Message-ID: <BLU437-SMTP6520F38414718F4E15E0DC6790@phx.gbl>
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.9.150325
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 22:58:22 +0800
From: GC <slashdevnull@hotmail.com>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>,
	Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT
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>
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTHfzWr24qELKyYMQ5fy48C1Q-SExCL49w-VMCq2JOdRoQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT
Precedence: list

Adam,

While greatly appreciating your prior efforts in crypto-ccy R&D and
current efforts for Blockstream, its not a plus for your reputation to be
using emotive terms like =B3attack=B2, =B3fork war" and throwing so much FUD
into the developer email channel directly after Eric=B9s email.

We would appreciate seeing your well-argued thoughts, not FUD and flaming.
There are multitudes of trolls in all forums already.

On 17/8/15 10:36 pm, "Adam Back via bitcoin-dev"
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

>Thank you Eric for saying what needs to be said.
>
>Starting a fork war is just not constructive and there are multiple
>proposals being evaluated here.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>Adam
>
>On 17 August 2015 at 15:03, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
><bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> NxtChg,
>>
>> In the entire history of Bitcoin we=B9ve never attempted anything even
>>closely resembling a hard fork like what=B9s being proposed here.
>>
>> Many of us have wanted to push our own hard-forking changes to the
>>protocol=8Aand have been frustrated because of the inability to do so.
>>
>> This inability is not due to any malice on anyone=B9s part=8Ait is a
>>feature of Satoshi=B9s protocol. For better or worse, it is *very hard* to
>>change the rules=8Aand 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=B9ve managed to have a few soft forks in the past=8Aand for the most
>>part these changes have been pretty uncontroversial=8Aor at least, they
>>have not had nearly the level of political divisiveness that this block
>>size issue is having. And even then, we=B9ve 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=B9s being
>>proposed - we=B9ve 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=8Aand we can argue the
>>merits of this or that to death=8Abut the fact remains that we have NEVER
>>attempted any hard forking change=8Anot 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=8Ait could be any controversial change,
>>really.
>>
>> Would you want to send your test pilots on their first flight=8Athe first
>>time an aircraft is ever flown=8Adirectly into combat without having
>>tested the plane? This is what attempting a hard fork mechanism that=B9s
>>NEVER been done before in such a politically divisive environment
>>basically amounts to=8Abut it=B9s even worse. We=B9re basically risking the
>>entire air force (not just one plane) over an argument regarding how
>>many seats a plane should have that we=B9ve never flown before.
>>
>> We=B9re talking billlions of dollars=B9 worth of other people=B9s money that
>>is on the line here. Don=B9t 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=B9t even
>>care about the merits regarding bigger blocks vs. smaller blocks at this
>>point, to be quite honest - that=B9s such a petty thing compared to what
>>I=B9m talking about here. If we attempt a novel hard-forking mechanism
>>that=B9s 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=8Aand can easily lead to a war,
>>tanking the value of everyone=B9s 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=B9t even come close to touching big payment
>>processors like Visa. It=B9s hard to imagine a protocol improvement that=B9s
>>worth the risk.
>>
>> I urge you to at least try to see the bigger picture here=8Aand 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=B9s right.
>_______________________________________________
>bitcoin-dev mailing list
>bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev