path: root/dc/40e0075e70f20e83e58a62a08fdb456faf770d

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 61B609A
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:04:25 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-la0-f49.google.com (mail-la0-f49.google.com
	[209.85.215.49])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B990EA
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:04:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by lahi9 with SMTP id i9so60485053lah.2
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 15 Aug 2015 16:04:21 -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=du5AnGYZTn+lczov6wt0ytvu8eRlyZxioKhIhX0T548=;
	b=RGQg8rBxhaqNxvPepFU3UwNTWMG+d9HPBS0X+NFrnG1KRZchh6HiHg+9w8XFnVpXz7
	aJZqnEUOlDFKhXDa0bgiqlLCccUqXMLTjBgDz1mEIlDTIo4OJw2uAXrALQgXxGINvUn3
	S3XKjWRo53I/E7n295t5Gq10DcMpQ2vUL97rOEj2vNnO+7NnyIXuUSJnGmBslJqsN02d
	b28UwCcKD7VEiLxM9LqkWsYYGiQSapYst6JuPN6kXXzi2Ay5G4naMZk4VU8YMd+sW5iO
	a9MDgLrxRwRb53bm6rNPE2lwtokmdkRk9nti3O3B6nA0Q9LMCAvuemr7RbDEOY1e+1Xg
	Nn8Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.148.162 with SMTP id tt2mr33376209lbb.121.1439679861511; 
	Sat, 15 Aug 2015 16:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.62.147 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 16:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOG=w-vGoPuDBcDkdrLVEoE5Q_UzVR7FfThBT9QALgiSSHDsFg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+w+GKT7t5OahS-+P=QAmOyFzPnOs4J6KSo+mhSrC0YggmMupg@mail.gmail.com>
	<E7866FD5-9CEC-400F-8270-407499E0B012@gmail.com>
	<CAKujSOFNHNngt0HV=B3YHxOwXksk+JZDaHt+mUVniwMPTM6SaA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CC1B6D0E-F9D5-422B-980D-C589CDC00612@gmail.com>
	<CAKujSOGdXoo4DORHtD7KV1fgjHzvcSQnUr=yNL4ruKhn1Lwjig@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOG=w-vGoPuDBcDkdrLVEoE5Q_UzVR7FfThBT9QALgiSSHDsFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 19:04:21 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKujSOHPRmbSx=wydx9bCkUCuQQAzd=Xre_Xa86Zjzm_afpa6A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ken Friece <kfriece@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3440aabc5d4e051d61962c
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 23:04:25 -0000

--047d7b3440aabc5d4e051d61962c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Being an early hub provider would be an obvious place to start capitalizing
on lightning. Early lightning adopters would be in the best position to do
this.

Long term, Bitcoin needs to scale the blockchain in a reasonable manner and
implement things like lightning.

Limiting the blocksize is a blatant conflict of interest because it creates
artificial demand for lightning that would not otherwise exist if the
blockchain scaled in a reasonable manner.

On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
wrote:

> I would like very much to know how it is that we're supposed to be making
> money off of lightning, and therefore how it represents a conflict of
> interest. Apparently there is tons of money to be made in releasing
> open-source protocols! I would hate to miss out on that.
>
> We are working on lightning because Mike of all people said, essentially,
> " if you're so fond of micro payment channels, why aren't you working on
> them?" And he was right! So we looked around and found the best proposal
> and funded it.
> On Aug 15, 2015 3:28 PM, "Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev" <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> I know full well who works for Blockstream and I know you're not one of
>> those folks. The Blockstream core devs are very vocal against a reasonab=
le
>> blocksize increase (17% growth per year in Pieter's BIP is not what I
>> consider reasonable because it doesn't come close to keeping with
>> technological increases). I think we can both agree that more on-chain
>> space means less demand for lightning, and vice versa, which is a blatan=
t
>> conflict of interest.
>>
>> I'm also trying to figure out how things like lightning are not competin=
g
>> directly with miners for fees. More off-chain transactions means less
>> blockchain demand, which would lower on-chain fees. I'm not sure what is
>> controversial about that statement.
>>
>> The lightning network concept is actually a brilliant way to take fees
>> away from miners without having to make any investment at all in SSH-256
>> ASIC mining hardware.
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 15, 2015, at 3:01 PM, Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev <
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> What are you so afraid of, Eric? If Mike's fork is successful, consensu=
s
>>> 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 wi=
ll
>>> be severely punished with complete loss of income.
>>>
>>>
>>> I fully agree that core developers are not the only people who should
>>> have a say in this. But again, we=E2=80=99re not talking about merely f=
orking some
>>> open source project - we=E2=80=99re talking about forking a ledger repr=
esenting
>>> real assets that real people are holding=E2=80=A6and I think it=E2=80=
=99s fair to say that
>>> the risk of permanent ledger forks far outweighs whatever benefits any
>>> change in the protocol might bring. And this would be true even if ther=
e
>>> were unanimous agreement that the change is good (which there clearly I=
S
>>> NOT in this case) but the deployment mechanism could still break things=
.
>>>
>>> If anything we should attempt a hard fork with a less contentious chang=
e
>>> first, just to test deployability.
>>>
>>> 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 witho=
ut
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> Again, let=E2=80=99s figure out a hard fork mechanism and test it with =
a far
>>> less contentious change first
>>>
>>> Despite significant past technical bitcoin achievements, two of the mos=
t
>>> 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 conflic=
t of
>>> interest, the ethical thing to do would be for them to either resign fr=
om
>>> Blockstream or immediately withdraw themselves from the blocksize debat=
e.
>>> This is the type of stuff that I hoped would end with Bitcoin, but alas=
, I
>>> guess human nature never changes.
>>>
>>>
>>> For the record, I do not work for Blockstream. Neither do a bunch of
>>> other people who have published a number of concerns. Very few of the
>>> concerns I=E2=80=99ve seen from the technical community seem to be moti=
vated
>>> primarily by profit motives.
>>>
>>> It should also be pointed out that *not* making drastic changes is the
>>> default consensus policy=E2=80=A6and the burden of justifying a change =
falls on
>>> those who want to make the change. Again, the risk of permanent ledger
>>> forks far outweighs whatever benefits protocol changes might bring.
>>>
>>> Personally, I think miners should give Bitcoin XT a serious look. Miner=
s
>>> need to realize that they are in direct competition with the lightning
>>> network and sidechains for fees. Miners, ask yourselves if you think yo=
u'll
>>> earn more fees with 1 MB blocks and more off-chain transactions or with=
 8
>>> MB blocks and more on-chain transactions=E2=80=A6
>>>
>>>
>>> Miners are NOT in direct competition with the lightning network and
>>> sidechains - these claims are patently false. I recommend you take a lo=
ok
>>> at these ideas and understand them a little better before trying to mak=
e
>>> any such claims. Again, I do not work for Blockstream=E2=80=A6and my ag=
enda in this
>>> post is not to promote either of these ideas=E2=80=A6but with all due r=
espect, I do
>>> not think you properly understand them at all.
>>>
>>> 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 fo=
rces
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don=E2=80=99t think the concern here is so much that some people want=
 to
>>> increase block size. It=E2=80=99s the *way* in which this change is bei=
ng pushed
>>> that is deeply problematic.
>>>
>>> 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 o=
f
>>>> articles detailing an explaining in-depth technical concerns=E2=80=A6y=
ou also seem
>>>> to fancy yourself more capable of reading into the intentions of someo=
ne
>>>> who disappeared from the scene years ago, before we even were fully aw=
are
>>>> of many things we now know that bring the original =E2=80=9Cplan=E2=80=
=9D into 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 - the=
re=E2=80=99s
>>>> a lot of other people=E2=80=99s money at stake. This isn=E2=80=99t a d=
emocracy - 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 inven=
tion 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 t=
he sake
>>>> of Bitcoin=E2=80=A6and for your own sake. Despite your obvious technic=
al abilities
>>>> (and I sincerely do believe you have them) you are discrediting yourse=
lf
>>>> 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
>>>> others 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 no=
t
>>>> the first and won't be the last project to go through this. Often in f=
orks,
>>>> people say there was insufficient communication. So to ensure everythi=
ng 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 C=
ore
>>>> (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 =
bite.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>

--047d7b3440aabc5d4e051d61962c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Being an early hub provider would be an obvious place to s=
tart capitalizing on lightning. Early lightning adopters would be in the be=
st position to do this.<br><div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div c=
lass=3D"gmail_extra">Long term, Bitcoin needs to scale the blockchain in a =
reasonable manner and implement things like lightning. <br><br></div><div c=
lass=3D"gmail_extra">Limiting the blocksize is a blatant conflict of intere=
st because it creates artificial demand for lightning that would not otherw=
ise exist if the blockchain scaled in a reasonable manner.<br></div><div cl=
ass=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at =
6:55 PM, Mark Friedenbach <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mark@frie=
denbach.org" target=3D"_blank">mark@friedenbach.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<b=
r><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:=
1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"ltr">I would like very much to k=
now how it is that we&#39;re supposed to be making money off of lightning, =
and therefore how it represents a conflict of interest. Apparently there is=
 tons of money to be made in releasing open-source protocols! I would hate =
to miss out on that.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">We are working on lightning because Mike of all people said,=
 essentially, &quot; if you&#39;re so fond of micro payment channels, why a=
ren&#39;t you working on them?&quot; And he was right! So we looked around =
and found the best proposal and funded it.</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Aug 15, 2015 3:28 PM, &quot;Ken Friece via bi=
tcoin-dev&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org=
" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br=
 type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0=
 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>=
<div>I know full well who works for Blockstream and I know you&#39;re not o=
ne of those folks. The Blockstream core devs are very vocal against a reaso=
nable blocksize increase (17% growth per year in Pieter&#39;s BIP is not wh=
at I consider reasonable because it doesn&#39;t come close to keeping with =
technological increases). I think we can both agree that more on-chain spac=
e means less demand for lightning, and vice versa, which is a blatant confl=
ict of interest.<br><br></div>I&#39;m also trying to figure out how things =
like lightning are not competing directly with miners for fees. More off-ch=
ain transactions means less blockchain demand, which would lower on-chain f=
ees. I&#39;m not sure what is controversial about that statement.<br><br></=
div><div>The lightning network concept is actually a brilliant way to take =
fees away from miners without having to make any investment at all in SSH-2=
56 ASIC mining hardware.<br></div><div><div><div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"=
><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Eric Lombr=
ozo <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:elombrozo@gmail.com" target=3D"=
_blank">elombrozo@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"g=
mail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-l=
eft:1ex"><div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word"><br><div><blockquote type=3D"c=
ite"><div>On Aug 15, 2015, at 3:01 PM, Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitco=
in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:</div><br><div><div dir=3D"l=
tr"><div><div>What are you so afraid of, Eric? If Mike&#39;s fork is succes=
sful, consensus is reached around larger blocks. If it is rejected, the sta=
tus quo will remain for now. Network consensus, NOT CORE DEVELOPER CONSENSU=
S, is the only thing that matters, and those that go against network consen=
sus will be severely punished with complete loss of income.<br></div></div>=
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I fully agree that core developers =
are not the only people who should have a say in this. But again, we=E2=80=
=99re not talking about merely forking some open source project - we=E2=80=
=99re talking about forking a ledger representing real assets that real peo=
ple are holding=E2=80=A6and I think it=E2=80=99s fair to say that the risk =
of permanent ledger forks far outweighs whatever benefits any change in the=
 protocol might bring. And this would be true even if there were unanimous =
agreement that the change is good (which there clearly IS NOT in this case)=
 but the deployment mechanism could still break things.</div><div><br></div=
><div>If anything we should attempt a hard fork with a less contentious cha=
nge first, just to test deployability.</div><div><div><br></div><blockquote=
 type=3D"cite"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div>I&#39;m not sure who appoint=
ed 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 de=
ath 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.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></di=
v><div>Again, let=E2=80=99s figure out a hard fork mechanism and test it wi=
th a far less contentious change first</div><br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><=
div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Despite significant past technical bitcoin achiev=
ements, two of the most vocal opponents to a reasonable blocksize increase =
work for a company (Blockstream) that stands to profit directly from artifi=
cially 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 Bi=
tcoin, but alas, I guess human nature never changes.<br></div></div></div><=
/blockquote><div><br></div><div>For the record, I do not work for Blockstre=
am. Neither do a bunch of other people who have published a number of conce=
rns. Very few of the concerns I=E2=80=99ve seen from the technical communit=
y seem to be motivated primarily by profit motives.</div><div><br></div><di=
v>It should also be pointed out that *not* making drastic changes is the de=
fault consensus policy=E2=80=A6and the burden of justifying a change falls =
on those who want to make the change. Again, the risk of permanent ledger f=
orks far outweighs whatever benefits protocol changes might bring.</div><br=
><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Personally, I think m=
iners should give Bitcoin XT a serious look. Miners need to realize that th=
ey are in direct competition with the lightning network and sidechains for =
fees. Miners, ask yourselves if you think you&#39;ll earn more fees with 1 =
MB blocks and more off-chain transactions or with 8 MB blocks and more on-c=
hain transactions=E2=80=A6<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div=
>Miners are NOT in direct competition with the lightning network and sidech=
ains - these claims are patently false. I recommend you take a look at thes=
e ideas and understand them a little better before trying to make any such =
claims. Again, I do not work for Blockstream=E2=80=A6and my agenda in this =
post is not to promote either of these ideas=E2=80=A6but with all due respe=
ct, I do not think you properly understand them at all.<br><br><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>The longer this debate drags on, t=
he more I agree with BIP 100 and Jeff Garzik because the core devs are alre=
ady being influenced by outside forces and should not have complete control=
 of the blocksize. It&#39;s also interesting to note that most of the minin=
g hashpower is already voting for 8MB blocks BIP100 style. =C2=A0</div></di=
v></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I don=E2=80=99t think the concern here =
is so much that some people want to increase block size. It=E2=80=99s the *=
way* in which this change is being pushed that is deeply problematic.</div>=
<div><br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><di=
v class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at =
5:32 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mai=
lto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@li=
sts.linuxfoundation.org</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 style=3D"word-wrap:break-word"><div>You deeply disappoint me, Mik=
e.</div><div><br></div><div>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 articles detailing an explaining in-depth technical conc=
erns=E2=80=A6you also seem to fancy yourself more capable of reading into t=
he intentions of someone who disappeared from the scene years ago, before w=
e even were fully aware of many things we now know that bring the original =
=E2=80=9Cplan=E2=80=9D into question.</div><div><br></div><div>I ask of you=
, as a civilized human being, to stop doing this divisive crap. Despite you=
r 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 c=
learly stated before, equating the fork of an open source project with a fo=
rk of a cryptoledger is completely bogus - there=E2=80=99s a lot of other p=
eople=E2=80=99s money at stake. This isn=E2=80=99t a democracy - consensus =
is all or nothing. The fact that a good number of the people most intimatel=
y familiar with the inner workings of Satoshi=E2=80=99s invention do not be=
lieve 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 t=
he sake of Bitcoin=E2=80=A6and for your own sake. Despite your obvious tech=
nical abilities (and I sincerely do believe you have them) you are discredi=
ting yourself and hurting your own reputation.</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 Hearn 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 have released Bitcoin XT 0.11A =
which includes the bigger blocks patch set. You can get it from</div><div><=
br></div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<a href=3D"https://bitcoinxt.software/" t=
arget=3D"_blank">https://bitcoinxt.software/</a><br></div><div><br></div><d=
iv>I feel sad that it&#39;s come to this, but there is no other way. The Bi=
tcoin Core project has drifted so far from the principles myself and many o=
thers 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 the last project to go through t=
his. Often in forks, people say there was insufficient 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 this is happening and how XT plan=
s to be different from Core (assuming adoption, of course).</div><div><br><=
/div><div>The article is here:</div><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <a hr=
ef=3D"https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1" t=
arget=3D"_blank">https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647=
312d22c1</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 develop=
ers on this list: if you also feel that Core is no longer serving the inter=
ests 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" target=3D"_blank">=
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>
_______________________________________________<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></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
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>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>

--047d7b3440aabc5d4e051d61962c--