Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 389D64D3 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:30:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com (mail-pa0-f50.google.com [209.85.220.50]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67C651AC for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:30:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pacgr6 with SMTP id gr6so109805097pac.2 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:30:26 -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=e/BYKjW3ix2Ds6IZ0H6SKXvuWdphoE3SBvIDkb0BuW4=; b=jVAGPwnCIjPbybauw0r9CKT6qPxNVHPX328cuJPaa4EtqNOjbrLWvedRO6MkjCuu/b IDoOmW0vMlMqRpT1h7dwr/oObwK7i02K8TaeMNGi/J+HTXaYtJtnVuoMcSAJf9szT+TG 5iBq3KPuuX1h9O5nO1q4hNRusg3KI2dhIv1v41FNxaXzXziv/jaRE7//MGctbckclwC6 BKGlDnD2Pbz4hlv+zUuEiZW3ytWtN3/CcWjmeXWGwfROCPulsj+J/z3OteccktL7GKXa 0A/4rABjIHa0qCNXr60BjujUbm2wO9fM8h6Uu/V4l8qD6RJH7roxnPhUW1zNkVrgbot3 UlfA== X-Received: by 10.68.111.165 with SMTP id ij5mr3181710pbb.59.1439821826010; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:30:26 -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 rg10sm14872057pbc.33.2015.08.17.07.30.24 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:30:25 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BBF039CD-20BD-475A-A77E-FD262494B09C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5 From: Eric Lombrozo In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:30:24 -0700 Message-Id: <83343736-3F56-4F94-946E-3FBB9525FCD9@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> To: Levin Keller 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, 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 14:30:27 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_BBF039CD-20BD-475A-A77E-FD262494B09C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Levin, The hope is that eventually the network will be sufficiently resilient = and robust to be able to handle anything that=E2=80=99s thrown at it. = But it=E2=80=99s still a baby=E2=80=A6and this is a serious problem = indeed, because on the one hand we don=E2=80=99t want any central = authority but on the other it still needs some guardians=E2=80=A6and we = don=E2=80=99t have anything resembling the kind of institution that = could possibly be entrusted to nurture and care for this baby until it = is ready to go out on its own. Imagine, when the US Constitution was being written, if suddenly = everyone started to just propose their own different version of it and = insisting (under threat of fork) on their own versions before any sort = of government could be created. Yes, I know the US federal government is = not exactly the paragon of decentralization=E2=80=A6but regardless of = your views on the US government, it=E2=80=99s still a somewhat analogous = situation. Until the system was in place, some people (who at the time = were unelected) had to bootstrap the process. For better or worse, Satoshi has left the picture=E2=80=A6and no clear = succession model was put in place. The Bitcoin Foundation, which for a = time attempted to be a guardian institution, ended up self-destructing. = It was an utter failure. We don=E2=80=99t have any sort of institution like this=E2=80=A6and we = don=E2=80=99t really want one. But the system is still not fully in = place. Importantly, we lack any mechanisms to be able to make = potentially controversial changes without serious risks. It would be amazing if despite this trial-by-fire we still survived and = managed to pull through. And if we do we=E2=80=99ll be stronger for it. = But quite sincerely, I would have wanted the system to be a little more = mature before putting it through this trial. At least I would have liked = to have gone through a test hard-fork using a far less politically = divisive issue. Anyhow, completely separate from my views on governance, etc=E2=80=A6my = main point is that we=E2=80=99re ALL trying to do what=E2=80=99s best = given our understanding and resources=E2=80=A6and we=E2=80=99ve all = poured our hearts and souls into this. We might disagree on certain = things, but let=E2=80=99s stop this negativity and misrepresentation and = try to figure out a way forward that is less likely to lead to a war. - Eric >=20 >=20 > Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev = schrieb am Mo., 17. Aug. 2015 um 16:03 Uhr: > NxtChg, >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > This inability is not due to any malice on anyone=E2=80=99s part=E2=80=A6= it 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. >=20 > 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=A6o= r 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. >=20 > 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?!? >=20 > 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. >=20 > Would you want to send your test pilots on their first flight=E2=80=A6th= e 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Yadayadayada. >=20 > If someone could threaten the network by releasing a hard-forking = bitcoind version, then already all is lost. Bitcoins stability does not = (and cannot) depend on the "good will" of anyone. If it would, we should = all abandon this silly project. Relying on the good will of people is = the worst idea one could have. >=20 > So please (please please) go ahead and release your hardforking = bitcoinds you have been holding back. Competition is everything. >=20 > Cheers >=20 > Levin >=20 >=20 > 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=99s = right. >=20 >=20 >=20 > > On Aug 17, 2015, at 6:34 AM, NxtChg via bitcoin-dev = wrote: > > > > > >> We should have the highest respect for what these people are doing, = and we should try to do something constructive, not waste time with = anger and disrespect. > > > > Why, exactly, should I have any respect for what these people are = doing (and supposedly not have any respect for what the other side is = doing)? > > > > =46rom my point of view, the XT side _does_ something constructive. = It's the Core side that resorts to dirty tactics and tries to sabotage = community's free choice instead. > > > > > >> Nobody should be forced to do anything. > > > > 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. > > > > > >> The developers are not telling you what to do, they are trying to = do what they consider is best for the ecosystem given their technical = abilities. > > > > The developers & Co are doing their best to stay in power, so they = could continue imposing their will on Bitcoin ecosystem. This is the = real power grab, not Gavin and Hearn, who merely provided an = alternative. > > > > And the fear they show is most telling. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >=20 > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --Apple-Mail=_BBF039CD-20BD-475A-A77E-FD262494B09C 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 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJV0fAAAAoJEJNAI64YFENUPs0P/2jvJywkw2JVlQm0zvJp3Hff a9QxP9BCPItVs5rSPAPbiwZmdv5fB37LGQRLIZppeewizRHzSBuWHDMjq9aYPYyp 0YK4TInO1MOGc6d4U16EIxaODU268UzZu4F0rMjG9n6xm55gI8Up7BEtjNoyx37v //YCapUy/EAv5ssi61WtyvukHw5itey9O1LBZrntzr6DKsl7qCZlSMQoEgNweuIJ NHq75IwGjAYcp1oWS3Ycww+MkFTgEeq2IalOYhNp8p3bw73USHrM3q/0ofMNCWNQ YcTpyxRPWiOxnbF/ccZ9stikojDreywMf2eMteDxG6VVnM6PfuzFsRaErwyiwBcH QAPwG69Vq+AQDxd2bUJ+WmR1+A1o/s0FI850zzdk0ehPuetVef0WPGgSJ8Y07A+/ RUwlvbIz4gQuGaLbnktghTBqxzqE73+GvgYQ8UhZB5aqe2+dfxmEazGHbtJ+E4tE Up04Ep4NwCzC4vARaUcL1+mDj7YPB/hLOteFkzK18gYmm/JWnE0rkm1Haqo1MVKK koZ/P3sL1MkxEF342JnXGtWInPWkJXKHRNvxjnBsMkS/mEq9x/b7Lti0ksIeSihe e5zXBKii73zRpOkfq90iraExECxCsPLJNBFhBd98rmSS8OB428NsJ5EPnFBxg001 1HTpVD4dLQ6BKpsd7XOt =YpdG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_BBF039CD-20BD-475A-A77E-FD262494B09C--