path: root/93/7a2efd708f6801d29a78ea23c44c762ed18ed9

Return-Path: <sergio.d.lerner@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 675A1A7C
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Mon, 10 Jul 2017 11:51:16 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qk0-f171.google.com (mail-qk0-f171.google.com
	[209.85.220.171])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C280171
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Mon, 10 Jul 2017 11:51:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qk0-f171.google.com with SMTP id 16so70891330qkg.2
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Mon, 10 Jul 2017 04:51:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; 
	bh=xFgAz28+cdnBCC8Fx3o2+IUazhPtvbLXK2G3/rzXs6o=;
	b=rAFFVQSv9IMS9pKFJcBectnWJQ2dAeoBXcU7XsUlk3oyzY/hlt/6LGS8faB8h2xt1R
	yQCHzsWLY/5BHppXdU9UZJkBTFzr8Aebox8KnlObUqpzm1WvAD4uDTUo3Qm/PzsCqVoM
	d1T6wJL+RAsbwg6QSi36/EUNd6hKBH7QAs010Agjuv5bK9Kq8uacaYnAowJSuUrULTaE
	qlUVphiWpPYwn1DUwIw8UvG38r5wLqCtQR31r1cnlEI3S4AsvLsMls9vkKg4lgiI8pLw
	wflFOipPORQ016vhFukeHbmTgA9QlLlUKSAMEyXTmtr5vAawhNu2tceQ2i2XxgjWW71M
	+onQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
	h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
	:message-id:subject:to;
	bh=xFgAz28+cdnBCC8Fx3o2+IUazhPtvbLXK2G3/rzXs6o=;
	b=LgAmzSU1tnOZnIW1YE/IFwaCJ+5bWDOGwebD5EAVXkXQl36llMrBhuhBnsHT7z2VE3
	NglnmRRKZwHFMcNX+1zbrQRacTeJpV9FsYFoIjh0ATimINsSpIVvr1HR+p3M7JZGU5Ev
	zABV1qcFTRIWbxizHtNgxNGTTgiwuBjWNcPtxv3Ba212he3A+3eKJTjus5lI0pTKed0x
	OI6VyXWWu7thG6tdRvPd1721TDQhAjF+RQenX4Cvapnwf6UmgniJ71YlDfvT74qGO7Pn
	PcajpB/88WMH9/nSb6xmiEeCKvaORg+x8vedRKlCumkAZQ4IM5KgWhzSef89q72UW2DX
	Sv8g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw110Gf/H9Jxfyi9qjFwqH82fybTZQ1XrLpgGdgOJyJE+Iw8hsJ1gd
	3Id28Vc6KmdgLHtEHCrG7qulDOcDS5nZ5JY=
X-Received: by 10.55.165.200 with SMTP id o191mr3226657qke.47.1499687474420;
	Mon, 10 Jul 2017 04:51:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.12.135.113 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 04:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <A7FFF8F7-9806-44F1-B68F-F83C44893365@ob1.io>
References: <CAKzdR-qCmuj02yobAj9YDYq7Ed309z2VUaMtbL_i9vF3zkp5mw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADJgMzuCcJhoEbaGUv8QgaaL82+UiV6Q9Tbbti++J=Jg5B=sgg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A7FFF8F7-9806-44F1-B68F-F83C44893365@ob1.io>
From: Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.lerner@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 08:50:33 -0300
Message-ID: <CAKzdR-oRdX-fXyc6womZOyYyfHUJZdgh92FUMM8pR_QDNiJfkQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c06ad2a2fe33d0553f533e4"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, 
	RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,TVD_APPROVED autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Segwit2x BIP
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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, 10 Jul 2017 11:51:16 -0000

--94eb2c06ad2a2fe33d0553f533e4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Thank you for all your comments. I will improve the BIP based on the
technical suggestions received.

On the subjective/political side that has slipped into this discussion.
Skip this part if not interested in politics.

Regarding the timeline, its certainly rather short, but also is the UASF
BIP 148 ultimatum.

If Bitcoin were a democracy and we had somehow a way to securely perform a
referendum, then this will solve easily. But neither is true. At least now.

More than 80% of the miners and many users are willing to go in the
Segwit2x direction. With the support and great talent of the Bitcoin Core
developers, Segwit2x activation will not cause any major disruptions.
Without Core, there will be a temporary split. Both sides will have to
hard-fork.

I want a Bitcoin united. But maybe a split of Bitcoin, each side with its
own vision, is not so bad.

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Brian Hoffman <brian@ob1.io> wrote:

> I don't feel threatened by investors. You're full of shit btcdrak.
>
> Proofread your emails. You just declared support for segwit2x.
>
> On Jul 8, 2017, at 9:28 AM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.
> linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> I am utterly appalled by this proposal both technically, ethically, and by
> the process which it has adopted. Hard forks require consensus from the
> entire ecosystem in order to prevent a fork, funds loss, confusion and harm
> to the robust guarantees of the Bitcoin system has thus far displayed.
>
> I know this is a draft, but you are seeking reviews of a proposal that has
> just a few weeks remaining before deployment (where "technical review" is
> pointless because the is not actually open <https://pastebin.com/kktB1kaw> unless
> you are an approved member
> <https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/commit/1719c872b6624c37b0f2d94e7a4a2656fac4804a#diff-6a3371457528722a734f3c51d9238c13>),
> making it totally unworkable and irresponsible. For example, exactly how
> are other implementations supposed to adopt the BIP in such a short
> timeframe? For all the talk of how important "alternative implementations"
> are, how does this rash and rushed action promote an ecosystem of multiple
> implementors? By encouraging fast upgrades, you are actually centralizing
> the ecosystem even further.
>
> The linked coded doesn't uniquely identify itself on the network by
> user-agent, something all distinct implementations have done to date.
>
> The draft BIP text looks like an afterthought and doesn't actually specify
> the proposal in enough detail to implement from the text. By contrast for
> example, BIP141 has a level of detail which allowed others to implement
> segwit without looking at any reference code (which consequently results to
> more confidence and testing of the specification all round). The Bitcoin
> system has a market cap of over $40bn supported by a robust and reliable
> network and your proposal is an offence to all Bitcoin has achieved because
> due to it's the strong foundations.
>
> I cannot not support this proposal in the current form and timeline, nor
> do I support the coercion that has been used behind closed doors to try and
> gain more support (not limited to, but including approaching company
> investors to twist arms and veiled threats of blacklisting companies from
> further funding/collaboration).
>
> I think the best you can hope for this hard fork proposal is for it to be
> quietly ignored.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:25 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Here is a BIP that matches the reference code that the Segwit2x group has
>> built and published a week ago.
>>
>> This BIP and code satisfies the requests of a large part of the Bitcoin
>> community for a moderate increase in the Bitcoin non-witness block space
>> coupled with the activation of Segwit.
>>
>> You can find the BIP draft in the following link:
>>
>> https://github.com/SergioDemianLerner/BIPs/blob/master/BIP-
>> draft-sergiolerner-segwit2x.mediawiki
>>
>> Reference source was kindly provided by the Segwit2x group.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>  Sergio.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

--94eb2c06ad2a2fe33d0553f533e4
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Thank you for all your comments. I will improve the BIP ba=
sed on the technical suggestions received.=C2=A0<div><br></div><div>On the =
subjective/political side that has slipped into this discussion. Skip this =
part if not interested in politics.</div><div><br></div><div>Regarding the =
timeline, its certainly rather short, but also is the UASF BIP 148 ultimatu=
m.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>If Bitcoin were a democracy and we had so=
mehow a way to securely perform a referendum, then this will solve easily. =
But neither is true. At least now. <br></div><div><br></div><div>More than =
80% of the miners and many users are willing to go in the Segwit2x directio=
n. With the support and great talent of the Bitcoin Core developers, Segwit=
2x activation will not cause any major disruptions. Without Core, there wil=
l be a temporary split. Both sides will have to hard-fork.</div><div><br></=
div><div>I want a Bitcoin united. But maybe a split of Bitcoin, each side w=
ith its own vision, is not so bad.</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><b=
r><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Brian Hoffman =
<span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:brian@ob1.io" target=3D"_blank">bri=
an@ob1.io</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=
=3D"auto"><div>I don&#39;t feel threatened by investors. You&#39;re full of=
 shit btcdrak.<br><br>Proofread your emails. You just declared support for =
segwit2x.</div><div><div class=3D"h5"><div><br>On Jul 8, 2017, at 9:28 AM, =
Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfound=
ation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>=
&gt; wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><div dir=3D"ltr">I =
am utterly appalled by this proposal both technically, ethically, and by th=
e process which it has adopted. Hard forks require consensus from the entir=
e ecosystem in order to prevent a fork, funds loss, confusion and harm to t=
he robust guarantees of the Bitcoin system has thus far displayed.<div><br>=
</div><div>I know this is a draft, but you are seeking reviews of a proposa=
l that has just a few weeks remaining before deployment (where &quot;techni=
cal review&quot; is pointless because the is <a href=3D"https://pastebin.co=
m/kktB1kaw" target=3D"_blank">not actually open</a>=C2=A0unless you are an =
<a href=3D"https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/commit/1719c872b6624c37b0f2d94e7=
a4a2656fac4804a#diff-6a3371457528722a734f3c51d9238c13" target=3D"_blank">ap=
proved member</a>), making it totally unworkable and irresponsible. For exa=
mple, exactly how are other implementations supposed to adopt the BIP in su=
ch a short timeframe? For all the talk of how important &quot;alternative i=
mplementations&quot; are, how does this rash and rushed action promote an e=
cosystem of multiple implementors? By encouraging fast upgrades, you are ac=
tually centralizing the ecosystem even further.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><=
div>The linked coded doesn&#39;t uniquely identify itself on the network by=
 user-agent, something all distinct implementations have done to date.</div=
><div><br></div><div>The draft BIP text looks like an afterthought and does=
n&#39;t actually specify the proposal in enough detail to implement from th=
e text. By contrast for example, BIP141 has a level of detail which allowed=
 others to implement segwit without looking at any reference code (which co=
nsequently results to more confidence and testing of the specification all =
round). The Bitcoin system has a market cap of over $40bn supported by a ro=
bust and reliable network and your proposal is an offence to all Bitcoin ha=
s achieved because due to it&#39;s the strong foundations.</div><div><br></=
div><div>I cannot not support this proposal in the current form and timelin=
e, nor do I support the coercion that has been used behind closed doors to =
try and gain more support (not limited to, but including approaching compan=
y investors to twist arms and veiled threats of blacklisting companies from=
 further funding/collaboration).<br></div><div><br></div><div>I think the b=
est you can hope for this hard fork proposal is for it to be quietly ignore=
d.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br>=
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:25 PM, Sergio Demian L=
erner via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@l=
ists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>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 di=
r=3D"ltr"><div>Hello,</div><div><br></div><div>Here is a BIP that matches t=
he reference code that the Segwit2x group has built and published a week ag=
o.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>This BIP and code satisfies the requests =
of a large part of the Bitcoin community for a moderate increase in the Bit=
coin non-witness block space coupled with the activation of Segwit.</div><d=
iv><br></div><div>You can find the BIP draft in the following link:</div><d=
iv><br></div><a href=3D"https://github.com/SergioDemianLerner/BIPs/blob/mas=
ter/BIP-draft-sergiolerner-segwit2x.mediawiki" target=3D"_blank">https://gi=
thub.com/SergioDemia<wbr>nLerner/BIPs/blob/master/BIP-<wbr>draft-sergiolern=
er-segwit2x.<wbr>mediawiki</a><br><div><br></div><div>Reference source was =
kindly provided by the Segwit2x group.</div><div><br></div><div>Best regard=
s,</div><div>=C2=A0Sergio.</div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat<wbr>ion.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-d<wbr>ev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><span>___________________=
___________<wbr>_________________</span><br><span>bitcoin-dev mailing list<=
/span><br><span><a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a></span><br><s=
pan><a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-d=
ev" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org/mailman/listin=
fo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a></span><br></div></blockquote></div></div></div></bl=
ockquote></div><br></div>

--94eb2c06ad2a2fe33d0553f533e4--