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 Timón <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 5:41 PM, s7r <s...@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-e331b8631759a4ed6a4cfb4d10f473caR137 > 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 created. > >> 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 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. > > 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 _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev