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
|
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 E70F483D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:03:05 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pd0-f176.google.com (mail-pd0-f176.google.com
[209.85.192.176])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C968319E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:03:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by pdbfa8 with SMTP id fa8so56234625pdb.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:03:04 -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=mntY8HRdou7vNjqcSBqgVZhDLzl7xjzeMv02BjL1wuQ=;
b=Mbyx0N362MSx3Q3jJyl8i+itjWcORzFtzrIcBU6U6dKLmiOh+8tSm52PgAYPvP7TOO
7yQN6Q9FtDwgAMvLrUs7cb4LMKtGEYd/u/q6MDas485vNZGmA38Gtx0JFqU9/bp74O9d
Dz+kObC5XRAoOWqF2VtVU/53lo9c5hjI2jhvWUf4qSDlik0mCyHtD852DvRieXPM0FwG
Tc9FAMCZskjyoc2VFlJ9hVALHitiPG3ZdlAUwvNYHPsNC3+Xc0KlidK5U8OhtFLaDr4G
6p6NbhInut9yzrnduPMGwSNzC5id9SzlV4BG/g0yxtNZObMi6IJQaBtARwiq0RHsJzK6
G82A==
X-Received: by 10.70.123.226 with SMTP id md2mr2989728pdb.29.1439820184511;
Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:03:04 -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
fa1sm14799952pbb.35.2015.08.17.07.03.03
(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_3A40EF2E-722A-4E7B-86EA-1BEF054F06B6";
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 07:03:02 -0700
Message-Id: <64C86292-6671-4729-8A77-63C081797F62@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,
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 14:03:06 -0000
--Apple-Mail=_3A40EF2E-722A-4E7B-86EA-1BEF054F06B6
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
NxtChg,
In the entire history of Bitcoin we=E2=80=99ve never attempted anything =
even closely resembling a hard fork like what=E2=80=99s being proposed =
here.
Many of us have wanted to push our own hard-forking changes to the =
protocol=E2=80=A6and have been frustrated because of the inability to do =
so.
This inability is not due to any malice on anyone=E2=80=99s part=E2=80=A6i=
t is a feature of Satoshi=E2=80=99s protocol. For better or worse, it is =
*very hard* to change the rules=E2=80=A6and this is exactly what imbues =
Bitcoin with one of its most powerful attributes: very well-defined =
settlement guarantees that cannot be suddenly altered nor reversed by =
anyone.
We=E2=80=99ve managed to have a few soft forks in the past=E2=80=A6and =
for the most part these changes have been pretty uncontroversial=E2=80=A6o=
r at least, they have not had nearly the level of political divisiveness =
that this block size issue is having. And even then, we=E2=80=99ve =
encountered a number of problems with these deployments that have at =
times required goodwill cooperation between developers and mining pool =
operators to fix.
Again, we have NEVER attempted anything even remotely like what=E2=80=99s =
being proposed - we=E2=80=99ve never done any sort of hard fork before =
like this. If even fairly uncontroversial soft forks have caused =
problems, can you imagine the kinds of potential problems that a hard =
fork over some highly polarizing issue might raise? Do you really think =
people are going to want to cooperate?!?
I can understand that some people would like bigger blocks. Other people =
might want feature X, others feature Y=E2=80=A6and we can argue the =
merits of this or that to death=E2=80=A6but the fact remains that we =
have NEVER attempted any hard forking change=E2=80=A6not even with a =
simple, totally uncontroversial no-brainer improvement that would not =
risk any sort of ill-will that could hamper remedies were it not to go =
as smoothly as we like. *THIS* is the fundamental problem - the whole =
bigger block thing is a minor issue by comparison=E2=80=A6it could be =
any controversial change, really.
Would you want to send your test pilots on their first flight=E2=80=A6the =
first time an aircraft is ever flown=E2=80=A6directly into combat =
without having tested the plane? This is what attempting a hard fork =
mechanism that=E2=80=99s NEVER been done before in such a politically =
divisive environment basically amounts to=E2=80=A6but it=E2=80=99s even =
worse. We=E2=80=99re basically risking the entire air force (not just =
one plane) over an argument regarding how many seats a plane should have =
that we=E2=80=99ve never flown before.
We=E2=80=99re talking billlions of dollars=E2=80=99 worth of other =
people=E2=80=99s money that is on the line here. Don=E2=80=99t we owe it =
to them to at least test out the system on a far less controversial, far =
less divisive change first to make sure we can even deploy it without =
things breaking? I don=E2=80=99t even care about the merits regarding =
bigger blocks vs. smaller blocks at this point, to be quite honest - =
that=E2=80=99s such a petty thing compared to what I=E2=80=99m talking =
about here. If we attempt a novel hard-forking mechanism that=E2=80=99s =
NEVER been attempted before (and which as many have pointed out is =
potentially fraught with serious problems) on such a politically =
divisive, polarizing issue, the result is each side will refuse to =
cooperate with the other out of spite=E2=80=A6and can easily lead to a =
war, tanking the value of everyone=E2=80=99s assets on both chains. All =
so we can process 8 times the number of transactions we currently do? =
Even if it were 100 times, we wouldn=E2=80=99t even come close to =
touching big payment processors like Visa. It=E2=80=99s hard to imagine =
a protocol improvement that=E2=80=99s worth the risk.
I urge you to at least try to see the bigger picture here=E2=80=A6and to =
understand that nobody is trying to stop anyone from doing anything out =
of some desire for maintaining control - NONE of us are able to deploy =
hard forks right now without facing these problems. And different people =
obviously have different priorities and preferences as to which of these =
changes would be best to do first. This whole XT thing is essentially =
giving *one* proposal special treatment above those that others have =
proposed. Many of us have only held back from doing this out of our =
belief that goodwill amongst network participants is more important than =
trying to push some pet feature some of us want.
Please stop this negativity - we ALL want the best for Bitcoin and are =
doing our best, given what we understand and know, to do what=E2=80=99s =
right.
> On Aug 17, 2015, at 6:34 AM, NxtChg via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>> We should have the highest respect for what these people are doing, =
and we should try to do something constructive, not waste time with =
anger and disrespect.
>=20
> Why, exactly, should I have any respect for what these people are =
doing (and supposedly not have any respect for what the other side is =
doing)?
>=20
> =46rom my point of view, the XT side _does_ something constructive. =
It's the Core side that resorts to dirty tactics and tries to sabotage =
community's free choice instead.
>=20
>=20
>> Nobody should be forced to do anything.
>=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
>=20
>> The developers are not telling you what to do, they are trying to do =
what they consider is best for the ecosystem given their technical =
abilities.
>=20
> The developers & Co are doing their best to stay in power, so they =
could continue imposing their will on Bitcoin ecosystem. This is the =
real power grab, not Gavin and Hearn, who merely provided an =
alternative.
>=20
> And the fear they show is most telling.
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--Apple-Mail=_3A40EF2E-722A-4E7B-86EA-1BEF054F06B6
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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=2KxU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail=_3A40EF2E-722A-4E7B-86EA-1BEF054F06B6--
|