summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/21
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorEric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>2015-08-17 08:07:39 -0700
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2015-08-17 15:07:44 +0000
commitf9ec4f94af30258d4be6d2ae1dab9ea675465368 (patch)
treebf4bc15defc255af60004aab63e95beed57b5916 /21
parent4912c514c2baeaf04b49fb218da86d693a34b1da (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-f9ec4f94af30258d4be6d2ae1dab9ea675465368.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-f9ec4f94af30258d4be6d2ae1dab9ea675465368.zip
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT
Diffstat (limited to '21')
-rw-r--r--21/374dac361fa28aa9786a9e495a919efc8f4acd465
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 &lt;<a =
+href=3D"mailto:post@levinkeller.de" class=3D"">post@levinkeller.de</a>&gt;=
+ 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 &lt;<a =
+href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" =
+class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; schrieb am Mo., =
+17. Aug. 2015 um 16:37&nbsp;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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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"">
+&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" =
+target=3D"_blank" class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;=
+ wrote:<br class=3D"">
+&gt; NxtChg,<br class=3D"">
+&gt;<br class=3D"">
+&gt; 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"">
+&gt;<br class=3D"">
+&gt; 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"">
+&gt;<br class=3D"">
+&gt; 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"">
+&gt;<br class=3D"">
+&gt; 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"">
+&gt;<br class=3D"">
+&gt; 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"">
+&gt;<br class=3D"">
+&gt; 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"">
+&gt;<br class=3D"">
+&gt; 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"">
+&gt;<br class=3D"">
+&gt; 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"">
+&gt;<br class=3D"">
+&gt; 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"">
+&gt;<br class=3D"">
+&gt; 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--
+