summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/07/9be0e384bb02d3b071c235476e349eeedf2648
blob: 9f534d1f5a38938cc65b665246ff9b9d07402310 (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
Return-Path: <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5CCC9A
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Mon, 17 Aug 2015 16:37:04 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pa0-f47.google.com (mail-pa0-f47.google.com
	[209.85.220.47])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20B5D168
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Mon, 17 Aug 2015 16:37:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by pabyb7 with SMTP id yb7so111955311pab.0
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:37:03 -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=9EbpViuVUhpmQBnxmF9Qby6+SziUpP3lsJeoSSJShUU=;
	b=F9DMl5r08TCPpjHXs9cMSFnI1KUf+Ohf0jgK2R6F0Q/2EQqQs/rABox+3CcWdjD8Ar
	081kMsNxFycSXUAPDBu/iNZzOeqGU7g87nzBukdt0qwHpKtbWvwXLjPezJmZ5Rb52kdy
	cAn0q8KpTz6e8QdpVRuiKkOh0mWOvihtkxybRQv/IbDy0SEBCmEBzUD9Ozr/QtUtFS+X
	tKq4svO/2fDDU4i2lGvQ0z6aRs04LPQquD5TFbD9xwOCGxeuKNHmZwvFvn++UuHT9L4I
	isBGSMPKK4AGZAyDCak7DOw+PvjBIMRpwsHQo6SULqhRwJNR9HY2l55SENGlKfWqpLpN
	1png==
X-Received: by 10.68.163.5 with SMTP id ye5mr4225592pbb.120.1439829423815;
	Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:37:03 -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
	fv5sm15238742pdb.19.2015.08.17.09.37.02
	(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
	Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:37:03 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_C73D17E4-5245-4122-823F-9430C31DF550";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5
From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150817133438.DDD4243128@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:37:01 -0700
Message-Id: <CE3B7411-2863-4D6B-85B0-4F28D4D7F391@gmail.com>
References: <20150817100918.BD1F343128@smtp.hushmail.com>
	<1439815244.89850.YahooMailBasic@web173102.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
	<20150817133438.DDD4243128@smtp.hushmail.com>
To: NxtChg <nxtchg@hush.com>
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, HTML_MESSAGE,
	MIME_QP_LONG_LINE, 
	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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 16:37:04 -0000


--Apple-Mail=_C73D17E4-5245-4122-823F-9430C31DF550
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_2AA9EEF9-412B-441C-BBC8-9D26D0E7F9C8"


--Apple-Mail=_2AA9EEF9-412B-441C-BBC8-9D26D0E7F9C8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8


> On Aug 17, 2015, at 6:34 AM, NxtChg via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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.

FWIW,

I don=E2=80=99t think what theymos did is very constructive.I understand =
his position=E2=80=A6but it only hurts the cause, unfortunately - the PR =
battle is not the same thing as a discussion on technical merits. He =
hurts the PR battle and plays into Mike=E2=80=99s hand by doing that. =
The actual underlying issue actually has little to do with block size - =
it has to do with Mike and Gavin feeling that the core devs are being =
obstructionist.

Regardless of the technical merits of XT, the fact that we=E2=80=99ve =
never done a hard fork before, not even for things some other devs have =
wanted=E2=80=A6and not due to any malice on anyone=E2=80=99s part but =
because simply that=E2=80=99s just the nature of decentralized consensus =
with well-defined settlement guarantees=E2=80=A6this is the problem - =
Mike and Gavin think they=E2=80=99re somehow special and their fork =
should 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=E2=80=99s development trying to fork the =
blockchain over highly divisive issues is counterproductive and =
destructive.

But the fact of the matter is that in the PR battle, arguments against =
the fork actually play into Mike=E2=80=99s hand, and that=E2=80=99s the =
problem.

The whole block size thing is too nuanced and too easily spun =
simplistically. It=E2=80=99s too easy to spin resistance to bigger =
blocks (even though the resistance is actually much more towards =
untested hardforking mechanisms and serious security concerns) as =
=E2=80=9Cobstructionism=E2=80=9D and it=E2=80=99s too easy to spin =
bigger blocks as =E2=80=9Cscalability=E2=80=9D because most of the =
people can=E2=80=99t tell the fucking difference.

The fact is most of the people don=E2=80=99t really understand the =
fundamental issue and are taking sides based on charismatic leadership =
and authority which is actually entirely counter to the spirit of =
decentralized consensus. It=E2=80=99s 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=E2=80=A6Bitcoin was designed such that changing the rules is =
*hard* and this is a feature. Bitcoin simply does not have a reliable =
and tested hard forking mechanism=E2=80=A6and 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=E2=80=99s =
not a matter of whether we think higher capacity is a bad thing - it=E2=80=
=99s more that some of us are concerned that Bitcoin is not sufficiently =
mature to be able to handle such a schism with so much hostility.

Let=E2=80=99s face it, folks - from a PR standpoint, the block size =
issue is irrelevant. Nobody really understands it except for a handful =
of people - I=E2=80=99ve tried to explain it, I=E2=80=99ve even written =
articles about it - but most people just don=E2=80=99t get it. Most =
people don=E2=80=99t really get scalability either - they seem to think =
that scalability is just doing the same thing you=E2=80=99ve always done =
manyfold.

Block size is an especially dangerous issue politically because it=E2=80=99=
s one of those that requires deep understanding yet superficially sounds =
really simple. It=E2=80=99s perfect Dunning-Kruger bait.

So let=E2=80=99s be a little smarter about this.

--Apple-Mail=_2AA9EEF9-412B-441C-BBC8-9D26D0E7F9C8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=utf-8

<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" =
class=3D""><br class=3D""><div><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div =
class=3D"">On Aug 17, 2015, at 6:34 AM, NxtChg via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" =
class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:</div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=3D""><span =
style=3D"font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; =
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; =
line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; =
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: =
0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline =
!important;" class=3D"">Great, so how about you go tell theymos to stop =
censoring XT posts and banning the other side on /r/Bitcoin?</span><br =
style=3D"font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; =
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; =
line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; =
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: =
0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=3D""><br style=3D"font-family:=
 Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; =
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; =
orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: =
none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=3D""><span style=3D"font-family: =
Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; =
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; =
orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: =
none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline =
!important;" class=3D"">Let users decide what Bitcoin is or =
isn't.</span></div></blockquote></div><br class=3D""><div =
class=3D"">FWIW,</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D""><div class=3D"">I don=E2=80=99t think what theymos did is =
very constructive.I understand his position=E2=80=A6but it only hurts =
the cause, unfortunately - the PR battle is not the same thing as a =
discussion on technical merits. He hurts the PR battle and plays into =
Mike=E2=80=99s hand by doing that. The actual underlying issue actually =
has little to do with block size - it has to do with Mike and Gavin =
feeling that the core devs are being obstructionist.</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Regardless of the =
technical merits of XT, the fact that we=E2=80=99ve never done a hard =
fork before, not even for things some other devs have wanted=E2=80=A6and =
not due to any malice on anyone=E2=80=99s part but because simply =
that=E2=80=99s just the nature of decentralized consensus with =
well-defined settlement guarantees=E2=80=A6this is the problem - Mike =
and Gavin think they=E2=80=99re somehow special and their fork should 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=E2=80=99s development trying to fork the blockchain over highly =
divisive issues is counterproductive and destructive.</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">But the fact of the =
matter is that in the PR battle, arguments against the fork actually =
play into Mike=E2=80=99s hand, and that=E2=80=99s the problem.</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">The whole block size =
thing is too nuanced and too easily spun simplistically. It=E2=80=99s =
too easy to spin resistance to bigger blocks (even though the resistance =
is actually much more towards untested hardforking mechanisms and =
serious security concerns) as =E2=80=9Cobstructionism=E2=80=9D and =
it=E2=80=99s too easy to spin bigger blocks as =E2=80=9Cscalability=E2=80=9D=
 because most of the people can=E2=80=99t tell the fucking =
difference.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">The =
fact is most of the people don=E2=80=99t really understand the =
fundamental issue and are taking sides based on charismatic leadership =
and authority which is actually entirely counter to the spirit of =
decentralized consensus. It=E2=80=99s beyond ironic.</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">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=E2=80=A6Bitcoin =
was designed such that changing the rules is *hard* and this is a =
feature. Bitcoin simply does not have a reliable and tested hard forking =
mechanism=E2=80=A6and 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=E2=80=99s not a matter of whether we =
think higher capacity is a bad thing - it=E2=80=99s more that some of us =
are concerned that Bitcoin is not sufficiently mature to be able to =
handle such a schism with so much hostility.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Let=E2=80=99s face it, folks - from a =
PR standpoint, the block size issue is irrelevant. Nobody really =
understands it except for a handful of people - I=E2=80=99ve tried to =
explain it, I=E2=80=99ve even written articles about it - but most =
people just don=E2=80=99t get it. Most people don=E2=80=99t really get =
scalability either - they seem to think that scalability is just doing =
the same thing you=E2=80=99ve always done manyfold.</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Block size is an =
especially dangerous issue politically because it=E2=80=99s one of those =
that requires deep understanding yet superficially sounds really simple. =
It=E2=80=99s perfect Dunning-Kruger bait.</div></div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">So let=E2=80=99s be a little smarter =
about this.</div></body></html>=

--Apple-Mail=_2AA9EEF9-412B-441C-BBC8-9D26D0E7F9C8--

--Apple-Mail=_C73D17E4-5245-4122-823F-9430C31DF550
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

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJV0g2tAAoJEJNAI64YFENUZtEP/ibwIrDGg+ABsMfI12e59/yb
76hMX52TJdvvGYO7jnioM5iakCFdZrzyQI0C4rATpXe9OAPiWwmFbddJJ3KGOWx8
ayVVFTCdR1yB09qrE7UHDc7OQcbQ1SnFlyONrCDwdlvYX5Ds1EqxurdcPMvrMvOw
AOBhODIpDVcQ0z6YKQj+0xxFfZiZnf5izPzQpxPFaCf7+VocuChuXRSDs+xURQfS
DemVza86S34ULGI7FZUWRIc7VNzoynzRf3Dz3WTJ7v2NH6kRy6XjvAedprchWmId
ItXDuQ6IRNQhe6WMsko2eMBozCxvQ+Jb/rT6mLulm7mSOaMeoSfLA+0kNsr3PF+B
gneNnknDLUhV12/M0jtS5+Mi5XTD9IvR2Ud8XJEwSOvOK7kU1m6CF1gpX3KswKea
7EhAej00dkImkxeFVxrmNKLxtwtN2Gjq7gt2kLpNMO6kIL2nSTI2HgqrJ8cCEjbU
qiz+FbXCyUKWY1qVjkSdjc3rE0awn3dbha61FHcXBfkfWCb/YEfxyZ+AGpSlxNGQ
xyhtot1sdhB7QuT2elvuO81Khs8Nqt8/kdkzoGRo9EfTOt5zjboEUEZzwQB29Jbu
NhXDLAybdmp9jNKCYZhwqSFUFWkoq8grAYRdopaXY+SGie7M0HRbga5/vDgQ/2vB
GFIGs+lUArk99xKa72bf
=/O30
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_C73D17E4-5245-4122-823F-9430C31DF550--