Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F884305 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 02:54:26 +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 8C9BE10D for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 02:54:25 +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 F19A9C0ECC; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 19:54:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak; t=1439952865; bh=cw/SsMO18BOhsMkKX0Zee9l1c1mWjiYRjckCzKcgEV0=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=MeV2M6NJlmcRwTqYXpGKYFYZVndHQynNrm/wlQ5CgmydNM2oPNBBBUbqiiKFZxGmw W4VEWJp/EHfFOlZwZ+5/lZ7evwWDYdDUgxSj+rLi7NexEZZl0ZmKvg0pW8QUIyOzjt dXohcilMaEZ1is4KZAf74BdkPAbMbkEsFucJriRA= Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: odinn.cyberguerrilla) with ESMTPSA id 7F20A1C023A Message-ID: <55D3EFDF.7070401@riseup.net> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 19:54:23 -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: satoshi@vistomail.com, bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <6EC9DDF352DC4838AE9B088AB372428A25E1F42A@DS04> In-Reply-To: <6EC9DDF352DC4838AE9B088AB372428A25E1F42A@DS04> 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=-3.1 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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork 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 02:54:26 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The "XT Fork" (better said, a POS alt*) and those behind it make not even a pretense to work through process involved with bitcoin developmen t. (*This is not intended as a slight toward any other alts, as here in this post I am focusing solely on XT.) Instead of abandoning their useless project, or at least conceding that their alt is operating essentially outside of the development funnel (by this I mean BIP process), the developers of XT, via their latest presentation of XT give nothing more than an attack on bitcoin (albeit one that, more than anything, is designed to sidetrack real discussion necessary to resolve the issues so as to achieve some level of consensus in block size debates). Curiously, XT is not even truly the implementation of BIP 101; the actual proposed implementation of BIP 101 as proposed at https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki#implement ation is found here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6341 (It is currently a closed issue.) It's probably valid to call into question why Mike Hearn in particular persists with this project at all, as he has been its biggest cheerleader. Some reasons may be: 1) His interest in attacking bitcoin in the past (seems to be a recurring pattern) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333824.0 2) His employment (has come up before) - QinetiQ, Google, etc https://plus.google.com/+MikeHearn/about - it's simply not unreasonable to ask why he's pushing it so hard when nobody wants it. 3) Various reasons mentioned here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39yaug/the_history_of_mike_hea rn_and_why_you_should_not/ 4) His disinterest in following what is actually happening with votes on legitimate proposals (e.g. Garzik's BIP 100) in the blocks. (Caveat ~ one doesn't see the BIP 100 yet in bitcoin/bips because it won't appear for another couple weeks, supposedly. The miners' voting is already happening however.) Even according to http://xtnodes.com/ we see that XT runs minimal nodes in comparison to the rest of nodes being run across the network. BIP 100 itself is anticipated to be submitted w/ implementation in the next 2 weeks and many miners are already voting on BIP 100 (as per Jeff Garzik, from a post 08/12/2015 12:46 PM -0400 to this mailing list) . It is an insult to see Hearn fling the XT turd into the community repeatedly. How then to end this XT madness? "The ring was made in the fires of Mount Doom. Only there can it be unmade. The ring must be taken deep into Mordor and cast back into the fiery chasm from whence it came. One of you must do this." - - Lord Elrond Do not download this loathsome XT thing. Cast it back into the fires from whence it came. - -Odinn On 08/15/2015 10:43 AM, Satoshi Nakamoto via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I have been following the recent block size debates through the > mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork > proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the > formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, > and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous > fork. > > The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my > original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When > I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future > modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near > unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the > influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin > Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has > to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced > or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these > developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to > honour. > > They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was > supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since > that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some > of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled > mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making > Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its > security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take > more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a > better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely > on altruism. > > If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what > "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and > through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but > to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both > technically and socially robust. This present situation has been > very disappointing to watch unfold. > > Satoshi Nakamoto > > _______________________________________________ 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 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJV0+/fAAoJEGxwq/inSG8C4ZAIAKm1pEne0FlOW1O4zLe6mZOz YTcnpSHFiVw4AfUPgbzR813ODphnJqcwnoT1q/sojjqgIDtwZY+AqdjA3VAbe15D bAPlvQGmXMlaXq8OteDYPKxPzQMUlRtxEd9+sxO5IGFx0kvmKQLzdk6cmgawcRhN PrDyXIqLlx6Yp0REQ03v3poLTGojUkPLeqdMrJAjwpuAyv9F8iVUn7SeHemEi8cm fW4wOJogA8j9P//3a7+Cr8bjnOz6+QwpHsdlZlKM4VUTxt3Vgx4vu+SQjQxWgZEK I+HGvgQW1buoDxleBbFq6SJc55lhF41IB17tewuDuPzT2nL4zOkbis1tUk3ASxY= =Rm7w -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----