Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9977686 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 05:13:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from BLU004-OMC4S15.hotmail.com (blu004-omc4s15.hotmail.com [65.55.111.154]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54255191 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 05:13:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from BLU436-SMTP223 ([65.55.111.135]) by BLU004-OMC4S15.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.23008); Mon, 17 Aug 2015 22:13:25 -0700 X-TMN: [0FeI1SclQ1bwFeiwDNcAnlZT4HU6uApZ] X-Originating-Email: [slashdevnull@hotmail.com] Message-ID: User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.9.150325 Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:13:12 +0800 From: GC To: Dave Scotese , Bitcoin Dev 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> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3522748403_236104" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Aug 2015 05:13:24.0444 (UTC) FILETIME=[9BA4B1C0:01D0D974] X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.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: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 05:13:30 -0000 --B_3522748403_236104 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dave, =B3 =8A highly skilled psychological warfare agents ..=B2 Paranoia, much?=20 Or perhaps the =B3enemies" of Bitcoin are just sitting patiently, waiting for it to collapse in time due to its internal contradictions. From: Dave Scotese via bitcoin-dev Reply-To: Dave Scotese Date: Tuesday, 18 August 2015 12:37 pm To: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT Three things: 1) Hostility is generally the result of perceived hostility. If you assume the best intentions of another person, you will eventually find yourself in one of two places. Either you will find truth with that person (becuase they are also seeking it), or you will drive them away (because you will as= k questions that can't be answered by someone trying to deceive). 2) The Wiki says "The current Core developers are Wladimir J. van der Laan, Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Gregory Maxwell, and Pieter Wuille." I've see= n no hostility from any of these people. 3) The people who are threatened by Bitcoin aren't stupid enough to ignore #1. Can anyone imagine that they have not hired highly skilled psychological warfare agnts to do everything they can to "help" assault wha= t we decentralization enthusiasts have been working for? About #2: I'm actually blind to hostility, and that is an intentional affectation in response to my recognition of #1 and #3 together. If you feel another person has expressed a bad idea, just ignore it. If you feel they might be misleading others, post a reply about what you know to clear up any possible misconceptions. There is no point in identifying individuals who are being hostile, or pointing out hostility, or being divisive. Let the rest of us recognize it on our own. Maybe send somethin= g like what I'm writing now. PS: If anyone is interested in conspiracy theories, I had written this into my gmail compose window and (presumably) hit a wrong key which caused the thread to be marked as spam and deleted my whole reply. It hadn't even saved a draft. I've never seen gmail not save a draft before. On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I should add that in the interest of peace and goodwill, I extend an offe= r to > both Mike and Gavin to make their grievances heard=8Abut only on the condit= ion > that we make a good effort to avoid misrepresentation and misreading of t= he > other side=B9s intentions. >=20 >> On Aug 17, 2015, at 9:37 AM, Eric Lombrozo wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >>> 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. >>=20 >> FWIW, >>=20 >> I don=B9t think what theymos did is very constructive.I understand his >> position=8Abut it only hurts the cause, unfortunately - the PR battle is n= ot >> the same thing as a discussion on technical merits. He hurts the PR batt= le >> and plays into Mike=B9s hand by doing that. The actual underlying issue >> actually has little to do with block size - it has to do with Mike and G= avin >> feeling that the core devs are being obstructionist. >>=20 >> Regardless of the technical merits of XT, the fact that we=B9ve never done= a >> hard fork before, not even for things some other devs have wanted=8Aand no= t due >> to any malice on anyone=B9s part but because simply that=B9s just the nature= of >> decentralized consensus with well-defined settlement guarantees=8Athis is = the >> problem - Mike and Gavin think they=B9re somehow special and their fork sh= ould >> 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=B9s >> development trying to fork the blockchain over highly divisive issues is >> counterproductive and destructive. >>=20 >> But the fact of the matter is that in the PR battle, arguments against t= he >> fork actually play into Mike=B9s hand, and that=B9s the problem. >>=20 >> The whole block size thing is too nuanced and too easily spun simplistic= ally. >> It=B9s too easy to spin resistance to bigger blocks (even though the resis= tance >> is actually much more towards untested hardforking mechanisms and seriou= s >> security concerns) as =B3obstructionism=B2 and it=B9s too easy to spin bigger >> blocks as =B3scalability=B2 because most of the people can=B9t tell the fuckin= g >> difference. >>=20 >> The fact is most of the people don=B9t really understand the fundamental i= ssue >> and are taking sides based on charismatic leadership and authority which= is >> actually entirely counter to the spirit of decentralized consensus. It=B9s >> beyond ironic. >>=20 >> 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=8ABitcoin w= as >> designed such that changing the rules is *hard* and this is a feature. >> Bitcoin simply does not have a reliable and tested hard forking mechanis= m=8Aand >> 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=B9s = not a >> matter of whether we think higher capacity is a bad thing - it=B9s more th= at >> some of us are concerned that Bitcoin is not sufficiently mature to be a= ble >> to handle such a schism with so much hostility. >>=20 >> Let=B9s face it, folks - from a PR standpoint, the block size issue is >> irrelevant. Nobody really understands it except for a handful of people = - >> I=B9ve tried to explain it, I=B9ve even written articles about it - but most >> people just don=B9t get it. Most people don=B9t really get scalability eithe= r - >> they seem to think that scalability is just doing the same thing you=B9ve >> always done manyfold. >>=20 >> Block size is an especially dangerous issue politically because it=B9s one= of >> those that requires deep understanding yet superficially sounds really >> simple. It=B9s perfect Dunning-Kruger bait. >>=20 >> So let=B9s be a little smarter about this. >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >=20 --=20 I like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do you need a techie? =20 I own Litmocracy and Meme Racing (in alpha). I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist which now accepts Bitcoin. I also code for The Dollar Vigilante . "He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" - Satoshi Nakamoto _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --B_3522748403_236104 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dave,
<= br>
“ … highly skilled psychological warfa= re agents ..”

Paranoia, much? 

Or perhaps the “enemies" of Bitcoin are just = sitting patiently, waiting for it to collapse in time due to its internal co= ntradictions. 

= From: Dave Scotese via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
<= span style=3D"font-weight:bold">Reply-To: Dave Scotese <dscotese@litmocracy.com>
Date: Tuesday, 18 August 2015 12:37 pm
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>= ;
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Annou= cing Not-BitcoinXT

Three things:
<= br>1) Hostility is generally the result of perceived hostility.  If you= assume the best intentions of another person, you will eventually find your= self in one of two places.  Either you will find truth with that person= (becuase they are also seeking it), or you will drive them away (because yo= u will ask questions that can't be answered by someone trying to deceive).
2) The Wiki says "The current Core developers are Wladimir J. van der = Laan, Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Gregory Maxwell, and Pieter Wuille." = ; I've seen no hostility from any of these people.

3) The people who = are threatened by Bitcoin aren't stupid enough to ignore #1.  Can anyon= e imagine that they have not hired highly skilled psychological warfare agnt= s to do everything they can to "help" assault what we decentralization enthu= siasts have been working for?

About #2: I'm actually blind to hostili= ty, and that is an intentional affectation in response to my recognition of = #1 and #3 together.  If you feel another person has expressed a bad ide= a, just ignore it.  If you feel they might be misleading others, post a= reply about what you know to clear up any possible misconceptions.  Th= ere is no point in identifying individuals who are being hostile, or pointin= g out hostility, or being divisive.  Let the rest of us recognize it on= our own.  Maybe send something like what I'm writing now.

PS: I= f anyone is interested in conspiracy theories, I had written this into my gm= ail compose window and (presumably) hit a wrong key which caused the thread = to be marked as spam and deleted my whole reply.  It hadn't even saved = a draft.  I've never seen gmail not save a draft before.

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:5= 5 AM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfo= undation.org> wrote:
I should add that in the interest of peace and goodwil= l, I extend an offer to both Mike and Gavin to make their grievances heard&#= 8230;but only on the condition that we make a good effort to avoid misrepres= entation and misreading of the other side’s intentions.

On Aug 17, 2015, at 9:37 AM= , Eric Lombrozo <elo= mbrozo@gmail.com> wrote:


On Aug 17, 2015, at 6:34 AM, NxtCh= g via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
<= br>
Great, so how about yo= u 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’t think what theym= os did is very constructive.I understand his position…but it only hurt= s the cause, unfortunately - the PR battle is not the same thing as a discus= sion on technical merits. He hurts the PR battle and plays into Mike’s= hand by doing that. The actual underlying issue actually has little to do w= ith block size - it has to do with Mike and Gavin feeling that the core devs= are being obstructionist.

Regardless of the techni= cal merits of XT, the fact that we’ve never done a hard fork before, n= ot even for things some other devs have wanted…and not due to any mali= ce on anyone’s part but because simply that’s just the nature of= decentralized consensus with well-defined settlement guarantees…this = is the problem - Mike and Gavin think they’re somehow special and thei= r fork should be pushed while the rest of us resist pushing our own controve= rsial pet ideas because we want civility and understand that at this stage i= n Bitcoin’s development trying to fork the blockchain over highly divi= sive issues is counterproductive and destructive.

B= ut the fact of the matter is that in the PR battle, arguments against the fo= rk actually play into Mike’s hand, and that’s the problem.
=

The whole block size thing is too nuanced and too easily= spun simplistically. It’s too easy to spin resistance to bigger block= s (even though the resistance is actually much more towards untested hardfor= king mechanisms and serious security concerns) as “obstructionism̶= 1; and it’s too easy to spin bigger blocks as “scalability”= ; because most of the people can’t tell the fucking difference.
<= div>
The fact is most of the people don’t really underst= and the fundamental issue and are taking sides based on charismatic leadersh= ip and authority which is actually entirely counter to the spirit of decentr= alized consensus. It’s 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…Bitcoin was de= signed such that changing the rules is *hard* and this is a feature. Bitcoin= simply does not have a reliable and tested hard forking mechanism…and= a hard fork for such a politically divisive issue will almost certainly lea= d 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= 217;s not a matter of whether we think higher capacity is a bad thing - it&#= 8217;s more that some of us are concerned that Bitcoin is not sufficiently m= ature to be able to handle such a schism with so much hostility.
<= br>
Let’s face it, folks - from a PR standpoint, the block s= ize issue is irrelevant. Nobody really understands it except for a handful o= f people - I’ve tried to explain it, I’ve even written articles = about it - but most people just don’t get it. Most people don’t = really get scalability either - they seem to think that scalability is just = doing the same thing you’ve always done manyfold.

=
Block size is an especially dangerous issue politically because it̵= 7;s one of those that requires deep understanding yet superficially sounds r= eally simple. It’s perfect Dunning-Kruger bait.

So let’s be a little smarter about this.


____________________________= ___________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev



--
I like to provide some work at no charge to prove my = value. Do you need a techie? 
I own Litmocracy and Meme Racing (in alpha).
I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist which n= ow accepts Bitcoin.
I also code for The Dollar Vigilante.
"He ought to find it more prof= itable to play by the rules" - Satoshi Nakamoto
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.li= nuxfoundation.org ht= tps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --B_3522748403_236104--