Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36B548DC for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:30:17 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f175.google.com (mail-io0-f175.google.com [209.85.223.175]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CD001C7 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:30:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iodb91 with SMTP id b91so117158016iod.1 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 16:30:14 -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 :cc:content-type; bh=K2hR/gJ11lREAr3gRWxczSIeVGlJL9ooBXgmdTXvPGQ=; b=z64SAWW6UFmmubsyaTAlXfEBEg4Hf8lALmUcpByL944LUJJgmd72UI8Mxa6vCQ91oi GxlG/04TKlIQ7Orjlo1L2oMDwGYW8hGWmVhZxecdWUmsjKzVlT7A7eukgHQ2MYzS+p4U DbSq2QMNEeP69Kq2SCx3TCbWTzazDGYg/YOrc5JknvG/6DzDNOLfUGObZlq23M5bkLoX I4uJCe8FzdKDDfnxb+4WrEgox4Fx3B0U8w8p629tAy8/pQRHtgsIH9FiUC1CYtz6RUZG qMGFZGFusR1jcRkvVYICZyDK1bg3Ctw5UwTrILbV0oLD9q9SLwsHKbkgcKbchQsGp9/i 885w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.136.221 with SMTP id s90mr30901026ioi.34.1439681414724; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 16:30:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.10.35 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 16:30:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <90267BA3-06D8-412B-8FF6-BA21BCCA8AB8@gmail.com> References: <90267BA3-06D8-412B-8FF6-BA21BCCA8AB8@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 18:30:14 -0500 Message-ID: From: Michael Naber To: Eric Lombrozo Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ec7105085e5051d61f3ec 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 Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:30:17 -0000 --001a113ec7105085e5051d61f3ec Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bitcoin has no elections; it has no courts. If not through attempting a hard-fork, how should we properly resolve irreconcilable disagreements? On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Please take the lightning 101 discussion to another thread. > > The main point I was trying to make was that Mike is clearly > misrepresenting the views of a great number of people who have deep, > intimate knowledge of how things work and are almost certainly not > primarily motivated by their own potential for profits. > > On Aug 15, 2015, at 4:04 PM, Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > 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 > wrote: > >> I would like very much to know how it is that we're supposed to be makin= g >> 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 reasona= ble >>> 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 blata= nt >>> conflict of interest. >>> >>> I'm also trying to figure out how things like lightning are not >>> competing directly with miners for fees. More off-chain transactions me= ans >>> less blockchain demand, which would lower on-chain fees. I'm not sure w= hat >>> 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-25= 6 >>> ASIC mining hardware. >>> >>> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Eric Lombrozo >>> 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, >>>> consensus is reached around larger blocks. If it is rejected, the stat= us >>>> quo will remain for now. Network consensus, NOT CORE DEVELOPER CONSENS= US, >>>> is the only thing that matters, and those that go against network cons= ensus >>>> will 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 = forking some >>>> open source project - we=E2=80=99re talking about forking a ledger rep= resenting >>>> 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 the= re >>>> were unanimous agreement that the change is good (which there clearly = IS >>>> NOT in this case) but the deployment mechanism could still break thing= s. >>>> >>>> If anything we should attempt a hard fork with a less contentious >>>> change first, just to test deployability. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure who appointed the core devs some sort of Bitcoin Gods tha= t >>>> can hold up any change that they happen to disagree with. It seems lik= e the >>>> core devs are scared to death that the bitcoin network may change with= out >>>> 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 >>>> most vocal opponents to a reasonable blocksize increase work for a com= pany >>>> (Blockstream) that stands to profit directly from artificially limitin= g the >>>> blocksize. The whole situation reeks. Because of such a blatant confli= ct of >>>> interest, the ethical thing to do would be for them to either resign f= rom >>>> Blockstream or immediately withdraw themselves from the blocksize deba= te. >>>> This is the type of stuff that I hoped would end with Bitcoin, but ala= s, 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 mot= ivated >>>> 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. >>>> Miners need to realize that they are in direct competition with the >>>> lightning network and sidechains for fees. Miners, ask yourselves if y= ou >>>> think you'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 l= ook >>>> at these ideas and understand them a little better before trying to ma= ke >>>> any such claims. Again, I do not work for Blockstream=E2=80=A6and my a= genda in this >>>> post is not to promote either of these ideas=E2=80=A6but with all due = respect, I do >>>> not think you properly understand them at all. >>>> >>>> The longer this debate drags on, the more I agree with BIP 100 and Jef= f >>>> Garzik because the core devs are already being influenced by outside f= orces >>>> and should not have complete control of the blocksize. It's also >>>> interesting to note that most of the mining hashpower is already votin= g for >>>> 8MB blocks BIP100 style. >>>> >>>> >>>> I don=E2=80=99t think the concern here is so much that some people wan= t to >>>> increase block size. It=E2=80=99s the *way* in which this change is be= ing 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 = of >>>>> articles detailing an explaining in-depth technical concerns=E2=80=A6= you also seem >>>>> to fancy yourself more capable of reading into the intentions of some= one >>>>> who disappeared from the scene years ago, before we even were fully a= ware >>>>> 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 ope= n >>>>> source project with a fork of a cryptoledger is completely bogus - th= ere=E2=80=99s >>>>> a lot of other people=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 >>>>> intimately familiar with the inner workings of Satoshi=E2=80=99s inve= ntion 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 = the sake >>>>> of Bitcoin=E2=80=A6and for your own sake. Despite your obvious techni= cal abilities >>>>> (and I sincerely do believe you have them) you are discrediting yours= elf >>>>> 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 an= d 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 >>>>> not the first and won't be the last project to go through this. Often= in >>>>> forks, people say there was insufficient communication. So to ensure >>>>> everything 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 Core (assuming adoption, of course). >>>>> >>>>> The article is here: >>>>> >>>>> https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c= 1 >>>>> >>>>> It makes no attempt to be neutral: this explains things from our poin= t >>>>> of view. >>>>> >>>>> The manifesto is on the website. >>>>> >>>>> I say to all developers on this list: if you also feel that Core is n= o >>>>> 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 >>> >>> > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > --001a113ec7105085e5051d61f3ec Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bitcoin has no elections; it has no courts.=C2=A0If not th= rough attempting a hard-fork, how should we properly resolve irreconcilable= disagreements?=C2=A0

On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wr= ote:
= Please take the lightning 101 discussion to another thread.

<= div>The main point I was trying to make was that Mike is clearly misreprese= nting the views of a great number of people who have deep, intimate knowled= ge of how things work and are almost certainly not primarily motivated by t= heir own potential for profits.

<= blockquote type=3D"cite">
On Aug 15, 2015, at 4:04 PM, Ken Friece via b= itcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Being an early hub provider would be an obvious pla= ce to start capitalizing on lightning. Early lightning adopters would be in= the best position to do this.

Long term, Bitcoin needs to scale the blockchai= n 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, 2= 015 at 6:55 PM, Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org> w= rote:

I would like very mu= ch to know how it is that we're supposed to be making money off of ligh= tning, and therefore how it represents a conflict of interest. Apparently t= here is tons of money to be made in releasing open-source protocols! I woul= d hate to miss out on that.

We are working on lightning b= ecause Mike of all people said, essentially, " if you're so fond o= f 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 bi= tcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
=
I know full well who works for Blockstream and I know you'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's BIP is not wh= at I consider reasonable because it doesn'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.

I'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'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-2= 56 ASIC mining hardware.

On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Eric Lombr= ozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 15, 2015, at 3:01 PM, Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev <bitco= in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

What are you so afraid of, Eric? If Mike'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.
=

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.

If anything we should attempt a hard fork with a less contentious cha= nge first, just to test deployability.

I'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.

Again, let=E2=80=99s figure out a hard fork mechanism and test it wi= th a far less contentious change first

<= 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.
<= /blockquote>

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.

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.
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'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

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.

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's also interesting to note that most of the minin= g hashpower is already voting for 8MB blocks BIP100 style. =C2=A0

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.
=

On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at = 5:32 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@li= sts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
You deeply disappoint me, Mik= e.

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.

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.

=
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.

- 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
<= br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://bitcoinxt.software/

I feel sad that it'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>
Forking is a natural thing in the open source community,= Bitcoin is not the first and won'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've written a blog post and a kind= of "manifesto" to describe why this is happening and how XT plan= s to be different from Core (assuming adoption, of course).

<= /div>
The article is here:


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 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'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/mail= man/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/mail= man/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/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--001a113ec7105085e5051d61f3ec--