Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F66A83D for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:14:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx1.riseup.net (mx1.riseup.net [198.252.153.129]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBEAB112 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:14:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cotinga.riseup.net (unknown [10.0.1.161]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.riseup.net", Issuer "COMODO RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E3CEC111B; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 03:14:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak; t=1439979287; bh=NPQdt3fGHxh2jfnZ377d5QYxYsOTrdsaCNfpJBjAFPE=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=l91LN2PZxKoMGkmPxoqEkXvW56SZV2lqCXRyTyPaH+CULwOkyquSZqryzgKnSPVwP IRYqrTELvE0XvYlrW+oJb4nTYG3VLTohY+mOflM++UMCoFOMkeLM3f02vtbauxDQL8 5Fz8AO5YFaz4Geot2Q84lp60b8niSqfqYGbdDYrE= Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: odinn.cyberguerrilla) with ESMTPSA id 0B8EA1C0258 Message-ID: <55D45715.4010107@riseup.net> Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 03:14:45 -0700 From: odinn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?windows-1252?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= , Danny Thorpe References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.7 at mx1.riseup.net X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RP_MATCHES_RCVD, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY 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 is an experiment. Why don't we have an experimental hardfork? 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: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:14:48 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Firstly, XT is controversial, not uncontroversial; Second, this issue has been beat to death quite a while ago https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/899#issuecomment-117 815987 Third, it poses major risks as a non-peer reviewed alt with a number of problematic features (with the privacy problems recently mentioned on this list being just one of them) Fourth, it has not followed any semblance of process in terms of the development funnel or BIPS process, with XT developers instead choosing instead a dangerous path of hard forking bitcoin while being well aware of miner voting on viable solutions which have followed process. The following proposals http://bipsxdevs.azurewebsites.net/ regardless of what you think of any one of them, are deserving of attention (BIP 100 / BIP 101) and are being voted on as you read this by miners. (BIP sipa is not yet numbered, and BIP 102 is a backup /fallback option.) BIP 100 is probably the best of these (note, in part, it schedules a hardfork on testnet in September). Contentious hard forks are bad for Bitcoin. https://bitcoin.org/en/posts/hard-fork-policy You may want to read this again if you haven't recently. There is no basis for further promoting XT by suggesting that it should even be tested. #GAVEL On 08/19/2015 02:29 AM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Danny Thorpe via bitcoin-dev > wrote: >> >> Ya, so? All that means is that the experiment might reach the >> hard fork tipping point faster than mainnet would. Verifying that >> the network can handle such transitions, and how larger blocks >> affect the network, is the point of testing. >> >> And when I refer to testnet, I mean the public global testnet >> blockchain, not in-house isolated networks like >> testnet-in-a-box. > > I would expect any uncontroversial hardfork to be deployed in > testnet3 before it is deployed in bitcoin's main chain. > > In any case, you can already do these tests using > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6382 Note that even if the > new testchains are regtest-like (ie cheap proof of work) you don't > need to test them "in-a-box": you can run them from many different > places. Rusty's test ( http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=509 ) could have > been perfectly made using #6382, it just didn't existed at the > time. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev > mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > - -- http://abis.io ~ "a protocol concept to enable decentralization and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good" https://keybase.io/odinn -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJV1FcVAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CAd8H/R9khvHJJaNKrq7tjzksyc6V jNN8ApaYUOE/i+goKd7XaeW0LM0aUC5vdqOCud632zb9XGo6awlk0fML4FV+wsE0 e5EfVDKZJxQ7zbaNCXXKTUfC+XRpJlhJgfF9jDgTsKv2l8fALbz+U6tn65Ke8F4+ 9A4jJCe8yjttjBkX+8wLsSeDkDsPxo7f29rPfI6YMtN4MYbdxGiLjrTuRWrVje8q l+3IFxrqGwKQl3LygRQHmLosvcW8UZzGYIM7hCleE9NUpc9TdpyTXPB3+9O9h4ty 5vY9jZ6t2Ww9CeljzD8S+1Nycz7sHqeoBCie+WexY7aT/QV2WQxFp4qnpO7PMSs= =UNYA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----