Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5CCC9A for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 16:37:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f47.google.com (mail-pa0-f47.google.com [209.85.220.47]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20B5D168 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 16:37:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pabyb7 with SMTP id yb7so111955311pab.0 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:37:03 -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=9EbpViuVUhpmQBnxmF9Qby6+SziUpP3lsJeoSSJShUU=; b=F9DMl5r08TCPpjHXs9cMSFnI1KUf+Ohf0jgK2R6F0Q/2EQqQs/rABox+3CcWdjD8Ar 081kMsNxFycSXUAPDBu/iNZzOeqGU7g87nzBukdt0qwHpKtbWvwXLjPezJmZ5Rb52kdy cAn0q8KpTz6e8QdpVRuiKkOh0mWOvihtkxybRQv/IbDy0SEBCmEBzUD9Ozr/QtUtFS+X tKq4svO/2fDDU4i2lGvQ0z6aRs04LPQquD5TFbD9xwOCGxeuKNHmZwvFvn++UuHT9L4I isBGSMPKK4AGZAyDCak7DOw+PvjBIMRpwsHQo6SULqhRwJNR9HY2l55SENGlKfWqpLpN 1png== X-Received: by 10.68.163.5 with SMTP id ye5mr4225592pbb.120.1439829423815; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:37:03 -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 fv5sm15238742pdb.19.2015.08.17.09.37.02 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:37:03 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C73D17E4-5245-4122-823F-9430C31DF550"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5 From: Eric Lombrozo In-Reply-To: <20150817133438.DDD4243128@smtp.hushmail.com> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:37:01 -0700 Message-Id: References: <20150817100918.BD1F343128@smtp.hushmail.com> <1439815244.89850.YahooMailBasic@web173102.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <20150817133438.DDD4243128@smtp.hushmail.com> To: NxtChg 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@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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 16:37:04 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_C73D17E4-5245-4122-823F-9430C31DF550 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2AA9EEF9-412B-441C-BBC8-9D26D0E7F9C8" --Apple-Mail=_2AA9EEF9-412B-441C-BBC8-9D26D0E7F9C8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Aug 17, 2015, at 6:34 AM, NxtChg via bitcoin-dev = wrote: >=20 > Great, so how about you go tell theymos to stop censoring XT posts and = banning the other side on /r/Bitcoin? >=20 > Let users decide what Bitcoin is or isn't. FWIW, I don=E2=80=99t think what theymos did is very constructive.I understand = his position=E2=80=A6but it only hurts the cause, unfortunately - the PR = battle is not the same thing as a discussion on technical merits. He = hurts the PR battle and plays into Mike=E2=80=99s hand by doing that. = The actual underlying issue actually has little to do with block size - = it has to do with Mike and Gavin feeling that the core devs are being = obstructionist. Regardless of the technical merits of XT, the fact that we=E2=80=99ve = never done a hard fork before, not even for things some other devs have = wanted=E2=80=A6and not due to any malice on anyone=E2=80=99s part but = because simply that=E2=80=99s just the nature of decentralized consensus = with well-defined settlement guarantees=E2=80=A6this is the problem - = Mike and Gavin think they=E2=80=99re somehow special and their fork = should be pushed while the rest of us resist pushing our own = controversial pet ideas because we want civility and understand that at = this stage in Bitcoin=E2=80=99s development trying to fork the = blockchain over highly divisive issues is counterproductive and = destructive. But the fact of the matter is that in the PR battle, arguments against = the fork actually play into Mike=E2=80=99s hand, and that=E2=80=99s the = problem. The whole block size thing is too nuanced and too easily spun = simplistically. It=E2=80=99s too easy to spin resistance to bigger = blocks (even though the resistance is actually much more towards = untested hardforking mechanisms and serious security concerns) as = =E2=80=9Cobstructionism=E2=80=9D and it=E2=80=99s too easy to spin = bigger blocks as =E2=80=9Cscalability=E2=80=9D because most of the = people can=E2=80=99t tell the fucking difference. The fact is most of the people don=E2=80=99t really understand the = fundamental issue and are taking sides based on charismatic leadership = and authority which is actually entirely counter to the spirit of = decentralized consensus. It=E2=80=99s beyond ironic. If you guys want to win the PR battle, the key is to make it clear that = you are not obstructionist and are giving everyone equal = treatment=E2=80=A6Bitcoin was designed such that changing the rules is = *hard* and this is a feature. Bitcoin simply does not have a reliable = and tested hard forking mechanism=E2=80=A6and a hard fork for such a = politically divisive issue will almost certainly lead to a lack of = cooperation and refusal to work together out of spite. All of us would = like to be able to process more transactions on the network. It=E2=80=99s = not a matter of whether we think higher capacity is a bad thing - it=E2=80= =99s more that some of us are concerned that Bitcoin is not sufficiently = mature to be able to handle such a schism with so much hostility. Let=E2=80=99s face it, folks - from a PR standpoint, the block size = issue is irrelevant. Nobody really understands it except for a handful = of people - I=E2=80=99ve tried to explain it, I=E2=80=99ve even written = articles about it - but most people just don=E2=80=99t get it. Most = people don=E2=80=99t really get scalability either - they seem to think = that scalability is just doing the same thing you=E2=80=99ve always done = manyfold. Block size is an especially dangerous issue politically because it=E2=80=99= s one of those that requires deep understanding yet superficially sounds = really simple. It=E2=80=99s perfect Dunning-Kruger bait. So let=E2=80=99s be a little smarter about this. --Apple-Mail=_2AA9EEF9-412B-441C-BBC8-9D26D0E7F9C8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
On Aug 17, 2015, at 6:34 AM, NxtChg via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

Great, so how about you go tell theymos to stop = censoring XT posts and banning the other side on /r/Bitcoin?

Let users decide what Bitcoin is or = isn't.

FWIW,

I don=E2=80=99t think what theymos did is = very constructive.I understand his position=E2=80=A6but it only hurts = the cause, unfortunately - the PR battle is not the same thing as a = discussion on technical merits. He hurts the PR battle and plays into = Mike=E2=80=99s hand by doing that. The actual underlying issue actually = has little to do with block size - it has to do with Mike and Gavin = feeling that the core devs are being obstructionist.

Regardless of the = technical merits of XT, the fact that we=E2=80=99ve never done a hard = fork before, not even for things some other devs have wanted=E2=80=A6and = not due to any malice on anyone=E2=80=99s part but because simply = that=E2=80=99s just the nature of decentralized consensus with = well-defined settlement guarantees=E2=80=A6this is the problem - Mike = and Gavin think they=E2=80=99re somehow special and their fork should be = pushed while the rest of us resist pushing our own controversial pet = ideas because we want civility and understand that at this stage in = Bitcoin=E2=80=99s development trying to fork the blockchain over highly = divisive issues is counterproductive and destructive.

But the fact of the = matter is that in the PR battle, arguments against the fork actually = play into Mike=E2=80=99s hand, and that=E2=80=99s the problem.

The whole block size = thing is too nuanced and too easily spun simplistically. It=E2=80=99s = too easy to spin resistance to bigger blocks (even though the resistance = is actually much more towards untested hardforking mechanisms and = serious security concerns) as =E2=80=9Cobstructionism=E2=80=9D and = it=E2=80=99s too easy to spin bigger blocks as =E2=80=9Cscalability=E2=80=9D= because most of the people can=E2=80=99t tell the fucking = difference.

The = fact is most of the people don=E2=80=99t really understand the = fundamental issue and are taking sides based on charismatic leadership = and authority which is actually entirely counter to the spirit of = decentralized consensus. It=E2=80=99s beyond ironic.

If you guys want to win = the PR battle, the key is to make it clear that you are not = obstructionist and are giving everyone equal treatment=E2=80=A6Bitcoin = was designed such that changing the rules is *hard* and this is a = feature. Bitcoin simply does not have a reliable and tested hard forking = mechanism=E2=80=A6and a hard fork for such a politically divisive issue = will almost certainly lead to a lack of cooperation and refusal to work = together out of spite. All of us would like to be able to process more = transactions on the network. It=E2=80=99s not a matter of whether we = think higher capacity is a bad thing - it=E2=80=99s more that some of us = are concerned that Bitcoin is not sufficiently mature to be able to = handle such a schism with so much hostility.

Let=E2=80=99s face it, folks - from a = PR standpoint, the block size issue is irrelevant. Nobody really = understands it except for a handful of people - I=E2=80=99ve tried to = explain it, I=E2=80=99ve even written articles about it - but most = people just don=E2=80=99t get it. Most people don=E2=80=99t really get = scalability either - they seem to think that scalability is just doing = the same thing you=E2=80=99ve always done manyfold.

Block size is an = especially dangerous issue politically because it=E2=80=99s one of those = that requires deep understanding yet superficially sounds really simple. = It=E2=80=99s perfect Dunning-Kruger bait.

So let=E2=80=99s be a little smarter = about this.
= --Apple-Mail=_2AA9EEF9-412B-441C-BBC8-9D26D0E7F9C8-- --Apple-Mail=_C73D17E4-5245-4122-823F-9430C31DF550 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 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJV0g2tAAoJEJNAI64YFENUZtEP/ibwIrDGg+ABsMfI12e59/yb 76hMX52TJdvvGYO7jnioM5iakCFdZrzyQI0C4rATpXe9OAPiWwmFbddJJ3KGOWx8 ayVVFTCdR1yB09qrE7UHDc7OQcbQ1SnFlyONrCDwdlvYX5Ds1EqxurdcPMvrMvOw AOBhODIpDVcQ0z6YKQj+0xxFfZiZnf5izPzQpxPFaCf7+VocuChuXRSDs+xURQfS DemVza86S34ULGI7FZUWRIc7VNzoynzRf3Dz3WTJ7v2NH6kRy6XjvAedprchWmId ItXDuQ6IRNQhe6WMsko2eMBozCxvQ+Jb/rT6mLulm7mSOaMeoSfLA+0kNsr3PF+B gneNnknDLUhV12/M0jtS5+Mi5XTD9IvR2Ud8XJEwSOvOK7kU1m6CF1gpX3KswKea 7EhAej00dkImkxeFVxrmNKLxtwtN2Gjq7gt2kLpNMO6kIL2nSTI2HgqrJ8cCEjbU qiz+FbXCyUKWY1qVjkSdjc3rE0awn3dbha61FHcXBfkfWCb/YEfxyZ+AGpSlxNGQ xyhtot1sdhB7QuT2elvuO81Khs8Nqt8/kdkzoGRo9EfTOt5zjboEUEZzwQB29Jbu NhXDLAybdmp9jNKCYZhwqSFUFWkoq8grAYRdopaXY+SGie7M0HRbga5/vDgQ/2vB GFIGs+lUArk99xKa72bf =/O30 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_C73D17E4-5245-4122-823F-9430C31DF550--