From: s7r <s7r@sky-ip•org>
To: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon•cc>, "Eric Lombrozo" <elombrozo@gmail•com>
Cc: Cameron Garnham via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT 0.11A
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 18:41:49 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55D4A3BD.2060706@sky-ip.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDoEVmqiOpPcf1wUsNt4pmU=oVawq2-0YwrEjm1W1YBmeg@mail.gmail.com>
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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 better.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
On 8/19/2015 1:09 PM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 1:02 AM, Cameron Garnham via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> I think that it is important to note that Bitcoin XT faces a natural
>> uphill battle.
>>
>> Since it is possible to setup atomic inter-fork coin trades. I do not
>> see how Bitcoin XT could possibly win if Satoshi decides to sell 10000
>> XTBTC for BTC everyday for the first 100 days after the fork.
>>
>> In many ways Satoshi gets to decide the winning fork just by his huge
>> economic investment in Bitcoin.
>>
>>
>> Here is some simple game-theory for non-consensus forks:
>>
>> 1. Spoil the ballot. Have Bitcoin Core propagate the Bitcoin XT version
>> string.
>>
>> 2. Encourage all miners to false vote for the Bitcoin XT fork.
>>
>> - Now people have no-idea what % of the economy Bitcoin XT holds. -
>> Making it impossible for people to put economic faith behind Bitcoin XT.
>>
>> 3. Setup good Atomic Swap markets.
>> [...]
>> The price for XTBTC coins will plummet, Satoshi progressively dumping
>> his 1M stash over a year or it so will make sure that it doesn't recover
>> either.
>
> Some XTBTC advocates may sell all their BTC for XTBTC and viceversa.
> But I'm afraid that what most currency speculators (thus most Bitcoin
> holders) will do is just sell both all their BTC and XTBTC for fiat,
> and wait for things to settle before deciding whether to re-enter or
> not.
> This could result in both currencies' prices going down to 1 usd cent,
> nobody knows.
>
>> I cannot see how Bitcoin XT is but-not in a extremely weak position from
>> game theory.
>
> Unfortunately it also puts Bitcoin core in an extremely weaker
> position than it was before the Schism hardfork.
> Even if XT fails in making blocks bigger, it may destroy Bitcoin.
> That's probably not the goal of Bitcoin XT, but I don't think Andresen
> and Hearn fully undesrtand the risks of a Schism hardfork (not to
> mention their "followers" in the interwebs).
>
> Since we want to discard the assumption that Hearn and Andresen want
> to make Bitcoin centralized or destroy it, it's reasonable to conclude
> that have serious misunderstandings on how the global consensus works.
> This is consistent with some of their strong positions on Bitcoin Core
> policy defaults (like maintaining the first seen spending-conflict
> replacement policy [the dumbest possible one after "last seen"]
> forever).
>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> Or can’t you create a transaction that’s still within the op count and sig ops limits but is larger than 1MB?
>
> Yes, it seems the simplest way to permanently separate your BTC from
> your XTBTC is to move them all in transactions bigger than 1MB. You
> may need too many outputs to increase the size (thus also hurting the
> utxo size in Bitcoin XT), but that's just a side effect.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-19 15:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-15 22:39 muyuubyou
2015-08-16 18:37 ` Andrew LeCody
2015-08-16 23:02 ` Cameron Garnham
2015-08-16 23:22 ` Andrew LeCody
2015-08-17 0:03 ` Cameron Garnham
2015-08-17 6:42 ` Peter Todd
2015-08-17 12:29 ` Andrew LeCody
2015-08-17 12:33 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-08-19 10:09 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-19 15:41 ` s7r [this message]
2015-08-19 22:28 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-19 22:45 ` Adam Back
2015-08-19 23:23 ` Peter Todd
2015-08-20 10:25 ` s7r
2015-08-20 11:32 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-08-20 11:46 ` Hector Chu
2015-08-20 12:29 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-08-20 14:25 ` Tamas Blummer
2015-08-17 21:42 ` Matt Corallo
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-08-16 2:08 muyuubyou
2015-08-15 17:02 Mike Hearn
2015-08-15 17:57 ` s7r
2015-08-15 18:38 ` s7r
2015-08-15 19:21 ` Mike Hearn
2015-08-15 20:36 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-08-15 20:47 ` Bryan Bishop
2015-08-15 21:10 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-08-15 20:55 ` Micha Bailey
2015-08-15 21:32 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-08-15 22:01 ` Ken Friece
2015-08-15 22:16 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-08-15 22:27 ` Angel Leon
2015-08-15 22:28 ` Ken Friece
2015-08-15 22:55 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-15 23:04 ` Ken Friece
2015-08-15 23:07 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-08-15 23:30 ` Michael Naber
2015-08-15 23:40 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-15 23:57 ` Ken Friece
2015-08-16 0:06 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-08-16 13:49 ` Mike Hearn
2015-08-16 15:44 ` Anthony Towns
2015-08-16 16:07 ` Tamas Blummer
2015-08-16 16:12 ` Levin Keller
2015-08-16 17:01 ` Adam Back
2015-08-16 18:15 ` Tamas Blummer
2015-08-16 20:27 ` Eric Voskuil
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=55D4A3BD.2060706@sky-ip.org \
--to=s7r@sky-ip$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=elombrozo@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=jtimon@jtimon$(echo .)cc \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox