summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/6f/de2ac81480f111617e25caa5b366b6c3e89365
blob: 0e8e091e6f0635e86ee15dbf7b32b08dea0d4428 (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
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
Return-Path: <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 389D64D3
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:30:27 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com (mail-pa0-f50.google.com
	[209.85.220.50])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67C651AC
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:30:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by pacgr6 with SMTP id gr6so109805097pac.2
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:30:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
	:message-id:references:to;
	bh=e/BYKjW3ix2Ds6IZ0H6SKXvuWdphoE3SBvIDkb0BuW4=;
	b=jVAGPwnCIjPbybauw0r9CKT6qPxNVHPX328cuJPaa4EtqNOjbrLWvedRO6MkjCuu/b
	IDoOmW0vMlMqRpT1h7dwr/oObwK7i02K8TaeMNGi/J+HTXaYtJtnVuoMcSAJf9szT+TG
	5iBq3KPuuX1h9O5nO1q4hNRusg3KI2dhIv1v41FNxaXzXziv/jaRE7//MGctbckclwC6
	BKGlDnD2Pbz4hlv+zUuEiZW3ytWtN3/CcWjmeXWGwfROCPulsj+J/z3OteccktL7GKXa
	0A/4rABjIHa0qCNXr60BjujUbm2wO9fM8h6Uu/V4l8qD6RJH7roxnPhUW1zNkVrgbot3
	UlfA==
X-Received: by 10.68.111.165 with SMTP id ij5mr3181710pbb.59.1439821826010;
	Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:30:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.107] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com.
	[76.167.237.202]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
	rg10sm14872057pbc.33.2015.08.17.07.30.24
	(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
	Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_BBF039CD-20BD-475A-A77E-FD262494B09C";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5
From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG86ZOxWBMaBKzgRUp=Q5TvaT1v3OjNRFx2Xofd4FdLvpg9dGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:30:24 -0700
Message-Id: <83343736-3F56-4F94-946E-3FBB9525FCD9@gmail.com>
References: <20150817100918.BD1F343128@smtp.hushmail.com>
	<1439815244.89850.YahooMailBasic@web173102.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
	<20150817133438.DDD4243128@smtp.hushmail.com>
	<64C86292-6671-4729-8A77-63C081797F62@gmail.com>
	<CAG86ZOxWBMaBKzgRUp=Q5TvaT1v3OjNRFx2Xofd4FdLvpg9dGQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Levin Keller <post@levinkeller.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
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@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT
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: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:30:27 -0000


--Apple-Mail=_BBF039CD-20BD-475A-A77E-FD262494B09C
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

Levin,

The hope is that eventually the network will be sufficiently resilient =
and robust to be able to handle anything that=E2=80=99s thrown at it. =
But it=E2=80=99s still a baby=E2=80=A6and this is a serious problem =
indeed, because on the one hand we don=E2=80=99t want any central =
authority but on the other it still needs some guardians=E2=80=A6and we =
don=E2=80=99t have anything resembling the kind of institution that =
could possibly be entrusted to nurture and care for this baby until it =
is ready to go out on its own.

Imagine, when the US Constitution was being written, if suddenly =
everyone started to just propose their own different version of it and =
insisting (under threat of fork) on their own versions before any sort =
of government could be created. Yes, I know the US federal government is =
not exactly the paragon of decentralization=E2=80=A6but regardless of =
your views on the US government, it=E2=80=99s still a somewhat analogous =
situation. Until the system was in place, some people (who at the time =
were unelected) had to bootstrap the process.

For better or worse, Satoshi has left the picture=E2=80=A6and no clear =
succession model was put in place. The Bitcoin Foundation, which for a =
time attempted to be a guardian institution, ended up self-destructing. =
It was an utter failure.

We don=E2=80=99t have any sort of institution like this=E2=80=A6and we =
don=E2=80=99t really want one. But the system is still not fully in =
place. Importantly, we lack any mechanisms to be able to make =
potentially controversial changes without serious risks.

It would be amazing if despite this trial-by-fire we still survived and =
managed to pull through. And if we do we=E2=80=99ll be stronger for it. =
But quite sincerely, I would have wanted the system to be a little more =
mature before putting it through this trial. At least I would have liked =
to have gone through a test hard-fork using a far less politically =
divisive issue.

Anyhow, completely separate from my views on governance, etc=E2=80=A6my =
main point is that we=E2=80=99re ALL trying to do what=E2=80=99s best =
given our understanding and resources=E2=80=A6and we=E2=80=99ve all =
poured our hearts and souls into this. We might disagree on certain =
things, but let=E2=80=99s stop this negativity and misrepresentation and =
try to figure out a way forward that is less likely to lead to a war.


- Eric

>=20
>=20
> Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> =
schrieb am Mo., 17. Aug. 2015 um 16:03 Uhr:
> NxtChg,
>=20
> In the entire history of Bitcoin we=E2=80=99ve never attempted =
anything even closely resembling a hard fork like what=E2=80=99s being =
proposed here.
>=20
> Many of us have wanted to push our own hard-forking changes to the =
protocol=E2=80=A6and have been frustrated because of the inability to do =
so.
>=20
> This inability is not due to any malice on anyone=E2=80=99s part=E2=80=A6=
it is a feature of Satoshi=E2=80=99s protocol. For better or worse, it =
is *very hard* to change the rules=E2=80=A6and this is exactly what =
imbues Bitcoin with one of its most powerful attributes: very =
well-defined settlement guarantees that cannot be suddenly altered nor =
reversed by anyone.
>=20
> We=E2=80=99ve managed to have a few soft forks in the past=E2=80=A6and =
for the most part these changes have been pretty uncontroversial=E2=80=A6o=
r at least, they have not had nearly the level of political divisiveness =
that this block size issue is having. And even then, we=E2=80=99ve =
encountered a number of problems with these deployments that have at =
times required goodwill cooperation between developers and mining pool =
operators to fix.
>=20
> Again, we have NEVER attempted anything even remotely like what=E2=80=99=
s being proposed - we=E2=80=99ve never done any sort of hard fork before =
like this. If even fairly uncontroversial soft forks have caused =
problems, can you imagine the kinds of potential problems that a hard =
fork over some highly polarizing issue might raise? Do you really think =
people are going to want to cooperate?!?
>=20
> I can understand that some people would like bigger blocks. Other =
people might want feature X, others feature Y=E2=80=A6and we can argue =
the merits of this or that to death=E2=80=A6but the fact remains that we =
have NEVER attempted any hard forking change=E2=80=A6not even with a =
simple, totally uncontroversial no-brainer improvement that would not =
risk any sort of ill-will that could hamper remedies were it not to go =
as smoothly as we like. *THIS* is the fundamental problem - the whole =
bigger block thing is a minor issue by comparison=E2=80=A6it could be =
any controversial change, really.
>=20
> Would you want to send your test pilots on their first flight=E2=80=A6th=
e first time an aircraft is ever flown=E2=80=A6directly into combat =
without having tested the plane? This is what attempting a hard fork =
mechanism that=E2=80=99s NEVER been done before in such a politically =
divisive environment basically amounts to=E2=80=A6but it=E2=80=99s even =
worse. We=E2=80=99re basically risking the entire air force (not just =
one plane) over an argument regarding how many seats a plane should have =
that we=E2=80=99ve never flown before.
>=20
> We=E2=80=99re talking billlions of dollars=E2=80=99 worth of other =
people=E2=80=99s money that is on the line here. Don=E2=80=99t we owe it =
to them to at least test out the system on a far less controversial, far =
less divisive change first to make sure we can even deploy it without =
things breaking? I don=E2=80=99t even care about the merits regarding =
bigger blocks vs. smaller blocks at this point, to be quite honest - =
that=E2=80=99s such a petty thing compared to what I=E2=80=99m talking =
about here. If we attempt a novel hard-forking mechanism that=E2=80=99s =
NEVER been attempted before (and which as many have pointed out is =
potentially fraught with serious problems) on such a politically =
divisive, polarizing issue, the result is each side will refuse to =
cooperate with the other out of spite=E2=80=A6and can easily lead to a =
war, tanking the value of everyone=E2=80=99s assets on both chains. All =
so we can process 8 times the number of transactions we currently do? =
Even if it were 100 times, we wouldn=E2=80=99t even come close to =
touching big payment processors like Visa. It=E2=80=99s hard to imagine =
a protocol improvement that=E2=80=99s worth the risk.
>=20
> I urge you to at least try to see the bigger picture here=E2=80=A6and =
to understand that nobody is trying to stop anyone from doing anything =
out of some desire for maintaining control - NONE of us are able to =
deploy hard forks right now without facing these problems. And different =
people obviously have different priorities and preferences as to which =
of these changes would be best to do first. This whole XT thing is =
essentially giving *one* proposal special treatment above those that =
others have proposed. Many of us have only held back from doing this out =
of our belief that goodwill amongst network participants is more =
important than trying to push some pet feature some of us want.
>=20
> Yadayadayada.
>=20
> If someone could threaten the network by releasing a hard-forking =
bitcoind version, then already all is lost. Bitcoins stability does not =
(and cannot) depend on the "good will" of anyone. If it would, we should =
all abandon this silly project. Relying on the good will of people is =
the worst idea one could have.
>=20
> So please (please please) go ahead and release your hardforking =
bitcoinds you have been holding back. Competition is everything.
>=20
> Cheers
>=20
> Levin
>=20
>=20
> Please stop this negativity - we ALL want the best for Bitcoin and are =
doing our best, given what we understand and know, to do what=E2=80=99s =
right.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> > On Aug 17, 2015, at 6:34 AM, NxtChg via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> We should have the highest respect for what these people are doing, =
and we should try to do something constructive, not waste time with =
anger and disrespect.
> >
> > Why, exactly, should I have any respect for what these people are =
doing (and supposedly not have any respect for what the other side is =
doing)?
> >
> > =46rom my point of view, the XT side _does_ something constructive. =
It's the Core side that resorts to dirty tactics and tries to sabotage =
community's free choice instead.
> >
> >
> >> Nobody should be forced to do anything.
> >
> > Great, so how about you go tell theymos to stop censoring XT posts =
and banning the other side on /r/Bitcoin?
> >
> > Let users decide what Bitcoin is or isn't.
> >
> >
> >> The developers are not telling you what to do, they are trying to =
do what they consider is best for the ecosystem given their technical =
abilities.
> >
> > The developers & Co are doing their best to stay in power, so they =
could continue imposing their will on Bitcoin ecosystem. This is the =
real power grab, not Gavin and Hearn, who merely provided an =
alternative.
> >
> > And the fear they show is most telling.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--Apple-Mail=_BBF039CD-20BD-475A-A77E-FD262494B09C
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=YpdG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_BBF039CD-20BD-475A-A77E-FD262494B09C--