Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segregated witness softfork with moderate adoption has very small block size effect

[Santino Napolitano via bitcoin-dev]

I disagree. I think all client-side adoption of SW reliably tells you is that 
those implementers saw value in it greater than the cost of implementation. 
It's possible what they valued was the malleability fix and didn't see the 
limited potential circumvention of MAX_BLOCK_SIZE material to their decision.

They could just as easily attach an OP_RETURN output to all of their 
transactions which pushes "big blocks please" which would more directly 
indicate their preference for larger blocks. You could also let hand-signed 
letters from the heads of businesses explicitly stating their desire speak for 
their intentions vs. any of this nonsense. Or the media interviews, forum 
comments, tweets, etc...

19.12.2015, 20:43, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" 
:
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 11:49:25AM -0500, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>  I have done some calculation for the effect of a SW softfork on the
>>  actual total block size.
>
> Note how the fact that segwit needs client-side adoption to enable an
> actual blocksize increase can be a good thing: it's a clear sign that
> the ecosystem as a whole has opted-into a blocksize increase.
>
> Not as good as a direct proof-of-stake vote, and somewhat coercive as a
> vote as you pay lower fees, but it's an interesting side-effect.
>
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 0188b6321da7feae60d74c7b0becbdab3b1a0bd57f10947d
> ,
>
> ___
> 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] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

[Santino Napolitano via bitcoin-dev]

While this isn't really the place to discuss it, I respectfully disagree. Mike 
appears to be making a point concerning Bitcoin protocol authorship and on the 
perceived value of soft-forks. It doesn't look like simple trolling to me. Mike 
and Gregory are both extremely intelligent and well-versed in Bitcoin and both 
should be listened to earnestly and equally while receiving our full 
professional respect.

At this stage it's becoming readily apparent to at least me (and without 
putting words into his mouth it would seem Gavin has experienced a similar 
realisation; please correct if I'm mistaken) that Bitcoin protocol authorship 
and individual implementation development need to be separated asap. I have no 
suggestions for the structure of this separation but as soon as it happens the 
better, IMO. It's likely messages like this would then no longer be seen on 
this list and Bitcoin Core developers could focus on their implementation's 
development free from distraction while other implementers and Core developers 
could discuss protocol issues in a more relevant forum in a more civilized and 
constructive manner.

05.10.2015, 23:05, "Steven Pine via bitcoin-dev" 
:
>  It's pretty clear Mike has turned into  concern troll and bully. He insults 
> people, mischaracterizes others, quibbles over words and definitions and has 
> stated numerous times in other forums he has no interest in building 
> consensus changes he doesn't agree with himself.
>
>  He's lost his integrity and trust and why the core developers waste their 
> time with his antics is beyond me, let Mike fork Bitcoin, develop XT, and 
> ignore his input on core unless some XT feature is deemed good enough to 
> incorporate, that is how a thousand other open source projects deal with 
> trolls like Mike.
>
>  On Oct 5, 2015 3:41 PM, "Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev" 
>  wrote:
>>  On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
>>   wrote:
>>>  It is an eloquent change, but not really the topic we were discussing. It 
>>> also
>>>  makes you attack Mike (calling him out as having a strawman) without basis.
>>>  For the second time in this thread.
>>>  I would suggest arguing on the topic, not on the man.
>>
>>  Such a shame you appear to reserve that wisdom for those you disagree
>>  with, biting your tongue when others emit all forms of ad hominem--
>>  such as suggesting we've spent less volunteer time on Bitcoin and thus
>>  our opinion has less merit (or that we haven't written certian kinds
>>  of software (even when, ironically, we have!), and thus our opinion
>>  doesn't have merit, and so on). I think everyone would benefit from
>>  it, especially as that kind of correction is best received from
>>  someone who agrees with you.
>>
>>  In this case, I think, however your correction is also misplaced at
>>  least on this message; though I would otherwise welcome it.  I'm not
>>  complaining about the man; but pointing out the behavior of stating an
>>  opinion no one as held as theirs and attacking it is not a productive
>>  way to hold a discussion. It's an argument or a behavior, not a
>>  person, and beyond calling it bad I attempted to explaining (perhaps
>>  poorly) why its bad.
>>
>>  What Sergio is saying is not the same; Mike argued some established
>>  criteria existed where it didn't-- and I was pointing that out; and
>>  talking about how the situation here is not very similar to the one
>>  that Mike was trying to draw a parallel to. I enumerated a number of
>>  specific reasons why this is the case. If the differences between
>>  Sergio's comments and mine are still unclear after this clarification,
>>  I'd be glad to talk it through with you off-list-- in spite of your
>>  (welcome) compliments, communication is just fundamentally difficult,
>>  and no amount eloquence changes that. If there is continued
>>  misunderstanding, I do not doubt its my fault; but it's probably not a
>>  good use of hundreds/thousands of people's time for you to help me
>>  interactively improve my explanation on list. :)
>>  ___
>>  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
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

[bitcoin-dev] Why soft-forks? was: Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!

[Santino Napolitano via bitcoin-dev]

> So I'll repeat the question that I posed before - given that there are clear, 
> explicit downsides,
> what is the purpose of doing things this way? Where is the gain for ordinary 
> Bitcoin users?

+1 for a direct answer to this question.
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

[Santino Napolitano via bitcoin-dev]

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