diff options
author | Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> | 2015-08-17 08:07:39 -0700 |
---|---|---|
committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-08-17 15:07:44 +0000 |
commit | f9ec4f94af30258d4be6d2ae1dab9ea675465368 (patch) | |
tree | bf4bc15defc255af60004aab63e95beed57b5916 /21 | |
parent | 4912c514c2baeaf04b49fb218da86d693a34b1da (diff) | |
download | pi-bitcoindev-f9ec4f94af30258d4be6d2ae1dab9ea675465368.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-f9ec4f94af30258d4be6d2ae1dab9ea675465368.zip |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT
Diffstat (limited to '21')
-rw-r--r-- | 21/374dac361fa28aa9786a9e495a919efc8f4acd | 465 |
1 files changed, 465 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/21/374dac361fa28aa9786a9e495a919efc8f4acd b/21/374dac361fa28aa9786a9e495a919efc8f4acd new file mode 100644 index 000000000..9326d0609 --- /dev/null +++ b/21/374dac361fa28aa9786a9e495a919efc8f4acd @@ -0,0 +1,465 @@ +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 F24C23EE + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:07:44 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com (mail-pa0-f41.google.com + [209.85.220.41]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 521401F2 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:07:43 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by pawq9 with SMTP id q9so12754192paw.3 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:07:43 -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=yDLWY2PdT8sMDXAUY+s8SDyjeTk2Fv7TMgguc1oV/wk=; + b=ppDYLeMYD1ocKFkDSMuMN9F67ATVsxta0DuyAaen1jmCgIsg+Rmr57SgHgBHyVfgfO + SY/5rZmJwS1UHZdp+QOuQUmAp/nG44nPk2qHS9UnTpO4cAN1+rgmp7DyFIe9Xx88F0Ux + zGQQooTEgFyRVcqfB5En8PBCtI8tEYiJtwMLsn8wv0+hniHYgD9s8B6cMB9kvJiXqP1p + I2+wg2H4HohkaZmpBGhv50xvdwiD5MoVzXgShir/ZyMWmsj16Iqt4JVkEQZi0JWh0QFQ + SuUXkoV+Q2KbPfpvYjl2HZCx8G7536l+5bvRwLHUE94QXexqKIRF5nMZjh26bPb/FXee + IbXw== +X-Received: by 10.69.26.38 with SMTP id iv6mr3497791pbd.151.1439824062937; + Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:07:42 -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 y2sm15032547pdp.0.2015.08.17.08.07.41 + (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); + Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:07:42 -0700 (PDT) +Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) +Content-Type: multipart/signed; + boundary="Apple-Mail=_32B82850-82F1-44D6-BCE1-71B23C6CC02D"; + protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 +X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5 +From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> +In-Reply-To: <CAG86ZOyKcO_FBU4C_ghNuRfqLqB8ruivOtNajBs7whbR10xWPA@mail.gmail.com> +Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:07:39 -0700 +Message-Id: <1FE73D1F-E984-4662-AB2D-9799CAF1A3CD@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> + <CALqxMTHfzWr24qELKyYMQ5fy48C1Q-SExCL49w-VMCq2JOdRoQ@mail.gmail.com> + <CAG86ZOyKcO_FBU4C_ghNuRfqLqB8ruivOtNajBs7whbR10xWPA@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, HTML_MESSAGE, + MIME_QP_LONG_LINE, + 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] 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 15:07:45 -0000 + + +--Apple-Mail=_32B82850-82F1-44D6-BCE1-71B23C6CC02D +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; + boundary="Apple-Mail=_F433E8DB-8A0B-4FF8-9B5A-A8A6A4A9FC3E" + + +--Apple-Mail=_F433E8DB-8A0B-4FF8-9B5A-A8A6A4A9FC3E +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +Content-Type: text/plain; + charset=utf-8 + + +> On Aug 17, 2015, at 8:03 AM, Levin Keller <post@levinkeller.de> wrote: +>=20 +> Dear Eric, +>=20 +> thank you for sharing your thoughts. +>=20 +> It obviously boils down to political beliefs, not so much technical = +arguments. I understand that you are in favor of a "guided = +decentralization" and you are most happily invited to follow this path. = +I don't want to be on it. I want total decentralisation of bitcoin and = +many other parts of the current system. + +I specifically asked you to stop misrepresenting - I=E2=80=99m NOT in = +favor of guided decentralization, I never said anything like that. = +*THIS* is the problem=E2=80=A6you=E2=80=99re reading intentions into = +others that simply are NOT there. If you don=E2=80=99t really understand = +something, ask. + +I want complete decentralization - but for practical reasons, which = +should be obvious, we cannot start at this point. Bitcoin came into = +existence because Satoshi wrote a whitepaper and implemented the idea - = +and it was his rules. There was no voting, no committee, no = +proof-of-work, no nothing=E2=80=A6it was a complete dictatorship in the = +beginning. + +>=20 +> So in the end the hard fork might be perfect, because people like you = +will not waste so much more energy and time fighting people like me (and = +others) who are following different dogmata because we are using = +different coins and talking about different code. Interestingly enough = +in the end we will probably have a winner - determined by the price - so = +I am looking forward to the outcome. It is just the time so make some = +bets, which I embrace. +>=20 +> Another interesting thing is, that you actually fear problems arising = +from this. What do you have to loose? Just stick with the old bitcoin = +version and weather this storm. Bitcoin is not going to vanish or break = +from this. It is just forking. One fork will come stronger out of this. = +You just have to choose a side and live with it, if you loose it all. = +But that is the story of bitcoin since the beginning. If you ask me, you = +fear the choice, not the change. +>=20 + +Again, misrepresentation - =E2=80=9Cyou fear the choice, not the = +change=E2=80=9D - why should anyone ask *you* what I fear? Why don=E2=80=99= +t you ask *me*? + + +> Cheers +>=20 +> Levin +>=20 +> Adam Back via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org = +<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> schrieb am Mo., 17. Aug. = +2015 um 16:37 Uhr: +> Thank you Eric for saying what needs to be said. +>=20 +> Starting a fork war is just not constructive and there are multiple +> proposals being evaluated here. +>=20 +> I think that one thing that is not being so much focussed on is +> Bitcoin-XT is both a hard-fork and a soft-fork. It's a hard-fork on +> Bitcoin full-nodes, but it is also a soft-fork attack on Bitcoin core +> SPV nodes that did not opt-in. It exposes those SPV nodes to loss in +> the likely event that Bitcoin-XT results in a network-split. +>=20 +> The recent proposal here to run noXT (patch to falsely claim to mine +> on XT while actually rejecting it's blocks) could add enough +> uncertainty about the activation that Bitcoin-XT would probably have +> to be aborted. +>=20 +> Adam +>=20 +> On 17 August 2015 at 15:03, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev +> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org = +<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: +> > NxtChg, +> > +> > 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. +> > +> > 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. +> > +> > This inability is not due to any malice on anyone=E2=80=99s = +part=E2=80=A6it 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. +> > +> > 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=A6= +or 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. +> > +> > 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?!? +> > +> > 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. +> > +> > Would you want to send your test pilots on their first flight=E2=80=A6= +the 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. +> > +> > 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. +> > +> > 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. +> > +> > 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=99= +s right. +> _______________________________________________ +> bitcoin-dev mailing list +> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org = +<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev = +<https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev> + + +--Apple-Mail=_F433E8DB-8A0B-4FF8-9B5A-A8A6A4A9FC3E +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +Content-Type: text/html; + charset=utf-8 + +<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html = +charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; = +-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" = +class=3D""><br class=3D""><div><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div = +class=3D"">On Aug 17, 2015, at 8:03 AM, Levin Keller <<a = +href=3D"mailto:post@levinkeller.de" class=3D"">post@levinkeller.de</a>>= + wrote:</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=3D""><div = +dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"">Dear Eric,<div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div= + class=3D"">thank you for sharing your thoughts.</div><div class=3D""><br = +class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">It obviously boils down to political = +beliefs, not so much technical arguments. I understand that you are in = +favor of a "guided decentralization" and you are most happily invited to = +follow this path. I don't want to be on it. I want total = +decentralisation of bitcoin and many other parts of the current = +system.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=3D""></div><div>I = +specifically asked you to stop misrepresenting - I=E2=80=99m NOT in = +favor of guided decentralization, I never said anything like that. = +*THIS* is the problem=E2=80=A6you=E2=80=99re reading intentions into = +others that simply are NOT there. If you don=E2=80=99t really understand = +something, ask.</div><div><br class=3D""></div><div>I want complete = +decentralization - but for practical reasons, which should be obvious, = +we cannot start at this point. Bitcoin came into existence because = +Satoshi wrote a whitepaper and implemented the idea - and it was his = +rules. There was no voting, no committee, no proof-of-work, no = +nothing=E2=80=A6it was a complete dictatorship in the = +beginning.</div><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div = +class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div class=3D""><br = +class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">So in the end the hard fork might be = +perfect, because people like you will not waste so much more energy and = +time fighting people like me (and others) who are following different = +dogmata because we are using different coins and talking about different = +code. Interestingly enough in the end we will probably have a winner - = +determined by the price - so I am looking forward to the outcome. It is = +just the time so make some bets, which I embrace.</div><div class=3D""><br= + class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Another interesting thing is, that you = +actually fear problems arising from this. What do you have to loose? = +Just stick with the old bitcoin version and weather this storm. Bitcoin = +is not going to vanish or break from this. It is just forking. One fork = +will come stronger out of this. You just have to choose a side and live = +with it, if you loose it all. But that is the story of bitcoin since the = +beginning. If you ask me, you fear the choice, not the change.</div><div = +class=3D""><br class=3D""></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br = +class=3D""></div>Again, misrepresentation - =E2=80=9Cyou fear the = +choice, not the change=E2=80=9D - why should anyone ask *you* what I = +fear? Why don=E2=80=99t you ask *me*?<br class=3D""><div><br = +class=3D""></div><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div = +class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div class=3D"">Cheers</div><div = +class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Levin</div></div><br = +class=3D""><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"">Adam = +Back via bitcoin-dev <<a = +href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" = +class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> schrieb am Mo., = +17. Aug. 2015 um 16:37 Uhr:<br class=3D""></div><blockquote = +class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc = +solid;padding-left:1ex">Thank you Eric for saying what needs to be = +said.<br class=3D""> +<br class=3D""> +Starting a fork war is just not constructive and there are multiple<br = +class=3D""> +proposals being evaluated here.<br class=3D""> +<br class=3D""> +I think that one thing that is not being so much focussed on is<br = +class=3D""> +Bitcoin-XT is both a hard-fork and a soft-fork. It's a hard-fork = +on<br class=3D""> +Bitcoin full-nodes, but it is also a soft-fork attack on Bitcoin core<br = +class=3D""> +SPV nodes that did not opt-in. It exposes those SPV nodes to loss = +in<br class=3D""> +the likely event that Bitcoin-XT results in a network-split.<br = +class=3D""> +<br class=3D""> +The recent proposal here to run noXT (patch to falsely claim to mine<br = +class=3D""> +on XT while actually rejecting it's blocks) could add enough<br = +class=3D""> +uncertainty about the activation that Bitcoin-XT would probably have<br = +class=3D""> +to be aborted.<br class=3D""> +<br class=3D""> +Adam<br class=3D""> +<br class=3D""> +On 17 August 2015 at 15:03, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev<br class=3D""> +<<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" = +target=3D"_blank" class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>>= + wrote:<br class=3D""> +> NxtChg,<br class=3D""> +><br class=3D""> +> 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.<br class=3D""> +><br class=3D""> +> 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.<br class=3D""> +><br class=3D""> +> This inability is not due to any malice on anyone=E2=80=99s = +part=E2=80=A6it 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.<br class=3D""> +><br class=3D""> +> We=E2=80=99ve managed to have a few soft forks in the past=E2=80=A6an= +d for the most part these changes have been pretty uncontroversial=E2=80=A6= +or 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.<br class=3D""> +><br class=3D""> +> Again, we have NEVER attempted anything even remotely like what=E2=80= +=99s 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?!?<br class=3D""> +><br class=3D""> +> 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.<br class=3D""> +><br class=3D""> +> Would you want to send your test pilots on their first flight=E2=80=A6= +the 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.<br class=3D""> +><br class=3D""> +> 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.<br class=3D""> +><br class=3D""> +> 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.<br = +class=3D""> +><br class=3D""> +> 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=99= +s right.<br class=3D""> +_______________________________________________<br class=3D""> +bitcoin-dev mailing list<br class=3D""> +<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank"= + class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br class=3D""> +<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"= + rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank" = +class=3D"">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<= +/a><br class=3D""> +</blockquote></div> +</div></blockquote></div><br class=3D""></body></html>= + +--Apple-Mail=_F433E8DB-8A0B-4FF8-9B5A-A8A6A4A9FC3E-- + +--Apple-Mail=_32B82850-82F1-44D6-BCE1-71B23C6CC02D +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 + +iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJV0fi7AAoJEJNAI64YFENU2tUQALBCHjVRRsdlGhURC6d4XG5f +7wuwhSzPNB+CCaJshjakz/UjTWHahpiw6JaL6bDcbq+WCmYxOktMJG7+v3UUxo/U +zbTgNEmzvZF0gDdEZNk4Ne535YbsWKnLmPhlIEd+OmaF+lkKsapYJgf9JKKG/+iM +2LWhAzPudF4nXmAShPEWBIbjSpt2txxf7k77g+jpS4xjCvdv+TCNwe73bzkqtgtU +En7iK6qDRlCWwJsgEEQw3r3g2H97QV8XPUZhAHoWJ34pwq60JJLrvQ/YyyBJrbM5 +iBdmIkufL9vc4DjjhnGllJFh+7D2jr8G4c6WObFy6bpVc0cJ857GamSJBt2HfdY6 +C4lS/silCKi7MuorLf8+L7b+D6+hi2edEePEi4A3yKeT6ElKgvPS1plcfL3t7egL +/KezGQzqy5VQxtZZvaxgcGO5HyvzURyg1p2f0gKCrSITvFuDPs6dx98uAB4NXbEC +5Lq2uGxPLaw8Gwa0LhvlNOpWjA45Uw3F+PbS9vwtHjbFGqOE9SK6Uun9ka0YrqqE +XpjGXvwrtJtGjRoHWJIkBR2a/USmWeLpuYwKIYo7KyLBt2y/jPUvxgVG5EyD76Cn +7jIHvby6m8btMtqnk1xBYtY3qz3La3MPCCuitFniMwNS5oqPkUlQLsfqqeJ/Gbbe +HNhg1tfc3R8TPs1Tk0Zr +=jveH +-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- + +--Apple-Mail=_32B82850-82F1-44D6-BCE1-71B23C6CC02D-- + |