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?

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.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

--

My regards,

Faiz Khan


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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