Re: [bitcoin-dev] Crossing the line? [Was: Re: Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!]
2015-10-02 15:14 GMT+02:00 jl2012 via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: > According to the Oxford Dictionary, "coin" as a verb means "invent (a new > word or phrase)". Undoubtedly you created the first functional SPV client > but please retract the claim "I coined the term SPV" or that's plagiarism. > > Or simply stop pursuing this silly distraction. > And I'd like to highlight the following excerpt from the whitepaper: "the > simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions > for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network. One > strategy to protect against this would be to accept alerts from network > nodes when they detect an invalid block, prompting the user's software to > download the full block and alerted transactions to confirm the > inconsistency." > > Header only clients without any fraud detecting mechanism are functional > but incomplete SPV implementations, according to Sathoshi's original > definition. This might be good enough for the first generation SPV wallet, > but eventually SPV clients should be ready to detect any rule violation in > the blockchain, including things like block size (as Satoshi mentioned > "invalid block", not just "invalid transaction"). > > Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-10-02 08:23 寫到: > >> FWIW the "coining" I am referring to is here: >> >> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=7972.msg116285#msg116285 [4] >> >> OK, with that, here goes. Firstly some terminology. I'm going to call >> these things SPV clients for "simplified payment verification". >> Headers-only is kind of a mouthful and "lightweight client" is too >> vague, as there are several other designs that could be described as >> lightweight like RPC frontend and Stefans WebCoin API approach >> >> At that time nobody used the term "SPV wallet" to refer to what apps >> like BreadWallet or libraries like bitcoinj do. Satoshi used the term >> "client only mode", Jeff was calling them "headers only client" etc. >> So I said, I'm going to call them SPV wallets after the section of the >> whitepaper that most precisely describes their operation. >> > > ___ > 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] Crossing the line? [Was: Re: Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!]
FWIW the "coining" I am referring to is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=7972.msg116285#msg116285 OK, with that, here goes. Firstly some terminology. I'm going to call these things SPV clients for "simplified payment verification". Headers-only is kind of a mouthful and "lightweight client" is too vague, as there are several other designs that could be described as lightweight like RPC frontend and Stefans WebCoin API approach At that time nobody used the term "SPV wallet" to refer to what apps like BreadWallet or libraries like bitcoinj do. Satoshi used the term "client only mode", Jeff was calling them "headers only client" etc. So I said, I'm going to call them SPV wallets after the section of the whitepaper that most precisely describes their operation. On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Jeff Garzikwrote: > To reduce the list noise level, drama level and promote inclusion, my own > personal preference (list admin hat: off, community member hat: on) is for > temporal bans based on temporal circumstances. Default to > pro-forgiveness. Also, focus on disruption of the list as a metric, rather > than focusing on a specific personality. > > I do think we're at a bit of a point where we're going around in circles. > > Given the current reddit hubbub, a bit of a cooling off period is IMO > advisable before taking any further action. > > > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> Dear list, >> >> Mike has made a variety of false and damaging statements about Bitcoin, >> of which this is but one: >> >> On Sep 30, 2015, at 2:01 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >> I coined the term SPV so I know exactly what it means, and bitcoinj >> implements it, as does BreadWallet (the other big SPV implementation). >> >> >> On his website Vinumeris.com he writes: >> >> Vinumeris was founded in 2014 by Mike Hearn, one of the developers of the >> Bitcoin digital currency system. >> >> >> On plan99.net there are several embedded videos that refer to him a >> “core developer” of Bitcoin. And now it seems he is claiming to be Satoshi. >> >> It seems to me that Mike’s emails, false statements (like the one above >> about coining SPV), arguments, and his attempts to steal control of Bitcoin >> via the contentious Bitcoin XT fork, represent actions that have been >> harming and dividing this community for several years now. >> >> In many communities/tribes, there exists a line that, once crossed, >> results in the expulsion of a member from the community. >> >> So, two questions: >> >> 1. Does the Bitcoin-devs mailing list have such a line? >> 2. If so, does the community feel that Mike Hearn has crossed it? (I >> personally feel he has. Multiple times.) >> >> Thanks for your thoughts, >> Greg Slepak >> >> -- >> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing >> with >> the NSA. >> >> >> ___ >> 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] Crossing the line? [Was: Re: Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!]
According to the Oxford Dictionary, "coin" as a verb means "invent (a new word or phrase)". Undoubtedly you created the first functional SPV client but please retract the claim "I coined the term SPV" or that's plagiarism. And I'd like to highlight the following excerpt from the whitepaper: "the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network. One strategy to protect against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect an invalid block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to confirm the inconsistency." Header only clients without any fraud detecting mechanism are functional but incomplete SPV implementations, according to Sathoshi's original definition. This might be good enough for the first generation SPV wallet, but eventually SPV clients should be ready to detect any rule violation in the blockchain, including things like block size (as Satoshi mentioned "invalid block", not just "invalid transaction"). Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-10-02 08:23 寫到: FWIW the "coining" I am referring to is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=7972.msg116285#msg116285 [4] OK, with that, here goes. Firstly some terminology. I'm going to call these things SPV clients for "simplified payment verification". Headers-only is kind of a mouthful and "lightweight client" is too vague, as there are several other designs that could be described as lightweight like RPC frontend and Stefans WebCoin API approach At that time nobody used the term "SPV wallet" to refer to what apps like BreadWallet or libraries like bitcoinj do. Satoshi used the term "client only mode", Jeff was calling them "headers only client" etc. So I said, I'm going to call them SPV wallets after the section of the whitepaper that most precisely describes their operation. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Crossing the line? [Was: Re: Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!]
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-devwrote: > At that time nobody used the term "SPV wallet" to refer to what apps like > BreadWallet or libraries like bitcoinj do. Satoshi used the term "client > only mode", Jeff was calling them "headers only client" etc. So I said, I'm > going to call them SPV wallets after the section of the whitepaper that most > precisely describes their operation. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=125.msg1149#msg1149 (a full year before your post, as someone else had already responded to you on Reddit; client mode was just what implementation inside Bitcoin was called) But this is silly. The only point I was making was that when you were referring to the limitations of BitcoinJ which would not generalize to not state it as a property of SPV I think it is preferable to make that decision,especially when it would not generalize to ones that implemented everything described in section 8, or even just more complete checks on the data they were already receiving. Who coined the tern is irrelevant to that (although you indisputably did not use even the abbreviation before others). Jtimon's later post on the misuse of fallacious arguments should have been enough that I shouldn't have to spell this out. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Crossing the line? [Was: Re: Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!]
To reduce the list noise level, drama level and promote inclusion, my own personal preference (list admin hat: off, community member hat: on) is for temporal bans based on temporal circumstances. Default to pro-forgiveness. Also, focus on disruption of the list as a metric, rather than focusing on a specific personality. I do think we're at a bit of a point where we're going around in circles. Given the current reddit hubbub, a bit of a cooling off period is IMO advisable before taking any further action. On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Dear list, > > Mike has made a variety of false and damaging statements about Bitcoin, of > which this is but one: > > On Sep 30, 2015, at 2:01 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > I coined the term SPV so I know exactly what it means, and bitcoinj > implements it, as does BreadWallet (the other big SPV implementation). > > > On his website Vinumeris.com he writes: > > Vinumeris was founded in 2014 by Mike Hearn, one of the developers of the > Bitcoin digital currency system. > > > On plan99.net there are several embedded videos that refer to him a “core > developer” of Bitcoin. And now it seems he is claiming to be Satoshi. > > It seems to me that Mike’s emails, false statements (like the one above > about coining SPV), arguments, and his attempts to steal control of Bitcoin > via the contentious Bitcoin XT fork, represent actions that have been > harming and dividing this community for several years now. > > In many communities/tribes, there exists a line that, once crossed, > results in the expulsion of a member from the community. > > So, two questions: > > 1. Does the Bitcoin-devs mailing list have such a line? > 2. If so, does the community feel that Mike Hearn has crossed it? (I > personally feel he has. Multiple times.) > > Thanks for your thoughts, > Greg Slepak > > -- > Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with > the NSA. > > > ___ > 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] Crossing the line? [Was: Re: Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!]
Given the current reddit hubbub, a bit of a cooling off period is IMO advisable before taking any further action. 2. If so, does the community feel that Mike Hearn has crossed it? (I personally feel he has. Multiple times.) I don't believe any posting by Mr. Hearn warrants any actions by some undefined community. Since I disagree with TaoEffect.com (aka "PRIVATE REGISTRANT") he has no consensus. lol Russ ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev