Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bitcoin XT isn't technically an implementation of BIP 101. It's really just an attack on the bitcoin network, not a whole different than any of a variety of attacks one could perform on the network. Facts are as follows. The published implementation

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 leadin

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 wa

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 3:00 AM, GC wrote: > 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. I should have posted that just on libbitcoin but not in bitcoin-dev. My apologies. ___

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" wrote: >By the way, now that I remember why I subscribed to the libbitcoin >list I want to share it with you. >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

On 08/19/2015 04:27 PM, Jorge Timón wrote: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Eric Voskuil 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 wrote: But the consensus code should NOT be s

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 s

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 compan

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Eric Voskuil 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 wrote: >>> But the consensus code should NOT be subject to the same commit > policies…and we should

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 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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Eric Lombrozo 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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

FWIW, I would fully like to see the consensus stuff split off into a separate organization from everything else. Let XT continue to support additional p2p messages or relay policies or whatever. Let Mike and Gavin argue for their improved wallet or whatever - I have absolutely no problem with t

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev 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 n

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 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 > wrote: >> Normal GitHub users submitting pull-reqs to Bitcoin Core can't >> delete other users' comments on their own

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

> On Aug 19, 2015, at 12:12 PM, Santino Napolitano via bitcoin-dev > 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

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 incre

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Peter Todd 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 r

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev > wrote: >> 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-for

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 06:32:14PM +0100, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > 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

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_fr

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev wrote: > 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 wa

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev wrote: > (and that in a hard fork it is not a miner vote really > as in soft-forks). I think calling it "miner vote" was the first mistake: miner's shouldn't have a "voting power" the rest of the users lack. I prefer to call it "miner upg

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

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 > I find it quite notable that

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

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 proces

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

I see no problem with Satoshi returning to participate in peer review. Bitcoin development has long since migrated from a single authority figure to a system of technical peer review consensus. What is more of a problem is this list has degenerated to a generalised discussion forum where any academ

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

"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 pas

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.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

Just to add some superfluous and unessential spice to this discussion, there were two Satoshi users originally registered in sourceforge, one registered very soon after the other. So I say Satoshi were at least two people, so it may be the case that one Satoshi re-appeared, but the other did not.

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 Egg

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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

My interpretation is that he's saying Satoshi wouldn't be welcome to return as Satoshi, because whatever he did/said would inevitably end up being treated with authority, which shouldn't be the case. On Tuesday, August 18, 2015, Warren Togami Jr. via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation

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" wrote: > Am 17.08.2015 um 21:03 schrieb Warren Togami Jr.: > > This bitco

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev 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

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

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 > subscribed and verified the address > recently. Do you propose that we manually app

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

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 rea

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

His account on that website was also compromised. 2015-08-17 21:02 GMT+02:00 Anon Moto via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: > Satoshi, > > As much as I want to believe this is you it's very difficult to ignore the > fact that Vistomail could have been hacked and I'm currently

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:28 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev 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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 7:16 PM, Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On 15 August 2015 at 18:43, Satoshi Nakamoto via bitcoin-dev > 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. valida

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 05:18:02PM +, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > To avoid such discussions. > > You seem to be assuming that there is specific reason to believe the > message is unauthentic. This is

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 4:40 AM, 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 mem

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

Satoshi, As much as I want to believe this is you it's very difficult to ignore the fact that Vistomail could have been hacked and I'm currently speaking to a troll. Can you copy and paste what you wrote above, to http://p2pfoundation.ning.com as well, like how you did during the Dorian fiasco?

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

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/014

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 h

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev 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 mig

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Oliver Egginger wrote: > Am 17.08.2015 um 18:32 schrieb Jorge Timón: >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Oliver Egginger wrote: >>> Am 17.08.2015 um 13:44 schrieb Jorge Timón: On Aug 17, 2015 1:40 PM, "Oliver Egginger via 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 wrote: >> Am 17.08.2015 um 13:44 schrieb Jorge Timón: >>> >>> On Aug 17, 2015 1:40 PM, "Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev" >>> >> > wrote: That made it to

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Oliver Egginger wrote: > Am 17.08.2015 um 13:44 schrieb Jorge Timón: >> >> On Aug 17, 2015 1:40 PM, "Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev" >> > > wrote: >>> That made it to the news and is now discussed in various places. Co

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" > > wrote: >> That made it to the news and is now discussed in various places. Could >> you please delete Satoshis old email addresses from the

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

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.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

Sounds legit. On Aug 15, 2015, at 5:43 PM, 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 re

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

Sign with the key 5EC948A1 or shut up, you scammer Satoshi Nakamoto via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-08-15 13:43 寫到: 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 wit

[bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork

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 con