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
|
Return-Path: <jrn@jrn.me.uk>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C36A4504
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:18:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from homiemail-a9.g.dreamhost.com (homie.mail.dreamhost.com
[208.97.132.208])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAC2015A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:18:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from homiemail-a9.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by homiemail-a9.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C75D62606E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:18:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=jrn.me.uk; h=subject:to
:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version:in-reply-to:
content-type; s=jrn.me.uk; bh=CTN0xNU5fvcOe3Q1xN21bKwngg8=; b=Ae
mQp8bxpUxkUJDa3sp2y41quEo/Xn+N7WkAGwXBxI4yUG9KJXkFmTeOwa9I2/gMdO
rCi6Y2gF5ql6qHGxwPHTvsDZUZYYFvgT0sftWlaQrQxg7rvW51Q7ERD/zg8jsSMW
RcB5AulT2VYplK5uKQv6xVXHnxjv8Li63pQWeu3e0=
Received: from [10.9.1.133] (unknown [89.238.129.18])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
(Authenticated sender: jrn@jrn.me.uk)
by homiemail-a9.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8E96062606A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:18:45 -0700 (PDT)
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <CAPg+sBgs-ouEMu=LOVCmOyCGwfM1Ygxooz0shyvAuHDGGZYfJw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBgugLSVEwDLXhgey86_rM2fTjGWXFuXsiZioJKCZiHiNg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ross Nicoll <jrn@jrn.me.uk>
Message-ID: <55AFD075.1000806@jrn.me.uk>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 18:18:45 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBgugLSVEwDLXhgey86_rM2fTjGWXFuXsiZioJKCZiHiNg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------070905090506060105050601"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HTML_MESSAGE,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
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core and hard forks
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: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:18:47 -0000
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070905090506060105050601
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
So, if consensus shouldn't really be between the developers (which is
fine), should we empower users to control consensus? I've been working
on a fork framework anyway, which can support reasonably arbitrary
consensus changes (currently against block height, but moving towards
block time). Theoretically it could be modified to load consensus
parameters (which block size would have to be added to) from disk at
startup, rather than having them hard-coded.
Is that considered desirable? Will raise as a PR if so. If not, where do
we draw a line between developer and user consensus?
Ross
On 22/07/2015 17:52, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I'd like to talk a bit about my view on the relation between the
> Bitcoin Core project, and the consensus rules of Bitcoin.
>
> I believe it is the responsibility of the maintainers/developers of
> Bitcoin Core to create software which helps guarantee the security and
> operation of the Bitcoin network.
>
> In addition to normal software maintenance, bug fixes and performance
> improvements, this includes DoS protection mechanism deemed necessary
> to keep the network operational. Sometimes, such (per-node
> configurable) policies have had economic impact, for example the dust
> rule.
>
> This also includes participating in discussions about consensus
> changes, but not the responsibility to decide on them - only to
> implement them when agreed upon. It would be irresponsible and
> dangerous to the network and thus the users of the software to risk
> forks, or to take a leading role in pushing dramatic changes. Bitcoin
> Core developers obviously have the ability to make any changes to the
> codebase or its releases, but it is still up to the community to
> choose to run that code.
>
> Some people have called the prospect of limited block space and the
> development of a fee market a change in policy compared to the past. I
> respectfully disagree with that. Bitcoin Core is not running the
> Bitcoin economy, and its developers have no authority to set its
> rules. Change in economics is always happening, and should be
> expected. Worse, intervening in consensus changes would make the
> ecosystem more dependent on the group taking that decision, not less.
>
> So to point out what I consider obvious: if Bitcoin requires central
> control over its rules by a group of developers, it is completely
> uninteresting to me. Consensus changes should be done using consensus,
> and the default in case of controversy is no change.
>
> ===
>
> My personal opinion is that we - as a community - should indeed let a
> fee market develop, and rather sooner than later, and that "kicking
> the can down the road" is an incredibly dangerous precedent: if we are
> willing to go through the risk of a hard fork because of a fear of
> change of economics, then I believe that community is not ready to
> deal with change at all. And some change is inevitable, at any block
> size. Again, this does not mean the block size needs to be fixed
> forever, but its intent should be growing with the evolution of
> technology, not a panic reaction because a fear of change.
>
> But I am not in any position to force this view. I only hope that
> people don't think a fear of economic change is reason to give up
> consensus.
>
> --
> Pieter
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--------------070905090506060105050601
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
So, if consensus shouldn't really be between the developers (which
is fine), should we empower users to control consensus? I've been
working on a fork framework anyway, which can support reasonably
arbitrary consensus changes (currently against block height, but
moving towards block time). Theoretically it could be modified to
load consensus parameters (which block size would have to be added
to) from disk at startup, rather than having them hard-coded.<br>
<br>
Is that considered desirable? Will raise as a PR if so. If not,
where do we draw a line between developer and user consensus?<br>
<br>
Ross<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 22/07/2015 17:52, Pieter Wuille via
bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAPg+sBgugLSVEwDLXhgey86_rM2fTjGWXFuXsiZioJKCZiHiNg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">Hello all,</p>
<p dir="ltr">I'd like to talk a bit about my view on the relation
between the Bitcoin Core project, and the consensus rules of
Bitcoin.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I believe it is the responsibility of the
maintainers/developers of Bitcoin Core to create software which
helps guarantee the security and operation of the Bitcoin
network.</p>
<p dir="ltr">In addition to normal software maintenance, bug fixes
and performance improvements, this includes DoS protection
mechanism deemed necessary to keep the network operational.
Sometimes, such (per-node configurable) policies have had
economic impact, for example the dust rule.</p>
<p dir="ltr">This also includes participating in discussions about
consensus changes, but not the responsibility to decide on them
- only to implement them when agreed upon. It would be
irresponsible and dangerous to the network and thus the users of
the software to risk forks, or to take a leading role in pushing
dramatic changes. Bitcoin Core developers obviously have the
ability to make any changes to the codebase or its releases, but
it is still up to the community to choose to run that code.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Some people have called the prospect of limited block
space and the development of a fee market a change in policy
compared to the past. I respectfully disagree with that. Bitcoin
Core is not running the Bitcoin economy, and its developers have
no authority to set its rules. Change in economics is always
happening, and should be expected. Worse, intervening in
consensus changes would make the ecosystem more dependent on the
group taking that decision, not less.</p>
<p dir="ltr">So to point out what I consider obvious: if Bitcoin
requires central control over its rules by a group of
developers, it is completely uninteresting to me. Consensus
changes should be done using consensus, and the default in case
of controversy is no change.</p>
<p dir="ltr">===</p>
<p dir="ltr">My personal opinion is that we - as a community -
should indeed let a fee market develop, and rather sooner than
later, and that "kicking the can down the road" is an incredibly
dangerous precedent: if we are willing to go through the risk of
a hard fork because of a fear of change of economics, then I
believe that community is not ready to deal with change at all.
And some change is inevitable, at any block size. Again, this
does not mean the block size needs to be fixed forever, but its
intent should be growing with the evolution of technology, not a
panic reaction because a fear of change.</p>
<p dir="ltr">But I am not in any position to force this view. I
only hope that people don't think a fear of economic change is
reason to give up consensus.</p>
<p dir="ltr">-- <br>
Pieter</p>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------070905090506060105050601--
|
