XT is not even truly
>>> šthe implementation of BIP 101; the actual proposed implementation of
>>> šBIP 101 as proposed at
>>> šhttps://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki#implement
>>> šation
>>> šis found here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6341
>>> š(It is currently a closed issue.)
>>>
>>> šIt's probably valid to call into question why Mike Hearn in particular
>>> špersists with this project at all, as he has been its biggest
>>> šcheerleader. Some reasons may be:
>>> š1) His interest in attacking bitcoin in the past (seems to be a
>>> šrecurring pattern)
>>> šhttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333824.0
>>>
>>> š2) His employment (has come up before) - QinetiQ, Google, etc
>>> šhttps://plus.google.com/+MikeHearn/about - it's simply not
>>> šunreasonable to ask why he's pushing it so hard when nobody wants it.
>>>
>>> š3) Various reasons mentioned here:
>>> šhttps://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39yaug/the_history_of_mike_hea
>>> šrn_and_why_you_should_not/
>>>
>>> š4) His disinterest in following what is actually happening with votes
>>> šon legitimate proposals (e.g. Garzik's BIP 100) in the blocks. (Caveat
>>> š~ one doesn't see the BIP 100 yet in bitcoin/bips because it won't
>>> šappear for another couple weeks, supposedly. The miners' voting is
>>> šalready happening however.) Even according to http://xtnodes.com/ we
>>> šsee that XT runs minimal nodes in comparison to the rest of nodes
>>> šbeing run across the network.
>>>
>>> šBIP 100 itself is anticipated to be submitted w/ implementation in the
>>> šnext 2 weeks and many miners are already voting on BIP 100 (as per
>>> šJeff Garzik, from a post 08/12/2015 12:46 PM -0400 to this mailing list)
>>> š.
>>>
>>> ššIt is an insult to see Hearn fling the XT turd into the community
>>> šrepeatedly.
>>>
>>> šHow then to end this XT madness?
>>>
>>> š"The ring was made in the fires of Mount Doom. Only there can it be
>>> šunmade. The ring must be taken deep into Mordor and cast back into the
>>> šfiery chasm from whence it came. One of you must do this."
>>> š- - Lord Elrond
>>>
>>> šDo not download this loathsome XT thing. Cast it back into the fires
>>> šfrom whence it came.
>>>
>>> š- -Odinn
>>>
>>> šOn 08/15/2015 10:43 AM, Satoshi Nakamoto via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>> š> I have been following the recent block size debates through the
>>> š> mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork
>>> š> proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the
>>> š> formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen,
>>> š> and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous
>>> š> fork.
>>> š>
>>> š> The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my
>>> š> original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When
>>> š> I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future
>>> š> modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near
>>> š> unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the
>>> š> influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin
>>> š> Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has
>>> š> to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced
>>> š> or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these
>>> š> developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to
>>> š> honour.
>>> š>
>>> š> They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was
>>> š> supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since
>>> š> that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some
>>> š> of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled
>>> š> mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making
>>> š> Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its
>>> š> security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take
>>> š> more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a
>>> š> better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely
>>> š> on altruism.
>>> š>
>>> š> If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what
>>> š> "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and
>>> š> through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but
>>> š> to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both
>>> š> technically and socially robust. This present situation has been
>>> š> very disappointing to watch unfold.
>>> š>
>>> š> Satoshi Nakamoto
>>> š>
>>> š> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing
>>> š> list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> š> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>> š>
>>>
>>> š- --
>>> šhttp://abis.io ~
>>> š"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
>>> šand expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
>>> šhttps://keybase.io/odinn
>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>> šVersion: GnuPG v1
>>>>
>>>> šiQEcBAEBAgAGBQJV0+/fAAoJEGxwq/inSG8C4ZAIAKm1pEne0FlOW1O4zLe6mZOz
>>>> šYTcnpSHFiVw4AfUPgbzR813ODphnJqcwnoT1q/sojjqgIDtwZY+AqdjA3VAbe15D
>>>> šbAPlvQGmXMlaXq8OteDYPKxPzQMUlRtxEd9+sxO5IGFx0kvmKQLzdk6cmgawcRhN
>>>> šPrDyXIqLlx6Yp0REQ03v3poLTGojUkPLeqdMrJAjwpuAyv9F8iVUn7SeHemEi8cm
>>>> šfW4wOJogA8j9P//3a7+Cr8bjnOz6+QwpHsdlZlKM4VUTxt3Vgx4vu+SQjQxWgZEK
>>>> šI+HGvgQW1buoDxleBbFq6SJc55lhF41IB17tewuDuPzT2nL4zOkbis1tUk3ASxY=
>>>> š=Rm7w
>>>> š-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>
>>> š_______________________________________________
>>> šbitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> šbitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> šhttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>> š_______________________________________________
>> šbitcoin-dev mailing list
>> šbitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> šhttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev