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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1YzS43-0007yZ-ND
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 01 Jun 2015 15:55:47 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.212.176 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.212.176; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wi0-f176.google.com;
Received: from mail-wi0-f176.google.com ([209.85.212.176])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YzS41-00049a-LU
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 01 Jun 2015 15:55:47 +0000
Received: by wifw1 with SMTP id w1so111185648wif.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 01 Jun 2015 08:55:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.9.161 with SMTP id a1mr27653517wjb.39.1433174139716;
Mon, 01 Jun 2015 08:55:39 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.143.9 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 08:55:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAFnMCfd8N_2nvspXF+Tro_SsofUUrMy4_QG9tRbPm1pUWtUCXQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFnMCfd8N_2nvspXF+Tro_SsofUUrMy4_QG9tRbPm1pUWtUCXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 17:55:39 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: kqNg-nvWm2tqUXZ1ozqk389cL4M
Message-ID: <CANEZrP1HttM5rRqTchMrsbhfTbASHm3j0q=vjDaTjeYQHHBr9Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgTGVnb3VwaWw=?= <jjlegoupil@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d34fa7fcb92051776db84
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1YzS41-00049a-LU
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 15:55:47 -0000
--047d7b5d34fa7fcb92051776db84
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> It's surprising to see a core dev going to the public to defend a proposal
> most other core devs disagree on, and then lobbying the Bitcoin ecosystem.
>
I agree that it is a waste of time. Many agree. The Bitcoin ecosystem
doesn't really need lobbying - my experience from talking to businesses and
wallet developers months ago is they virtually all see raising capacity as
a no brainer ... and some of them see this "debate" as despair-inducing
insanity.
What's happened here is that a small number of people have come to believe
they have veto power over changes to Bitcoin, and they have also become
*wildly* out of step with what the wider community wants. That cannot last.
So, short of some sudden change of heart that lets us kick the can down the
road a bit longer, a fork is inevitable.
Just be glad it's Gavin driving this and not me ... or a faceless coalition
of startups.
> Decentralization is the core of Bitcoin's security model and thus that's
> what gives Bitcoin its value.
>
No. Usage is what gives Bitcoin value.
It's kind of maddening that I have to point this out. Decentralisation is a
means to an end. I first used Bitcoin in April 2009 and it was perfectly
decentralised back then: every wallet was a full node and every computer
was capable of mining.
So if you believe what you just wrote, I guess Bitcoin's value has gone
down every day since.
On the other hand, if you believe the markets, Bitcoin's value has gone up.
Apparently the question of what gives Bitcoin its value is a bit more
complicated than that.
> : to incentive layer 2 and offchain solutions to scale Bitcoin : there are
> promising designs/solutions out there (LN, ChainDB, OtherCoin protocole,
> ...), but most don't get much attention, because there is right now no need
> for them. And, I am sure new solutions will be invented.
>
I have seen this notion a few times. I would like to dispose of it right
now.
I am one of the wallet developers you would be trying to "incentivise" by
letting Bitcoin break, and I say: get real. Developers are not some
bottomless fountain of work that will spit out whatever you like for free
if you twist their arms badly enough.
The problems that incentivised the creation of Bitcoin existed for decades
before Bitcoin was actually invented. Incentives are not enough. Someone
has to actually do the work, too. All proposals on the table would:
- Involve enormous amounts of effort from many different people
- Be technically risky (read: we don't know if they would even work)
- Not be Bitcoin
The last point is important: people who got interested in Bitcoin and
decided to devote their time to it might not feel the same way about some
network of payment hubs or whatever today's fashion is. Faced with their
work being broken by armchair developers on some mailing list, they might
just say screw it and walk away completely.
After all, as the arguments for these systems are not particularly logical,
they might slave over hot keyboards for a year to support the Lightning
Network or whatever and then discover that it's no longer the fashionable
thing ... and that suddenly an even more convoluted design is being
"incentivised".
--047d7b5d34fa7fcb92051776db84
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>It's surprising to see=
a core dev going to the public to defend a proposal most other core devs d=
isagree on, and then lobbying the Bitcoin ecosystem.<br></div></div></block=
quote><div><br></div><div>I agree that it is a waste of time. Many agree. T=
he Bitcoin ecosystem doesn't really need lobbying - my experience from =
talking to businesses and wallet developers months ago is they virtually al=
l see raising capacity as a no brainer ... and some of them see this "=
debate" as despair-inducing insanity.</div><div><br></div><div>What=
9;s happened here is that a small number of people have come to believe the=
y have veto power over changes to Bitcoin, and they have also become <i>wil=
dly</i>=C2=A0out of step with what the wider community wants. That cannot l=
ast. So, short of some sudden change of heart that lets us kick the can dow=
n the road a bit longer, a fork is inevitable.</div><div><br></div><div>Jus=
t be glad it's Gavin driving this and not me ... or a faceless coalitio=
n of startups.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" styl=
e=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div di=
r=3D"ltr"><div>Decentralization is the core of Bitcoin's security model=
and thus that's what gives Bitcoin its value.<br></div></div></blockqu=
ote><div><br></div><div>No. Usage is what gives Bitcoin value.</div><div><b=
r></div><div>It's kind of maddening that I have to point this out. Dece=
ntralisation is a means to an end. I first used Bitcoin in April 2009 and i=
t was perfectly decentralised back then: every wallet was a full node and e=
very computer was capable of mining.</div><div><br></div><div>So if you bel=
ieve what you just wrote, I guess Bitcoin's value has gone down every d=
ay since.</div><div><br></div><div>On the other hand, if you believe the ma=
rkets, Bitcoin's value has gone up.</div><div><br></div><div>Apparently=
the question of what gives Bitcoin its value is a bit more complicated tha=
n that.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;pa=
dding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div></div><div>: to incentive layer 2 and=
offchain solutions to scale Bitcoin : there=20
are promising designs/solutions out there (LN, ChainDB, OtherCoin=20
protocole, ...), but most don't get much attention, because there is=20
right now no need for them. And, I am sure new solutions will be=20
invented.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I have seen this =
notion a few times. I would like to dispose of it right now.</div><div><br>=
</div><div>I am one of the wallet developers you would be trying to "i=
ncentivise" by letting Bitcoin break, and I say: get real. Developers =
are not some bottomless fountain of work that will spit out whatever you li=
ke for free if you twist their arms badly enough.</div><div><br></div><div>=
The problems that incentivised the creation of Bitcoin existed for decades =
before Bitcoin was actually invented. Incentives are not enough. Someone ha=
s to actually do the work, too. All proposals on the table would:</div><div=
><ul><li>Involve enormous amounts of effort from many different people</li>=
<li>Be technically risky (read: we don't know if they would even work)<=
/li><li>Not be Bitcoin</li></ul><div>The last point is important: people wh=
o got interested in Bitcoin and decided to devote their time to it might no=
t feel the same way about some network of payment hubs or whatever today=
9;s fashion is. Faced with their work being broken by armchair developers o=
n some mailing list, they might just say screw it and walk away completely.=
=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>After all, as the arguments for these syste=
ms are not particularly logical, they might slave over hot keyboards for a =
year to support the Lightning Network or whatever and then discover that it=
's no longer the fashionable thing ... and that suddenly an even more c=
onvoluted design is being "incentivised".</div></div><div><br></d=
iv><div><br></div></div></div></div>
--047d7b5d34fa7fcb92051776db84--
|
