From: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon•cc>
To: Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] questions about bitcoin-XT code fork & non-consensus hard-fork
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 17:23:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABm2gDocK9RgTtbcO8WE62=9uaEKMVmRz4QCB-dTD1E2ZymmDQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACq0ZD5TTJ=dvz+o-ex6vUWAnOtMfD=VE7JaZWXYM1Lo2L_9wA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6898 bytes --]
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail•com> wrote:
>
> hell even some major changes to the non-consunsus code to make it
adequately handle the situation when blocks fill up
This will have to eventually be done in addition to any other "alternative"
unless the plan is to keep rising the limit until it is removed or
irrelevant.
Maybe this should be the priority? Maybe this is the "alternative" that
some no-block-size-limit proponents (meaning people who think that
centralization is not a concern when deciding the block size limit) claim
nobody was putting forward?
Anyway, it's sad that we're always mixing 2 different topics: hardfork
deployment and blocksize limit. I wish we talked more about the former, I
wish we would have talked about it it long before the block size debate
became "urgent" (or at least before it was being perceived as urgent).
We've had plenty of time to deploy non-emergency hardforks but apparently
no one was interested (say, for fixing miner but known bugs like the
timetravel attack).
In fact, I plan to eventually propose such a fork, I agree with gavin that
"hardforks aren't possible" is not an answer, though finding opposition to
a concrete hardfork in a concrete point in time doesn't mean that
"hardforks aren't possible". I believe I have proposed many more hardforks
than Gavin, all of them rejected and I still hope some of them will
eventually make it into bitcoin main.
When it was clear that wouldn't be the case I'm afraid the only answer is
creating an altcoin (like Mark and I did with Freicoin and "xtcoin" could
become [hopefully not destroying bitcoin main in the process]).
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail•com> wrote:
> Wasn't the XT hard fork proposed as a last resort, should the bitcoin-core
> maintainers simply refuse to lift the 1Mb limit? No one wants to go that
> route. An alternate hard-fork proposal like BIP100 that gets consensus, or
> a modified version of gavin's that ups the limit to 8Mb instead of 20Mb, or
> hell even some major changes to the non-consunsus code to make it
> adequately handle the situation when blocks fill up, and allow wallet
> software to continue working with a send-and-forget use pattern, any of
> these would be enough to avoid the need for an XT only hard-fork.
>
> So far BIP100 is the only one that seems to actually be getting any sort
> of momentum toward consensus, and it was proposed... 2 days ago? When the
> XT fork was proposed as a last resort, it was when the opponents were (to
> my understanding) suggesting we just let blocks fill up, and hopefully
> things would just work out on their own.
>
>
>
> Aaron Voisine
> co-founder and CEO
> breadwallet.com
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Brian Hoffman <brianchoffman@gmail•com>
> wrote:
>
>> Who is actually planning to move to Bitcoin-XT if this happens?
>>
>> Just Gavin and Mike?
>>
>> [image: image1.JPG]
>>
>> On Jun 15, 2015, at 6:17 PM, Faiz Khan <faizkhan00@gmail•com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm quite puzzled by the response myself, it doesn't seem to address some
>> of the (more serious) concerns that Adam put out, the most important
>> question that was asked being the one regarding personal ownership of the
>> proposed fork:
>>
>> "How do you plan to deal with security & incident response for the
>> duration you describe where you will have control while you are deploying
>> the unilateral hard-fork and being in sole maintainership control?"
>>
>> I do genuinely hope that whomever (now and future) wishes to fork the
>> protocol reconsider first whether they are truly ready to test/flex their
>> reputation/skills/resources in this way... Intuitively, to me it seems
>> counterproductive, and I don't fully believe it is within a single
>> developer's talents to manage the process start-to-finish (as it is
>> non-trivial to hard-fork successfully, others have rehashed this in other
>> threads)...
>>
>> That being said I think it appropriate if Adam's questions were responded
>> in-line when Mike is feeling up to it. I think that the answers are
>> important for the community to hear when such a drastic change is being
>> espoused.
>>
>> Faiz
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail•com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Re: anyone who agrees with noted non-programmers Mike&Gavin must be
>>>> non-technical, stupid, uninformed, etc .... OK, go ahead and show them the
>>>> error of their ways. Anyone can write blogs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I worry that if this is the level of care you take with reading and
>>> (mis)interpreting Adam's messages, that you might not be taking extreme
>>> care with evaluating consensus changes, even while tired or sleeping. I
>>> encourage you to evaluate both messages and source code more carefully,
>>> especially in the world of bitcoin. However, this goes for everyone and not
>>> just you. Specifically, when Adam mentioned your conversations with
>>> non-technical people, he did not mean "Mike has talked with people who have
>>> possibly not made pull requests to Bitcoin Core, so therefore Mike is a
>>> non-programmer". Communication is difficult and I can understand that, but
>>> we really have to be more careful when evaluating each other's messages;
>>> technical miscommunication can be catastrophic in this context. On the
>>> topic of whether you are a programmer, I suspect that ever since you built
>>> CIA.vc we have all known you're a programmer, Mike.
>>>
>>> - Bryan
>>> http://heybryan.org/
>>> 1 512 203 0507
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> My regards,
>>>
>>> Faiz Khan
>>>
>>> <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 10246 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: image1.JPG --]
[-- Type: image/jpeg, Size: 22107 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-18 15:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-15 0:04 Adam Back
2015-06-15 9:56 ` Mike Hearn
2015-06-15 18:03 ` Adam Back
2015-06-15 20:55 ` Mike Hearn
2015-06-15 21:56 ` Bryan Bishop
2015-06-15 22:17 ` Faiz Khan
2015-06-15 22:56 ` Brian Hoffman
2015-06-15 23:05 ` [Bitcoin-development] questions about bitcoin-XT code fork &non-consensus hard-fork Raystonn .
2015-06-16 0:08 ` [Bitcoin-development] questions about bitcoin-XT code fork & non-consensus hard-fork Aaron Voisine
2015-06-16 0:41 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-06-16 1:17 ` Alex Morcos
2015-06-16 4:00 ` Aaron Voisine
2015-06-17 3:54 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-18 15:23 ` Jorge Timón [this message]
2015-06-16 11:29 ` Mike Hearn
2015-06-16 11:20 ` Mike Hearn
2015-06-16 12:33 ` Pindar Wong
2015-06-16 13:33 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-16 13:55 ` Pindar Wong
2015-06-17 3:59 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-25 6:43 ` [bitcoin-dev] " Pindar Wong
2015-06-26 19:30 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-15 22:54 ` odinn
2015-06-16 1:20 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-16 5:18 ` Venzen
2015-06-16 6:09 ` Marcel Jamin
2015-06-16 9:21 ` Benjamin
2015-06-16 11:01 ` Tier Nolan
2015-06-17 3:52 ` Troy Benjegerdes
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='CABm2gDocK9RgTtbcO8WE62=9uaEKMVmRz4QCB-dTD1E2ZymmDQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=jtimon@jtimon$(echo .)cc \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=voisine@gmail$(echo .)com \
/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