path: root/b9/16467df2a165294374c4df3efe7d6957cad1bf

Return-Path: <adam@cypherspace.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEC0D93D
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 19 Aug 2015 22:45:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.197])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B4152EE
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 19 Aug 2015 22:45:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-io0-f177.google.com ([209.85.223.177]) by
	mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id
	0MG8Zd-1ZVoU61w5X-00FApI for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 20 Aug 2015 00:45:49 +0200
Received: by iods203 with SMTP id s203so26676377iod.0
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:45:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.155.12 with SMTP id d12mr17565734ioe.131.1440024348806; 
	Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:45:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.43.168 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:45:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDo-jgE7ow5eNTp70YwQKNL3OfDMT=uU9H6G09MS_J2k-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADWuND3EfO6YO3g4H09_mWhrHC4PX4SZpTTuETiX2PyCxSRCsQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55D1167B.1060107@gmail.com>
	<CAEX2NSfaPv0g07hfT31voGWX05Z6uaBsZOjhMkOwBr4mdHbPQw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55D124D7.4050209@gmail.com>
	<61AD0CE6-014E-44E2-B9C7-00B35D2E09CC@petertodd.org>
	<CAEX2NSeAgrN877zAVDrk_J+7EVDPagt8u4+HB7hDMVMPwS6Zng@mail.gmail.com>
	<F99FFEE6-6D10-480D-B96D-960B84092C88@gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDoEVmqiOpPcf1wUsNt4pmU=oVawq2-0YwrEjm1W1YBmeg@mail.gmail.com>
	<55D4A3BD.2060706@sky-ip.org>
	<CABm2gDo-jgE7ow5eNTp70YwQKNL3OfDMT=uU9H6G09MS_J2k-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:45:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CALqxMTGUtRm4nW1TTVwr0i+NYD93f-i9d9=nkJnPQdPEw8Zy0g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:4RqF1pOLiQHhrJxVph0BHUklHVd/QsuiOmBo+xGyjXvsKRFF46V
	uhD7uiPqT3PKUf1bM6WWPkK9uDXnuF1TGudeb/jnAXs/bmy/fgO6iMUY5Pb+By35IDSOcRb
	zxC4APvKRlFK8BUYPtTcrW1f45ukLhNUqv9Fod+QwJRmbwU0Olk7C8f3N77XTEHqM/DAsFz
	7Vu5ZqZbII/QxBZo84iyA==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:fE7MhbBRSMw=:4ZFhVZx3ZF12e40zcW/Yiz
	zB+zcyyjD6VjVDHkdsNbN5ZTp1imfomYCx82lt08lnCSbNjvFscZJcfAuYo3wA3qbVspbzHcz
	9ux24OBUN/dht7SA2S1QajALsmigxtGzGkX4XaMdlfTawe5v+a2WHf3s/un3jzybgTk+xZMtz
	cmu/LkErikOVelGcnrCQH8u1CJx4VJ+PMo1KCB9tL1AF+4H9PCjm25OjJQ0Zpn/joLZYNWGN2
	/SOUX06ndAZyJT4qkDbk9g5PA5L+VJUvz/NjBpOaDOX/iFe/iDOwK8BChEDz+WRySGXYS6h7b
	NMfgY0S7iSo0ALC4UwbcNAsUzr9W6qBWj552gghOou5UvmFu/qgW2hNfuTwc7A3iVQZyemvnm
	aZxLBOpnCqOmabJu8mu/g2lSKovcOdWQklnUjfDtL1iNaQhs+Oe9EfIPEIXDKZnXa5JGy6K26
	lOyWh2c8c91OkwlLliuWk+29vbT2j2FZaZn+p5bbsEoHsHsZuJSaPQpvQc2wuDLNOiSVWcsx1
	1ldImW8mHbsUDfSIZzp+cTeOIYpMmx5SJOMCqhsY1P1y0lf14Q0JPLnWxL1gx5YLekucdDDWM
	RWmfj4BUbeocl+pOaaM4stw35v9gcXS3rJ7NEuZqSzutQsN183e/p6jGvHo8p03l0YYaAyuRA
	chJihgzG0ZjUNqHbaGkNfeLhhtJFh60GBJGoAcp/XD8tj4F7SYQCwYYfPuZixG5+6UQ/lNBvm
	bR6B9figuppUmaSi
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,
	URIBL_BLACK autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Cameron Garnham via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT 0.11A
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, 19 Aug 2015 22:45:51 -0000

Wouldnt the experience for SPV nodes be chaotic?  If the full nodes
are 50:50 XT and bitcoin core, then SPV clients would connect at
random and because XT and core will diverge immediately after
activation.

Adam


On 19 August 2015 at 15:28, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 5:41 PM, s7r <s7r@sky-ip.org> wrote:
>> Hello Jorge, Eric,
>>
>> With all this noise on the -dev mail list I had to implement application
>> level filters so I can treat with priority posts from certain people,
>> you are on that list. While I agree with your arguments, I think it is
>> _very_ important to highlight some things. I am neither for the
>> blocksize increase neither against it, because plain and simple I don't
>> have enough arguments to take some definitive decision on this topic.
>
> I think everyone is in that position (we just don't have enough data
> about the proposed sizes) or it's just too optimistic.
>
>> What I am angry about is spreading FUD that a fork could kill Bitcoin
>> and what we are experiencing now is somehow terrible.
>>
>> 1. Bitcoin XT is not necessarily an attack over Bitcoin and will not
>> split it into 2 different coins. It is the result of an open source free
>> system which lacks centralization. It is just at early stage, it could
>> have thousands for forks (or fork attempts) during its life.
>
> Bitcoin XT is just a software fork and nobody seem to have a problem
> with that (as repeated in other threads), people are worried about the
> way bip101 is going to be attempted to be deployed using Bitcoin XT.
> We already have more than 5000 software forks and that's totally fine.
>
> A Schism fork may not kill Bitcoin but it will certainly create 2
> different coins.
> The claim that "there will be a winner and everybody will just move
> there" is incredibly naive and uninformative.
> Many people will sell their xtbtc and reject the hardfork
> independently of its support by miners.
> Nobody knows what the result will be, but both currencies' prices
> dropping near zero is certainly a possibility that Gavin and Mike are
> not aware about or are not informing their followers about.
> Here's something a little bit longer about this topic:
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/181/files#diff-e331b8631759a4ed6a4cf=
b4d10f473caR137
> Note the last part:
>
> "
> +This is very disruptive and hopefully will never be needed. But if
> +it's needed the best deployment path is just to activate the rule
> +changes after certain block height in the future. On the other hand,
> +it is healthy decentralization-wise that many independent software
> +projects are ready to deploy a schism hardfork.
> "
>
>> 2. We have no proof that Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen are trying to do
>> something bad to Bitcoin. So far everything they have done is (or should
>> be) allowed. They have forked an open source software and implemented a
>> voting system for a consensus rule change - doesn't sound like they are
>> committing a crime here (either legally or morally). If they are
>> qualified enough to maintain the software, or if the decision is
>> technically correct or not is another story, and it should only matter
>> to whoever uses / wants to use -XT.
>
> Again, no problem with the code fork, but the Schism hardfork is very
> risky regardless of their intentions.
>
>> 3. If Bitcoin's value can be decreased (or Bitcoin as a project killed)
>> just by 2 people forking the software and submitting a consensus rule to
>> a vote, it means Bitcoin is dead already and it should be worthless! We
>> can't go around and panic every time somebody forks Bitcoin and tries to
>> change something - this should be allowed by the nature of its license.
>> If tomorrow 5 more people fork 5 different software implementing the
>> bitcoin protocol and submit 5 different new consensus rules to a vote,
>> then what? We should all sell so the price will drop to 1 cent, because
>> it is somehow not good enough, not stable enough?
>
> If they don't extensively lobby Bitcoin companies, they don't start a
> massive PR campaign labbeling other developers as "obstructionists"
> and don't misinform a big part of the Bitcoin users (often using
> logical fallacies, intentionally or not), probably those 5 new
> currencies will be ignored and nothing bad will happen.
> Unfortunately in this case a great division between users is being create=
d.
>
>> I can fork tomorrow Bitcoin Core to a Bitcoin-XYZ software which at some
>> block in the future spends all the longest dusted coins to me, out of
>> which I give away 50% to the miners (so the hashing power will have
>> incentive to use my fork).
>>
>> Can they do it? YES
>> Will they do it? NO
>> Should the world care about this? NO
>>
>> It's as simple as that. We cannot continue to panic that "Bitcoin as a
>> project" is at threat because somebody forked it.
>
> Can you please stop conflating "Bitcoin Core as a project" and
> "Bitcoin consensus rules".
> They are different things and nobody is or can be "in charge" of the
> later, face it.
>
> Can you please also stop conflating software fork and
> "Schism/controversial/contentious hardfork"? Nobody has anything
> against the former and as you point out it is allowed by its free
> software license.
>
>> 4. By having a software fork and consensus rule submitted to vote we
>> actually prove how open Bitcoin is, and how there is lack of control
>> over it from all parties (developers, miners, engineers on the mail
>> list). This is reason to increase Bitcoin's value! It is a feature, not
>> a flaw!
>
> Why should miners have a voting power that the rest of the users lack?
>
>> It's very important for everyone in the ecosystem to understand:
>>
>> - yes, Bitcoin is open source, even you can fork it tomorrow if you want
>> and you think enough users might follow you.
>>
>> - no, it's not a requirement for 100% of the nodes in the network to be
>> running Core, or -XT or other implementation. The more we have, the bett=
er.
>>
>> - yes, there is absolutely no authority in Bitcoin - this is what lead
>> to this dispute in the first place. This is the truly decentralized
>> nature of the software, not important if we have 10.000 full nodes or
>> 1000 full nodes.
>
> All this sounds reasonable.
>
>> - no, Bitcoin won't split / die or whatever because of this fork.
>> Regardless what it happens, if XT will reach the threshold or not,
>> Bitcoin will go on just because it has some unique advantages and has no
>> competitor from some points of view.
>
> But you cannot know this will happen this way!
> If the threshold is reached (let's forget about noXT for now), the
> remaining miners cannot be forced to adopt bip101.
> And users can never be forced to adopt hardforks.
> It is possible that 75% of the hashrate moves to the bip101 chain
> while 99% of the users remain in the old Bitcoin chain. Or 50/50,
> 40/60...nobody knows.
>
>> - Bitcoin by its design has many many advantages, but also the
>> limitation that it relies on majority being honest / doing the right
>> thing! This is just the way it is, and the benefits it is offering
>> heavily win over this fundamental limitation.
>
> No, it doesn't rely on that. It just relies on the majority of the
> miners not attacking the network for too long (ie the number of
> confirmations people are waiting).
> If I'm running a full node, I'm not isolated from the network and the
> majority of the hashrate is not reorging the chain I am safe no matter
> how dishonest the "majority" (whatever that means in this context) is.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev