Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:00:14AM +0200, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote: It is just that no one else is reckless enough to bypass the review process I keep seeing this notion crop up. I want to kill this idea right now: - There were months of public discussion leading to up the authoring of BIP 101, both on this mailing list and elsewhere. - BIP 101 was submitted for review via the normal process. Jeff Garzik specifically called Gavin out on Twitter and thanked him for following the process: https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/614412097359708160 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/163 As you can see, other than a few minor typo fixes and a comment by sipa, there was no other review offered. - The implementation for BIP 101 was submitted to Bitcoin Core as a pull request, to invoke the code review process: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6341 Some minor code layout suggestions were made by Cory and incorporated. Peter popped up to say there was no chance it'd ever be accepted . and no further review was done. No, I said there was no chance it'd be accepted due to a number of BIP-level issues in addition to debate about the patch itself. For instance, Gavin has never given any details about testing; at minimum we'd need a BIP16 style quality assurance document. We also frown on writing software with building expiration dates, let alone expiration dates that trigger non-deterministically. (Note how my recently merged CLTV considered the year 2038 problem to avoid needing a hard fork at that date) Of course no further review was done - issues were identified and they didn't get fixed. Why would we do further review on something that was broken whose author wasn't interested in fixing even non-controversial and obvious problems? The process is to do review, fix issues identified, and repeat until all issues are fixed. -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 0402fe6fb9ad613c93e12bddfc6ec02a2bd92f002050594d signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
It is just that no one else is reckless enough to bypass the review process I keep seeing this notion crop up. I want to kill this idea right now: - There were months of public discussion leading to up the authoring of BIP 101, both on this mailing list and elsewhere. - BIP 101 was submitted for review via the normal process. Jeff Garzik specifically called Gavin out on Twitter and thanked him for following the process: https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/614412097359708160 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/163 As you can see, other than a few minor typo fixes and a comment by sipa, there was no other review offered. - The implementation for BIP 101 was submitted to Bitcoin Core as a pull request, to invoke the code review process: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6341 Some minor code layout suggestions were made by Cory and incorporated. Peter popped up to say there was no chance it'd ever be accepted . and no further review was done. So the entire Bitcoin Core BIP process was followed to the letter. The net result was this. There were, in fact, bugs in the implementation of BIP 101. They were found when Gavin submitted the code to the XT community review process, which resulted in *actual* peer review. Additionally, there was much discussion of technical details on the XT mailing list that Bitcoin Core entirely ignored. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:22:32AM -0700, Simon Liu via bitcoin-dev wrote: Olivier Janssens claims that one of your colleagues is asking for Gavin to be removed from his position. Is this true? https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hksre/blockstream_employee_asking_to_remove_gavin_from/?sort=confidence http://pastebin.com/q2TT58Z5 IMO that's a very reasonable request; lately I've spent a lot of time having to educate journalists on how Bitcoin doesn't have a chief scientist with any kind of authority. Having Gavin Andresen in that position at the otherwise inactive and bankrupt Bitcoin Foundation misleads the public about the true nature of how Bitcoin operates, giving a misleading impression that it has the same centralized decision making as conventional financial systems do. Among other things, this harms the reputation of Bitcoin as a whole as it can confuse the public into thinking there aren't major differences between Bitcoin and those conventional financial systems. As the email said Regardless of your personal view on XT this is bad for bitcoin. - a statement I agree with 100% -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 0402fe6fb9ad613c93e12bddfc6ec02a2bd92f002050594d signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
Gavin has been very clear about the fact that he's on vacation. I'm not sure what you want Mike to say. It's obvious the Bitcoin Core developer pitchforks are out for him so there isn't really anything he can possibly say which will be constructively received on this highly adversarial and increasingly ridiculous charade of a mailing list. I feel as though they've made their case abundantly clear to anyone paying attention. The community will weigh the independent merit of the two points of view and that community is not as naive and uninformed as everyone on this list likes to portray them to be. Your concern for companies' welfare is appreciated but I'm confident they can manage their own independent assessments of this matter as well as seek out enough varied expert opinions such that they can make an informed decision. 19.08.2015, 19:53, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org: It seems to be a recurring meme that BIP 101 is somehow a solution put forward where BIP 100, 102, 103, flexcap, extension blocks etc etc are not. That is not at ALL the case, and is insulting (present company excluded). It is just that no one else is reckless enough to bypass the review process and risk a controversial hard fork deployment war. Myself and many other people warned Gavin a network fork war would start (ie someone would think of some way to sabotage or attack the deployment of Bitcoin-XT via protocol, code, policy, consensus soft-fork etc. He ignored the warnings. Many also warned that 75% was an optimally BAD trigger ratio (and that in a hard fork it is not a miner vote really as in soft-forks). Gavin Mike ignored that warning to. I know they heard those warnings because I told them 1:1 in person or via email and had on going conversations. Others did too. People can not blame bitcoin core or me, that this then predictably happened exactly as we said it would - it was completely obvious and predictable. In fact noBitcoinXT is even more dangerous and therefore amplified in effect in creating mutual assured destruction kind of risk profile than the loose spectrum of technical counters imagined. I did not personally put much effort into thinking about counters because I though it counter productive and hoped that Gavin Mike would have the maturity to not start down such a path. Again any of the other proposals can easily be implemented. They *could* also spin up a web page and put up binaries, however no one else was crazy enough to try to start a deployment in that way. It is also puzzling timing - with all these BIPs and ongoing discussion and workshops coming imminently to then release ahead of that process where as far as I know Gavin said he was equally happy with BIP 100 or other proposal which ever is best, and on basically the eve of workshops planned to progress this collaboratively. Bitcoin-XT is also under tested, people are finding privacy bugs and other issues. (Not even mentioning the above 75% optimally bad parameter, and the damage to community reputation and collaborative environment that this all causes.) Very disappointing Gavin and Mike. I find it quite notable that Gavin and Mike have been radio silent on the bitcoin-dev list and yet we see a stream of media articles, blog posts, pod casts, and from what I can tell ongoing backroom lobbying of companies to run bitcoin-XT without trying AT ALL to offer a neutral or balanced or multi proposal information package so that companies technical people can make a balanced informed decision. That is what the workshops are trying to provide. Gavin, Mike - anything to say here? Adam On 18 August 2015 at 19:59, Angel Leon via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: How then to end this XT madness? Instead of bashing on someone that has actually put a solution forward, make your own fork and see if your ideas on how to solve the issue are any better. As of now, 1Mb blocks are pure madness, and people are voting over an 8mb block increase every day that passes, even with a useless project like you call it. Go out there and see how bitcoin is actually used. http://twitter.com/gubatron On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 10:54 PM, odinn via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: The XT Fork (better said, a POS alt*) and those behind it make not even a pretense to work through process involved with bitcoin developmen t. (*This is not intended as a slight toward any other alts, as here in this post I am focusing solely on XT.) Instead of abandoning their useless project, or at least conceding that their alt is operating essentially outside of the development funnel (by this I mean BIP process), the developers of XT, via their latest presentation of XT give nothing more than an attack on bitcoin (albeit one that, more than anything, is designed to sidetrack real discussion necessary to resolve
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote: Normal GitHub users submitting pull-reqs to Bitcoin Core can't delete other users' comments on their own pull-reqs... IMO that's an abuse of the pull-req process, and in turn, Gavin Andresens's commit access rights for the Bitcoin Core repo. For the avoidance of doubt here's the archive link of my comment https://archive.is/omvSY#40% (call me paranoid) and here's where he tells me he's censored my posts https://archive.is/vym6N#40% I think this should weigh in favor of Gavin Andresen not having commit privileges for the Bitcoin Core repository. It's time. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
On Aug 19, 2015, at 12:12 PM, Santino Napolitano via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: Gavin has been very clear about the fact that he's on vacation. I'm not sure what you want Mike to say. It's obvious the Bitcoin Core developer pitchforks are out for him so there isn't really anything he can possibly say which will be constructively received on this highly adversarial and increasingly ridiculous charade of a mailing list. I feel as though they've made their case abundantly clear to anyone paying attention. It’s good to know that Gavin still manages to keep his priorities straight. Of course, vacationing at the moment that the most controversial change in the history of Bitcoin which threatens to split the community is officially “announced” is probably exactly what he should be doing. I’m glad to know that we’ll continue to have this amazing leadership under the XT fork. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 re. Gavin and commit access On 08/19/2015 12:15 PM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote: Normal GitHub users submitting pull-reqs to Bitcoin Core can't delete other users' comments on their own pull-reqs... IMO that's an abuse of the pull-req process, and in turn, Gavin Andresens's commit access rights for the Bitcoin Core repo. For the avoidance of doubt here's the archive link of my comment https://archive.is/omvSY#40% (call me paranoid) and here's where he tells me he's censored my posts https://archive.is/vym6N#40% I think this should weigh in favor of Gavin Andresen not having commit privileges for the Bitcoin Core repository. It's time. I agree, fwiw. If he's going to censor others then that's inconsistent with the responsibility of having commit access. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev - -- http://abis.io ~ a protocol concept to enable decentralization and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good https://keybase.io/odinn -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJV1NnDAAoJEGxwq/inSG8C0H0H/0ygc10hDP59Z2ktB8+wxqek qLdMS4WbzPQzXkAAeVCu4RWzqeJjJZZ66VZ2aPBdsHHPIqOikAYAy3EaYQ2M7VIy D6FW+AZK3ZHXX/ENVvtEPegu58ykk7QoWQkKQbH1Jqfxa0wcv3PQ5HtH92GReCNP cNUMjnJkdI1XIVVQ8XRZ3OfOwUrJlSV7o9kKb6KRlEyXiGPRMI/myHIBBkKg5RkW 4Zc6GqRUiT7MIpQcRGV1/h5LuVyszbo70SrhX1D/w2W4B87bGScpH98hwqqKu+td HnbI6VqLD1xMKBnj18GdpCJzKePkXoR0FHjkipcABXTjRa4Oy52AZyxU4w7luqI= =PD5w -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
Unfortunately, I think that from a PR angle, removing Gavin from commit privileges right now will probably play into his hand. Sadly. Say what you will regarding Gavin and Mike’s technical merits, they’ve been quite clever on the PR front. Framing this issue as “obstructionism from the core devs” and relying on the fact that many people out there can’t seem to tell the difference between a source code fork and a blockchain fork. On Aug 19, 2015, at 12:32 PM, odinn via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: Signed PGP part re. Gavin and commit access On 08/19/2015 12:15 PM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote: Normal GitHub users submitting pull-reqs to Bitcoin Core can't delete other users' comments on their own pull-reqs... IMO that's an abuse of the pull-req process, and in turn, Gavin Andresens's commit access rights for the Bitcoin Core repo. For the avoidance of doubt here's the archive link of my comment https://archive.is/omvSY#40% (call me paranoid) and here's where he tells me he's censored my posts https://archive.is/vym6N#40% I think this should weigh in favor of Gavin Andresen not having commit privileges for the Bitcoin Core repository. It's time. I agree, fwiw. If he's going to censor others then that's inconsistent with the responsibility of having commit access. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev -- http://abis.io ~ a protocol concept to enable decentralization and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good https://keybase.io/odinn ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: [...] core devs” and relying on the fact that many people out there can’t seem to tell the difference between a source code fork and a blockchain fork. And this is precisely why we should make perfectly clear that we're not against a code fork where Hearn or anyone else acts as a benevolent dictator, just against the controversial hardfork it is attempting to deploy. Otherwise the PR battle is probably lost (which may mean users sell all their BTC for XTBTC [or just forget about their BTC and only care about their XTBTC]). ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
[cross-posted to libbitcoin] On 08/19/2015 03:00 PM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Eric Lombrozo elombr...@gmail.com wrote: But the consensus code should NOT be subject to the same commit policies…and we should make an effort to separate the two clearly. And we should find a way to communicate the difference succinctly and clearly to laypeople (which is something I think the XT opponents have been horrible at doing so far). I think that effort is in progress (again, much slower that I would like it to be) and it's called libconsensus. Once we have libconsensus Bitcoin Core it's just another implementation (even if it is the reference one) and it's not the specification of the consensus rules which is a privileged position that brings all sorts of misunderstandings and problems (the block size debate is just one example). Jorge, I applaud your efforts and objectives WRT libconsensus independence. But as you know I differ with you on this point: Once we have libconsensus Bitcoin Core it's just another implementation I do not consider Bitcoin Core just another implementation as long as libconsensus is built directly out of the bitcoind repository. It's a finer point, but an important one. Eric makes this point emphatically as well: But the consensus code should NOT be subject to the same commit policies...and we should make an effort to separate the two clearly. As you have implied, it's not likely to happen in the Bitcoin Core repo. Taking a dependency on Bitcoin Core is a metaphorical deal with the devil from our perspective. So my question is, how do you expect other implementations to transition off of that repository (and commit policies)? Or do you expect the dependency to be perpetual? In our discussion leading up to libbitcoin building libbitcoin-consensus we disagreed on whether intentional hard forks would (or even could) happen. I think that issue is now settled. So my question remains how do stakeholders (users/miners) maintain consensus when it's their individual intent (the first objective of libconsensus), and diverge when intended (which a direct dependency on libconsensus makes harder)? IMO it's unreasonable to operate as if this won't happen, given that it has. There are a very small number of implementations that rely on consensus (fewer that aren't also forks of Bitcoin Core). I think it's time we discuss how to work together to achieve our mutual goal. I assume you have been in contact with all of us. If you would like to facilitate this I'd be happy to join in an offline discussion. e signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
By the way, now that I remember why I subscribed to the libbitcoin list I want to share it with you. I met Amir Taaki in person in a spanish hackmeeting and had the chance to talk a lot with him, very interesting person whose input in this blocksize matter I would greatly appreciate. He explained some of his concerns with Bitcoin Core (Bitcoin-qt at the time) and he specifically named 2 persons: Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen. If I remember correctly, Hearn had recently proposed a blacklisting scheme for Bitcoin. I remember I said something along the lines: Mike Hearn has certainly proposed some nasty things but I don't think other devs will ever accept that kind of changes in Bitcoin-qt. Regarding Gavin, I believe he is someone that can be trusted even if he visited the CIA. If anything, I think he is overly conservative about some changes, but that's very understandable given how fragile Bitcoin is (specially at this early stage). Looking back, I now realize that his concerns were not exaggerated at all and I was clearly wrong thinking Gavin was overly conservative. He was also worried about the payment protocol and we agreed to disagree there (maybe I should read all the payment protocol stuff more deeply). I don't want this to be taken as an argument of authority Mike and Gavin cannot be trusted because Amir didn't trust them, just as a curious anecdote. Amir, I wouldn't like to put words in your mouth: that's why I cc'ed you so you can correct me in case my memory is failing. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
Yes, you're right, the Bitcoin Foundation is facing many challenges, but that's an entirely different discussion. The question in hand is this: was the request to remove Gavin made by an individual of their own volition, reflecting their own personal opinion, or was it made on behalf of the company? If the latter, it would imply that compromise is unlikely to be reached and thus the ecosystem should start planning immediately for the potential hard fork, rather than waiting and hoping for things to be resolved. On 08/19/2015 11:13 AM, Peter Todd wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:22:32AM -0700, Simon Liu via bitcoin-dev wrote: Olivier Janssens claims that one of your colleagues is asking for Gavin to be removed from his position. Is this true? https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hksre/blockstream_employee_asking_to_remove_gavin_from/?sort=confidence http://pastebin.com/q2TT58Z5 IMO that's a very reasonable request; lately I've spent a lot of time having to educate journalists on how Bitcoin doesn't have a chief scientist with any kind of authority. Having Gavin Andresen in that position at the otherwise inactive and bankrupt Bitcoin Foundation misleads the public about the true nature of how Bitcoin operates, giving a misleading impression that it has the same centralized decision making as conventional financial systems do. Among other things, this harms the reputation of Bitcoin as a whole as it can confuse the public into thinking there aren't major differences between Bitcoin and those conventional financial systems. As the email said Regardless of your personal view on XT this is bad for bitcoin. - a statement I agree with 100% ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Eric Voskuil e...@voskuil.org wrote: [cross-posted to libbitcoin] On 08/19/2015 03:00 PM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Eric Lombrozo elombr...@gmail.com wrote: But the consensus code should NOT be subject to the same commit policies…and we should make an effort to separate the two clearly. And we should find a way to communicate the difference succinctly and clearly to laypeople (which is something I think the XT opponents have been horrible at doing so far). I think that effort is in progress (again, much slower that I would like it to be) and it's called libconsensus. Once we have libconsensus Bitcoin Core it's just another implementation (even if it is the reference one) and it's not the specification of the consensus rules which is a privileged position that brings all sorts of misunderstandings and problems (the block size debate is just one example). Jorge, I applaud your efforts and objectives WRT libconsensus independence. But as you know I differ with you on this point: Once we have libconsensus Bitcoin Core it's just another implementation I do not consider Bitcoin Core just another implementation as long as libconsensus is built directly out of the bitcoind repository. It's a finer point, but an important one. Eric makes this point emphatically as well: But the consensus code should NOT be subject to the same commit policies...and we should make an effort to separate the two clearly. As you have implied, it's not likely to happen in the Bitcoin Core repo. Taking a dependency on Bitcoin Core is a metaphorical deal with the devil from our perspective. So my question is, how do you expect other implementations to transition off of that repository (and commit policies)? Or do you expect the dependency to be perpetual? No, as previously explained, once libconsensus is complete it can be moved to a separate repository like libsecp256k1. At first it will need to be a subtree/subrepository of Bitcoin Core (like libsecp256k1 currently is), but I still don't undesrtand how that can possibly be a problem for alternative implementations (they can use a subtree as well if they want to). Depending on a separated libconsensus doesn't make Bitcoin Core a dependency more than depending on libsecp256k1 currently does. In our discussion leading up to libbitcoin building libbitcoin-consensus we disagreed on whether intentional hard forks would (or even could) happen. I think that issue is now settled. So my question remains how do stakeholders (users/miners) maintain consensus when it's their individual intent (the first objective of libconsensus), and diverge when intended (which a direct dependency on libconsensus makes harder)? IMO it's unreasonable to operate as if this won't happen, given that it has. I believe the simplest option would be to fork the libconsensus project and do the schism/controversial/contentious hardfork there. But of course modifying libconsensus will be much easier than modifying Bitcoin Core (if anything, because the amount of code is much smaller). There are a very small number of implementations that rely on consensus (fewer that aren't also forks of Bitcoin Core). I think it's time we discuss how to work together to achieve our mutual goal. I assume you have been in contact with all of us. If you would like to facilitate this I'd be happy to join in an offline discussion. Unfortunately I only directly contacted libbitcoin because I was subscribed to the list at the time (maybe I'm still subscribed, not really sure). The other attempts to get feedback from other alternative implementations have been just mostly-ignored threads in bitcoin-dev. So, no, I cannot facilitate such a discussion, but I'm more than happy to collaborate to achieve our mutual goal. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Eric Lombrozo elombr...@gmail.com wrote: But the consensus code should NOT be subject to the same commit policies…and we should make an effort to separate the two clearly. And we should find a way to communicate the difference succinctly and clearly to laypeople (which is something I think the XT opponents have been horrible at doing so far). I think that effort is in progress (again, much slower that I would like it to be) and it's called libconsensus. Once we have libconsensus Bitcoin Core it's just another implementation (even if it is the reference one) and it's not the specification of the consensus rules which is a privileged position that brings all sorts of misunderstandings and problems (the block size debate is just one example). ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
Can this anecdote and similar be removed from the mailing list. Possibly one of the reddits is a better place for this kind of thing. On 20/8/15 7:56 am, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: By the way, now that I remember why I subscribed to the libbitcoin list I want to share it with you. I met Amir Taaki in person in a spanish hackmeeting and had the chance to talk a lot with him, very interesting person whose input in this blocksize matter I would greatly appreciate. He explained some of his concerns with Bitcoin Core (Bitcoin-qt at the time) and he specifically named 2 persons: Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen. If I remember correctly, Hearn had recently proposed a blacklisting scheme for Bitcoin. I remember I said something along the lines: Mike Hearn has certainly proposed some nasty things but I don't think other devs will ever accept that kind of changes in Bitcoin-qt. Regarding Gavin, I believe he is someone that can be trusted even if he visited the CIA. If anything, I think he is overly conservative about some changes, but that's very understandable given how fragile Bitcoin is (specially at this early stage). Looking back, I now realize that his concerns were not exaggerated at all and I was clearly wrong thinking Gavin was overly conservative. He was also worried about the payment protocol and we agreed to disagree there (maybe I should read all the payment protocol stuff more deeply). I don't want this to be taken as an argument of authority Mike and Gavin cannot be trusted because Amir didn't trust them, just as a curious anecdote. Amir, I wouldn't like to put words in your mouth: that's why I cc'ed you so you can correct me in case my memory is failing. ___ 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
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
Am 18.08.2015 um 11:15 schrieb Warren Togami Jr.: I honestly don't understand your position, but I get the sense that you are suggesting Satoshi wouldn't be welcome to return if he wanted to be active in development again? Who am I? Personally I have zero objection if the creator steps in. I think he would be highly welcome by the most people. At first I had the impression that the email was a fake, but maybe I was wrong. At the moment I think: Maybe it's even the best if we do not know exactly whether it was Satoshi or not. Unanimity is mission critical for Bitcoin and must be an absolute priority. If not the vast majority is in favor for a fork, then the fork should be avoided until a consensus is found. Even if it takes until the cows come home. But it is very likely now that it will come to a fork. No matter which site will win, this will produce a lot of humiliated people at the end. That's not good and leads to bitterness on both sites. - oliver ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
And this is how the powers that be compromise bitcoin. They can't stop TCP/IP, but they sure can take over the development team. It's a good thing that no one from the CIA has had any conversations with anyone from the bitcoin development team. Phew... On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: Am 18.08.2015 um 11:15 schrieb Warren Togami Jr.: I honestly don't understand your position, but I get the sense that you are suggesting Satoshi wouldn't be welcome to return if he wanted to be active in development again? Who am I? Personally I have zero objection if the creator steps in. I think he would be highly welcome by the most people. At first I had the impression that the email was a fake, but maybe I was wrong. At the moment I think: Maybe it's even the best if we do not know exactly whether it was Satoshi or not. Unanimity is mission critical for Bitcoin and must be an absolute priority. If not the vast majority is in favor for a fork, then the fork should be avoided until a consensus is found. Even if it takes until the cows come home. But it is very likely now that it will come to a fork. No matter which site will win, this will produce a lot of humiliated people at the end. That's not good and leads to bitterness on both sites. - oliver ___ 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
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The XT Fork (better said, a POS alt*) and those behind it make not even a pretense to work through process involved with bitcoin developmen t. (*This is not intended as a slight toward any other alts, as here in this post I am focusing solely on XT.) Instead of abandoning their useless project, or at least conceding that their alt is operating essentially outside of the development funnel (by this I mean BIP process), the developers of XT, via their latest presentation of XT give nothing more than an attack on bitcoin (albeit one that, more than anything, is designed to sidetrack real discussion necessary to resolve the issues so as to achieve some level of consensus in block size debates). Curiously, XT is not even truly the implementation of BIP 101; the actual proposed implementation of BIP 101 as proposed at https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki#implement ation is found here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6341 (It is currently a closed issue.) It's probably valid to call into question why Mike Hearn in particular persists with this project at all, as he has been its biggest cheerleader. Some reasons may be: 1) His interest in attacking bitcoin in the past (seems to be a recurring pattern) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333824.0 2) His employment (has come up before) - QinetiQ, Google, etc https://plus.google.com/+MikeHearn/about - it's simply not unreasonable to ask why he's pushing it so hard when nobody wants it. 3) Various reasons mentioned here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39yaug/the_history_of_mike_hea rn_and_why_you_should_not/ 4) His disinterest in following what is actually happening with votes on legitimate proposals (e.g. Garzik's BIP 100) in the blocks. (Caveat ~ one doesn't see the BIP 100 yet in bitcoin/bips because it won't appear for another couple weeks, supposedly. The miners' voting is already happening however.) Even according to http://xtnodes.com/ we see that XT runs minimal nodes in comparison to the rest of nodes being run across the network. BIP 100 itself is anticipated to be submitted w/ implementation in the next 2 weeks and many miners are already voting on BIP 100 (as per Jeff Garzik, from a post 08/12/2015 12:46 PM -0400 to this mailing list) . It is an insult to see Hearn fling the XT turd into the community repeatedly. How then to end this XT madness? The ring was made in the fires of Mount Doom. Only there can it be unmade. The ring must be taken deep into Mordor and cast back into the fiery chasm from whence it came. One of you must do this. - - Lord Elrond Do not download this loathsome XT thing. Cast it back into the fires from whence it came. - -Odinn On 08/15/2015 10:43 AM, Satoshi Nakamoto via bitcoin-dev wrote: I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork. The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the original vision they claim to honour. They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism. If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what Bitcoin is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold. Satoshi Nakamoto ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
I honestly don't understand your position, but I get the sense that you are suggesting Satoshi wouldn't be welcome to return if he wanted to be active in development again? Warren On Aug 17, 2015 1:38 PM, Oliver Egginger bitc...@olivere.de wrote: Am 17.08.2015 um 21:03 schrieb Warren Togami Jr.: This bitcoin-dev list restarted with an empty subscriber list on June 21st, 2015. So whoever posted from sato...@vistomail.com mailto:sato...@vistomail.com subscribed and verified the address recently. Do you propose that we manually approve new subscribers to prevent these kind of abuses as you put it? I would simply block the creators old email addresses. Easy with Mailman. I thought that would be a good and easy approach, but maybe I'm wrong. Some believes it is possible that the email could be genuine. Some say that only the content is important. I have closely followed. An interesting discussion. Thank you all so far. But let's say the poster would be the real Satoshi. Would we discuss his posting if he would not claim to be Satoshi? There are a lot of smart people on this list, which publish occasionally quite useful ideas. But much of this is hardly the subject of greater discussion. Especially not when it comes to the blocksize. On this subject almost everything has been already said. But not yet by everyone. Especially not by Satoshi. Satoshi would have a decisive influence on the community. I'm sure. To say it does not matter who's talking is maybe genteelly but a little bit remote from everyday life. Or not? Satoshi is the creator. What he says is in the newspaper and is perceived by all. If he says it's okay to do nothing as long as we stand together, then people have the courage to do maybe something dangerous or something wrong. Then people only follow their hearts. Otherwise they follow their fear. It is a paradox of the human nature that some type of Dictatorship can make you free. I say some type, not any type. Enough said. - oliver ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
Am 15.08.2015 um 19:43 schrieb Satoshi Nakamoto via bitcoin-dev: I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork. The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the original vision they claim to honour. They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism. If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what Bitcoin is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold. Satoshi Nakamoto That made it to the news and is now discussed in various places. Could you please delete Satoshis old email addresses from the list and block them? Sorry to post this to all members but I can't find an owner for this list. - oliver ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
On Aug 17, 2015 1:40 PM, Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: That made it to the news and is now discussed in various places. Could you please delete Satoshis old email addresses from the list and block them? Sorry to post this to all members but I can't find an owner for this list. Why should we block any email address? ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
Am 17.08.2015 um 13:44 schrieb Jorge Timón: On Aug 17, 2015 1:40 PM, Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: That made it to the news and is now discussed in various places. Could you please delete Satoshis old email addresses from the list and block them? Sorry to post this to all members but I can't find an owner for this list. Why should we block any email address? To avoid such discussions. - oliver ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
At http://media.scmagazine.com/documents/127/virtual_currency_rules_31557.pdf, section 200.3(c)(2) lists consumers that utilize Virtual Currency solely for the purchase or sale of goods or services or for investment purposes as Persons [who] are exempt from the licensing requirements. Who else is left? On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Theo Chino via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: Hello, I might have a crazy simple solution. From the literature I read, it seems that Satochi has the keys that would authenticate him using Bitcoin. HBO John Oliver's program might have given me (and hopefully others) the brilliant idea to protect the Bitcoin network from the overzealous reach of the politicians. One need to start a Church, and to start the Church one need funds (121UZ1hDs9MgCHonA8vjXr89D8FuDf5c7t) to start. John Oliver's program on HBO about Churches (and the hypocrisy of some) was epic and such entity could argue that Bitcoin is a belief system (which it is) and would force the issue at a Federal level under the Church and State separation. - John's video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJAVZxXg At this time, I am waiting for the License issue to walk its course in New York State. Currently: - I am waiting for my License to be denied (to protest) and appeal it. - Waiting to hear from the License process to appeal the law in general. - Meeting Elected officials (in New York City, NY State, and France) and educating them on Bitcoin. Every time we (the community) talk about Bitcoin, it can sound like religion; therefore why not go all the way and do what John Oliver did ? Seed money would help. :) Regarding the Fork, from my perspective of a small company, I see that like it was with IRC with the ICMP node split. The Church thing is not here to take side but to try to protect the Bitcoin. We will need to ordain ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study setup by the developers. In short I am asking Satochi to help this church with original coins. If it is a troll, I am talking to the Dev Community at large to recruit them to ordain the ministers. Regards, *Theo Chino* *https://www.facebook.com/groups/557495624389384 https://www.facebook.com/groups/557495624389384 (NY State)http://frenchmorning.com/en/2014/08/18/french-robin-hood-bitcoin-new-york http://frenchmorning.com/en/2014/08/18/french-robin-hood-bitcoin-new-york* *(My position on the fork is still the same as when I ran for a seat of the Foundation; still don't have enough information and thing will move faster than I can devote the time to read about it.)* On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: For the record I would like to share my technical analysis of the Satoshi email which I wrote in a pastebin (http://pastebin.com/Ct5M8fa2) a few days ago. 1. The email is the one used by Satoshi to announce Bitcoin in the first place. http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2008-October/014810.html 2. The email was not spoofed, it actually originated from vistomail's server. The email headers show the email originated from 190.97.163.93 and the SPF records show this as an authorised sender for the email. This does not prove the account wasn't hacked of course, or that the account might have expired and be re-registered by someone else (vistomail is a paid for email provider). 3. While the email is not signed, and there are a number of PGP keys listed on key servers for him (to vary addresses), he didnt sign any emails with any PGP keys. It is therefore not possible to outright dismiss the email's authenticity as the email originates from an authentic source. The only questions is whether the webmail service was hacked or commandeered somehow. ___ 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 -- I like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do you need a techie? I own Litmocracy http://www.litmocracy.com and Meme Racing http://www.memeracing.net (in alpha). I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist http://www.voluntaryist.com which now accepts Bitcoin. I also code for The Dollar Vigilante http://dollarvigilante.com/. He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules - Satoshi Nakamoto ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: Would we discuss his posting if he would not claim to be Satoshi? There are a lot of smart people on this list, which publish occasionally quite useful ideas. I actually learned something important and infulential in my thinking from the post. So I am happy it happened regardless of the other things around it. Because of the _very_ poor SNR on the list right now I'm not sure if I would have seen it if it were sent by JoeBob. (This is a greater issue, and I'm not suggesting that people start posting with fake identities to get over the noise floor... but I'm just presenting the facts of it as I see them here). The rest of the traffic, not so useful, thank heavens for threaded mail user agents. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Oliver Egginger bitc...@olivere.de wrote: Am 17.08.2015 um 18:32 schrieb Jorge Timón: On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Oliver Egginger bitc...@olivere.de wrote: Am 17.08.2015 um 13:44 schrieb Jorge Timón: On Aug 17, 2015 1:40 PM, Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: That made it to the news and is now discussed in various places. Could you please delete Satoshis old email addresses from the list and block them? Sorry to post this to all members but I can't find an owner for this list. Why should we block any email address? To avoid such discussions. You mean to avoid discussions about his authenticity? Should that matter at all? Does the content of the post matter less than its author? It just creates confusion. Particularly in the media. I also find it unfair if people abuses Satoshi's name to submit their personal views on an issue. Yes, people have been abusing his name in the block size debate to present their own personal views, almost from the beginning, and that has been very annoying. But I don't remember you proposing to block their emails from the list in those occasions. For all I know this could have been the real Satoshi. But I just maintain what I've said when arguments of authority (an old fallacy) have been used: only the arguments matter, not who makes them (which is also what logic says). Maybe the people using the arguments of authority actually care about whether the author is Satoshi or not to determine what they think about what the content says. But I personally don't care: I can say that I agree with what the post says no matter if it is written by Satoshi or someone else (because the identity of the author doesn't change what I think of the content). ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: To avoid such discussions. You seem to be assuming that there is specific reason to believe the message is unauthentic. This is not the case. Contrary to other poster's claims, if the message had been PGP signed that might, in fact, have arguably been weak evidence that it was unauthentic: no message from the system's creator that I (or apparently anyone) was aware of was ever signed with that key. The headers on the message check out. The mail server in question is also not an open relay. At the moment the only reason I have to doubt the authenticity of it is merely the fact that it exists after so much air silence, but that isn't especially strong. In the presence of doubt, it's better to take it just for its content. And on that front it is more on-topic, civil, and productively directed than a substantial fraction of new messages on the list. I certainly do not see a reason to hide it. A focus on the content is especially relevant because one of the core messages in the content is a request to eschew arguments from authority; which is perhaps the greatest challenge here: How can the founder of a system speak up to ask people to reject that kind of argument without implicitly endorsing that approach through their own act? This whole tangest is a waste of time. If you believe the message is unauthentic or not the best response is the same as if it is authentic. Focus on the content. If its worth responding to, do. If it's not don't. Then move on with life. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
In times of controversy or flamewar on the Linux kernel mailing list, occasionally fake Linus Torvalds or other spoofed posts would appear. It is the nature of email. Just ignore it. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
Am 17.08.2015 um 18:32 schrieb Jorge Timón: On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Oliver Egginger bitc...@olivere.de wrote: Am 17.08.2015 um 13:44 schrieb Jorge Timón: On Aug 17, 2015 1:40 PM, Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: That made it to the news and is now discussed in various places. Could you please delete Satoshis old email addresses from the list and block them? Sorry to post this to all members but I can't find an owner for this list. Why should we block any email address? To avoid such discussions. You mean to avoid discussions about his authenticity? Should that matter at all? Does the content of the post matter less than its author? It just creates confusion. Particularly in the media. I also find it unfair if people abuses Satoshi's name to submit their personal views on an issue. - oliver ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 7:16 PM, Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: On 15 August 2015 at 18:43, Satoshi Nakamoto via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism. Is he talking about full nodes i.e. validating-only, or nodes in the sense of the original whitepaper (i.e. miners)? Because there is already plenty of incentive for running a node (i.e. the coinbase). One can mine without running a node, unfortunately, thats where the comments about pooled mining come from. Also, this distionction between full nodes that Validate and (presumably) SPV wallets that don't validate isn't consistent with the design of Bitcoin. enter the mining game. A bit like making P2Pool the one and only pool allowed on the network. Thats been suggested, though scalablity reasons make this hard: in the P2Pool design there is a substantial tradeoff in variance reduction vs communicatoin costs. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:28 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: enter the mining game. A bit like making P2Pool the one and only pool allowed on the network. Thats been suggested, though scalablity reasons make this hard: in the P2Pool design there is a substantial tradeoff in variance reduction vs communicatoin costs. Pools could be somehow required to do p2pool between them, but there would still be pools to further reduce variance, no? ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Oliver Egginger bitc...@olivere.de wrote: Am 17.08.2015 um 13:44 schrieb Jorge Timón: On Aug 17, 2015 1:40 PM, Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: That made it to the news and is now discussed in various places. Could you please delete Satoshis old email addresses from the list and block them? Sorry to post this to all members but I can't find an owner for this list. Why should we block any email address? To avoid such discussions. You mean to avoid discussions about his authenticity? Should that matter at all? Does the content of the post matter less than its author? ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
Am 17.08.2015 um 21:03 schrieb Warren Togami Jr.: This bitcoin-dev list restarted with an empty subscriber list on June 21st, 2015. So whoever posted from sato...@vistomail.com mailto:sato...@vistomail.com subscribed and verified the address recently. Do you propose that we manually approve new subscribers to prevent these kind of abuses as you put it? I would simply block the creators old email addresses. Easy with Mailman. I thought that would be a good and easy approach, but maybe I'm wrong. Some believes it is possible that the email could be genuine. Some say that only the content is important. I have closely followed. An interesting discussion. Thank you all so far. But let's say the poster would be the real Satoshi. Would we discuss his posting if he would not claim to be Satoshi? There are a lot of smart people on this list, which publish occasionally quite useful ideas. But much of this is hardly the subject of greater discussion. Especially not when it comes to the blocksize. On this subject almost everything has been already said. But not yet by everyone. Especially not by Satoshi. Satoshi would have a decisive influence on the community. I'm sure. To say it does not matter who's talking is maybe genteelly but a little bit remote from everyday life. Or not? Satoshi is the creator. What he says is in the newspaper and is perceived by all. If he says it's okay to do nothing as long as we stand together, then people have the courage to do maybe something dangerous or something wrong. Then people only follow their hearts. Otherwise they follow their fear. It is a paradox of the human nature that some type of Dictatorship can make you free. I say some type, not any type. Enough said. - oliver ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
