path: root/cd/32564901522414b9e4ea1bbc72eea1f63e2252

Return-Path: <kfriece@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D74F3EE
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:02:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-la0-f42.google.com (mail-la0-f42.google.com
	[209.85.215.42])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1288144
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:02:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by labd1 with SMTP id d1so60735773lab.1
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:content-type; bh=EQfYGnrTSnifgiQhUganetmm6AE2OY0HD1qQciMOyKM=;
	b=Caqmmz5KFggqR939beRhKEwoWDnWt3KqWDReB00wL9NwmB6R2Uyr990fUCSxsfQc8i
	h50CN9s5Z74DO0IC10nYY7U2QxwcKQpIJrAdvMohVdiWEvt48ys321Oc9VP/JKD3olmR
	M6T+AuR/Xz3s53nJQe1LihiZgv5ztot5LKXsjg2vVQAHhwuhS1Nz8G2DkiO+AtYMm9pr
	ujfXUQLgs01ys80SsFjodWD5Y/5sElcSa8QF6rQye43vTEOBqSTmOwZc+Iz+H/SAxGmc
	pOAK/VVJ0dE5iUFbmqJ4UozNsvk/LHe5vRzbuusNO5NcWpP7esQ5nRClHvKyLFVzhe2Q
	+UlA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.157.136 with SMTP id wm8mr25339144lbb.26.1439676118991; 
	Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:01:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.62.147 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:01:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <E7866FD5-9CEC-400F-8270-407499E0B012@gmail.com>
References: <CA+w+GKT7t5OahS-+P=QAmOyFzPnOs4J6KSo+mhSrC0YggmMupg@mail.gmail.com>
	<E7866FD5-9CEC-400F-8270-407499E0B012@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 18:01:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKujSOFNHNngt0HV=B3YHxOwXksk+JZDaHt+mUVniwMPTM6SaA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ken Friece <kfriece@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c282c0aa08a2051d60b783
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,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
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT 0.11A
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: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:02:02 -0000

--001a11c282c0aa08a2051d60b783
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

What are you so afraid of, Eric? If Mike's fork is successful, consensus is
reached around larger blocks. If it is rejected, the status quo will remain
for now. Network consensus, NOT CORE DEVELOPER CONSENSUS, is the only thing
that matters, and those that go against network consensus will be severely
punished with complete loss of income.

I'm not sure who appointed the core devs some sort of Bitcoin Gods that can
hold up any change that they happen to disagree with. It seems like the
core devs are scared to death that the bitcoin network may change without
their blessing, so they go on and on about how terrible hard forks are.
Hard forks are the only way to keep core devs in check.

Despite significant past technical bitcoin achievements, two of the most
vocal opponents to a reasonable blocksize increase work for a company
(Blockstream) that stands to profit directly from artificially limiting the
blocksize. The whole situation reeks. Because of such a blatant conflict of
interest, the ethical thing to do would be for them to either resign from
Blockstream or immediately withdraw themselves from the blocksize debate.
This is the type of stuff that I hoped would end with Bitcoin, but alas, I
guess human nature never changes.

Personally, I think miners should give Bitcoin XT a serious look. Miners
need to realize that they are in direct competition with the lightning
network and sidechains for fees. Miners, ask yourselves if you think you'll
earn more fees with 1 MB blocks and more off-chain transactions or with 8
MB blocks and more on-chain transactions...

The longer this debate drags on, the more I agree with BIP 100 and Jeff
Garzik because the core devs are already being influenced by outside forces
and should not have complete control of the blocksize. It's also
interesting to note that most of the mining hashpower is already voting for
8MB blocks BIP100 style.

On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> You deeply disappoint me, Mike.
>
> Not only do you misrepresent many cogent, well thought out positions from
> a great number of people who have published and posted a number of articl=
es
> detailing an explaining in-depth technical concerns=E2=80=A6you also seem=
 to fancy
> yourself more capable of reading into the intentions of someone who
> disappeared from the scene years ago, before we even were fully aware of
> many things we now know that bring the original =E2=80=9Cplan=E2=80=9D in=
to question.
>
> I ask of you, as a civilized human being, to stop doing this divisive
> crap. Despite your protestations to the contrary, YOU are the one who is
> proposing a radical departure from the direction of the project. Also, as
> several of us have clearly stated before, equating the fork of an open
> source project with a fork of a cryptoledger is completely bogus - there=
=E2=80=99s
> a lot of other people=E2=80=99s money at stake. This isn=E2=80=99t a demo=
cracy - consensus
> is all or nothing. The fact that a good number of the people most
> intimately familiar with the inner workings of Satoshi=E2=80=99s inventio=
n do not
> believe doing this is a good idea should give you pause.
>
> Please stop using Bitcoin as your own political football=E2=80=A6for the =
sake of
> Bitcoin=E2=80=A6and for your own sake. Despite your obvious technical abi=
lities
> (and I sincerely do believe you have them) you are discrediting yourself
> and hurting your own reputation.
>
>
> - Eric
>
> On Aug 15, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> As promised, we have released Bitcoin XT 0.11A which includes the bigger
> blocks patch set. You can get it from
>
>      https://bitcoinxt.software/
>
> I feel sad that it's come to this, but there is no other way. The Bitcoin
> Core project has drifted so far from the principles myself and many other=
s
> feel are important, that a fork is the only way to fix things.
>
> Forking is a natural thing in the open source community, Bitcoin is not
> the first and won't be the last project to go through this. Often in fork=
s,
> people say there was insufficient communication. So to ensure everything =
is
> crystal clear I've written a blog post and a kind of "manifesto" to
> describe why this is happening and how XT plans to be different from Core
> (assuming adoption, of course).
>
> The article is here:
>
>     https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1
>
> It makes no attempt to be neutral: this explains things from our point of
> view.
>
> The manifesto is on the website.
>
> I say to all developers on this list: if you also feel that Core is no
> longer serving the interests of Bitcoin users, come join us. We don't bit=
e.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>

--001a11c282c0aa08a2051d60b783
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div>What are you so afraid of, Eric? If Mike&#39;s f=
ork is successful, consensus is reached around larger blocks. If it is reje=
cted, the status quo will remain for now. Network consensus, NOT CORE DEVEL=
OPER CONSENSUS, is the only thing that matters, and those that go against n=
etwork consensus will be severely punished with complete loss of income.<br=
><br></div><div>I&#39;m not sure who appointed the core devs some sort of B=
itcoin Gods that can hold up any change that they happen to disagree with. =
It seems like the core devs are scared to death that the bitcoin network ma=
y change without their blessing, so they go on and on about how terrible ha=
rd forks are. Hard forks are the only way to keep core devs in check.<br></=
div><div><br></div>Despite significant past technical bitcoin achievements,=
 two of the most vocal opponents to a reasonable blocksize increase work fo=
r a company (Blockstream) that stands to profit directly from artificially =
limiting the blocksize. The whole situation reeks. Because of such a blatan=
t conflict of interest, the ethical thing to do would be for them to either=
 resign from Blockstream or immediately withdraw themselves from the blocks=
ize debate. This is the type of stuff that I hoped would end with Bitcoin, =
but alas, I guess human nature never changes.<br><br></div><div>Personally,=
 I think miners should give Bitcoin XT a serious look. Miners need to reali=
ze that they are in direct competition with the lightning network and sidec=
hains for fees. Miners, ask yourselves if you think you&#39;ll earn more fe=
es with 1 MB blocks and more off-chain transactions or with 8 MB blocks and=
 more on-chain transactions...<br><br></div><div>The longer this debate dra=
gs on, the more I agree with BIP 100 and Jeff Garzik because the core devs =
are already being influenced by outside forces and should not have complete=
 control of the blocksize. It&#39;s also interesting to note that most of t=
he mining hashpower is already voting for 8MB blocks BIP100 style.=C2=A0 <b=
r></div><div><div><div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_q=
uote">On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev <span =
dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:=
<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-lef=
t:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word"><div=
>You deeply disappoint me, Mike.</div><div><br></div><div>Not only do you m=
isrepresent many cogent, well thought out positions from a great number of =
people who have published and posted a number of articles detailing an expl=
aining in-depth technical concerns=E2=80=A6you also seem to fancy yourself =
more capable of reading into the intentions of someone who disappeared from=
 the scene years ago, before we even were fully aware of many things we now=
 know that bring the original =E2=80=9Cplan=E2=80=9D into question.</div><d=
iv><br></div><div>I ask of you, as a civilized human being, to stop doing t=
his divisive crap. Despite your protestations to the contrary, YOU are the =
one who is proposing a radical departure from the direction of the project.=
 Also, as several of us have clearly stated before, equating the fork of an=
 open source project with a fork of a cryptoledger is completely bogus - th=
ere=E2=80=99s a lot of other people=E2=80=99s money at stake. This isn=E2=
=80=99t a democracy - consensus is all or nothing. The fact that a good num=
ber of the people most intimately familiar with the inner workings of Satos=
hi=E2=80=99s invention do not believe doing this is a good idea should give=
 you pause.</div><div><br></div><div>Please stop using Bitcoin as your own =
political football=E2=80=A6for the sake of Bitcoin=E2=80=A6and for your own=
 sake. Despite your obvious technical abilities (and I sincerely do believe=
 you have them) you are discrediting yourself and hurting your own reputati=
on.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>- Eric</div><div><br></div><div=
><div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div>On Aug 15, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Mike Hea=
rn via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.=
org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:=
</div><br><div><div dir=3D"ltr">Hello,<div><br></div><div>As promised, we h=
ave released Bitcoin XT 0.11A which includes the bigger blocks patch set. Y=
ou can get it from</div><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<a href=3D"=
https://bitcoinxt.software/" target=3D"_blank">https://bitcoinxt.software/<=
/a><br></div><div><br></div><div>I feel sad that it&#39;s come to this, but=
 there is no other way. The Bitcoin Core project has drifted so far from th=
e principles myself and many others feel are important, that a fork is the =
only way to fix things.</div><div><br></div><div>Forking is a natural thing=
 in the open source community, Bitcoin is not the first and won&#39;t be th=
e last project to go through this. Often in forks, people say there was ins=
ufficient communication. So to ensure everything is crystal clear I&#39;ve =
written a blog post and a kind of &quot;manifesto&quot; to describe why thi=
s is happening and how XT plans to be different from Core (assuming adoptio=
n, of course).</div><div><br></div><div>The article is here:</div><div><br>=
</div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <a href=3D"https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-b=
itcoin-forking-d647312d22c1" target=3D"_blank">https://medium.com/@octskywa=
rd/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>It =
makes no attempt to be neutral: this explains things from our point of view=
.</div><div><br></div><div>The manifesto is on the website.</div><div><br><=
/div><div>I say to all developers on this list: if you also feel that Core =
is no longer serving the interests of Bitcoin users, come join us. We don&#=
39;t bite.</div><div><br></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>bitcoin-dev mailing list=
<br><a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_bla=
nk">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br><a href=3D"https://lists.l=
inuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" target=3D"_blank">https://=
lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br></div></block=
quote></div><br></div></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></div></div></div></div>

--001a11c282c0aa08a2051d60b783--