Re: [Bitcoin-development] improving development model (Re: Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers

2015-06-19 Thread Tom Harding
On 6/19/2015 6:43 AM, Mike Hearn wrote:
 No surprise, the position of Blockstream employees is that hard forks
 must never happen and that everyone's ordinary transactions should go
 via some new network that doesn't yet exist.

If my company were working on spiffy new ideas that required a hard fork
to implement, I'd be rather dismayed to see the blocksize hard fork
happen *before those ideas were ready*.

Because then I'd eventually have to convince people that those ideas
were worth a hard fork all on their own.  It would be much easier to
convince people to roll them in with the already necessary blocksize
hard fork, if that event could be delayed.

As far as I know, Blockstream representatives have never said that
waiting for other changes to be ready is a reason to delay the blocksize
hard fork.  So if this were the real reason, it would suggest they have
been hiding their true motives for making such a fuss about the
blocksize issue.

I've got no evidence at all to support thoughts like this... just the
paranoid mindset that seems to infect a person who gets involved in
bitcoin.  But the question is every bit as valid as Adam's query into
your motives.



--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


Re: [Bitcoin-development] improving development model (Re: Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers

2015-06-19 Thread Mike Hearn
Hi Adam,

I am still confused about whether you actually support an increase in the
block size limit to happen right now. As you agree that this layer 2 you
speak of doesn't exist yet, and won't within the next 10-12 months (do you
agree that actually?), can you please state clearly that you will support
Gavin's patch once posted? As Gavin's work takes some ideas from BIP100 but
does/soon will have some code associated with it.

But if we do no RD on layer2, and insist that clients can never
 change to become layer2 aware, and layer2 is too hard etc


I think there's been some confusion here.

I, at least, have never argued that other systems can *never* happen. Never
is a long time, and I myself maintain a payment channels implementation.
These things have their place.

The argument is solely around the need to raise the block size *now* and
not allow the existing layer 1 to gum up and fall over.

If Stroem or Lightning or other block chains or Coinbase or secure hardware
tokens or whatever take off and people start moving bitcoins around that
way - fine. If they're choosing it of their own free will I have no issue
with that, nor does anyone else, I suspect.

However you don't seem fully confident that people actually will choose
whatever is being cooked up as layer 2, if left to their own devices.
Indeed it's impossible for anyone to know that, as no layer 2 actually
exists. Any such implementation could have all sorts of flaws that lead to
it not gaining traction.


 No offence but please find a way to gracefully stop and rejoin the
 constructive process. You can disagree on factors and points and be
 collaborative others disagree frequently and have done productive work
 cordially for years  under the BIP process.


As you know from the discussion with myself and Gavin a few days ago on
IRC, neither of us believe any such constructive process exists. There is
another thread to discuss the lack of such a process.


 - Did you accept payment from companies to lobby for 20MB blocks?


Oh please. Conspiracy theories, now, Adam? My position has been consistent
for years. I don't care whether the figure is 20 or something else (looks
like it'll be lucky 8 instead), but I have always been clear that the limit
must rise.

But for the avoidance of doubt: the answer is no.

Gavin is paid by MIT. The MIT deal gives Gavin complete independence.

I am currently self employed and most of income comes from a client that is
actually interested in Lighthouse. Luckily they have given me some leeway
to do general Bitcoin development as well, which this business falls under.
I would *much* rather be working on Lighthouse than this, and so would they.

But seeing as you've gone there - let me flip this around. Blockstream has
a very serious conflict of interest in this situation. I am by no means the
first to observe this. You are building two major products:

   1. Sidechains, a very complex approach to avoid changing the Bitcoin
   consensus rules to add new features.
   2. Lightning, a so-called layer two system for transaction routing

No surprise, the position of Blockstream employees is that hard forks must
never happen and that everyone's ordinary transactions should go via some
new network that doesn't yet exist.

The problem is that rather than letting the market decide between ordinary
Bitcoin and Lightning, you are attempting to strangle the regular Bitcoin
protocol because you don't trust people to spontaneously realise that they
should be using your companies products.

I know that many of you guys had these views before joining Blockstream. I
am not saying you are being paid to have views you didn't previously have.
I realise that birds of a feather flock together.

Regardless, that conflict of interest DOES exist, whether you like it or
not, because if you succeed in running Bitcoin out of capacity your own
company stands to benefit from selling consulting and services around your
preferred solutions.

With respect to user rights: all the polling done so far suggests users who
are paying attention strongly support increasing the block size. For
example:

Q: Should the bitcoin block size be raised in the next two years
A: 92% yes

http://www.poll-maker.com/results329839xee274Cb0-12#tab-2

Additionally, many Bitcoin users have explicitly delegated handling the
technical details to someone else, like a payment processor or their wallet
developers. Those people are nearly all sure that the block size limit
should rise too.

So please don't engage in idle speculation about users vs companies. They
aren't some kind of opposing forces. Companies live for their users, and
many of those companies were formed by long time Bitcoin users.

And finally, the Bitcoin social contract is not defined by whatever random
state the code was in at the time Gavin decided to focus on research. Both
Gavin and I have been working on Bitcoin longer than you, Gregory or Peter
Todd. The social contract was and still is defined by the 

Re: [Bitcoin-development] improving development model (Re: Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers

2015-06-19 Thread Eric Lombrozo
IPv4 came before IPv6…you pick up on things quickly :)

 On Jun 19, 2015, at 5:48 AM, Marcel Jamin mar...@jamin.net wrote:
 
  At the risk of stating cliches, the Mac came before the Windows PC…Yahoo! 
  came before Google…MySpace came before Facebook…
 
 And TCP/IP came before... oh wait...
 
 2015-06-19 14:02 GMT+02:00 Eric Lombrozo elombr...@gmail.com 
 mailto:elombr...@gmail.com:
 
 On Jun 19, 2015, at 3:45 AM, Dr Adam Back a...@cypherspace.org 
 mailto:a...@cypherspace.org wrote:
 
 That wont be good for the companies either, but they may not see that
 until they've killed it, many companies operate on a1 or 2 year
 time-horizon.  They may say screw layer2, I have a runway and I need
 micropayments to the wazoo and I dont have the dev resources for that.
 
 Exactly, Adam.
 
 Except, I think the genie is out of the bottle - these ideas are too powerful 
 for them to be killed forever. They will probably survive even if this 
 scenario comes to pass…but in a different network under a different name…and 
 Bitcoin will be relegated to the history books and walls of museums.
 
 Most of the potential brainpower available on this Earth to make serious, 
 profound contributions to this movement haven’t even begun to touch it. Just 
 because you happen to run a Bitcoin startup right now…even if you’ve received 
 millions of dollars in funding…don’t think that the whole world has low 
 standards and is lazy! Someone WILL eventually build something better than we 
 can presently imagine.
 
 First mover advantage and the network effect are vastly overrated. At the 
 risk of stating cliches, the Mac came before the Windows PC…Yahoo! came 
 before Google…MySpace came before Facebook…Bitcoin came before we don’t know 
 yet.
 
 
 - Eric Lombrozo
 
 --
 
 ___
 Bitcoin-development mailing list
 Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net 
 mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development 
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
 
 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


Re: [Bitcoin-development] improving development model (Re: Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers

2015-06-19 Thread Eric Lombrozo

 On Jun 19, 2015, at 3:45 AM, Dr Adam Back a...@cypherspace.org 
 mailto:a...@cypherspace.org wrote:
 
 That wont be good for the companies either, but they may not see that
 until they've killed it, many companies operate on a1 or 2 year
 time-horizon.  They may say screw layer2, I have a runway and I need
 micropayments to the wazoo and I dont have the dev resources for that.

Exactly, Adam.

Except, I think the genie is out of the bottle - these ideas are too powerful 
for them to be killed forever. They will probably survive even if this scenario 
comes to pass…but in a different network under a different name…and Bitcoin 
will be relegated to the history books and walls of museums.

Most of the potential brainpower available on this Earth to make serious, 
profound contributions to this movement haven’t even begun to touch it. Just 
because you happen to run a Bitcoin startup right now…even if you’ve received 
millions of dollars in funding…don’t think that the whole world has low 
standards and is lazy! Someone WILL eventually build something better than we 
can presently imagine.

First mover advantage and the network effect are vastly overrated. At the risk 
of stating cliches, the Mac came before the Windows PC…Yahoo! came before 
Google…MySpace came before Facebook…Bitcoin came before we don’t know yet.


- Eric Lombrozo


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development


Re: [Bitcoin-development] improving development model (Re: Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers

2015-06-19 Thread Milly Bitcoin
 - Did you accept payment from companies to lobby for 20MB blocks? Do 
you consider that something appropriate to publicly disclose if so? Do 
you consider that user rights should come above or below company 
interests in Bitcoin? FWIW on pondering that last question should user 
rights come above or below company interests I think my view of the 
guiding principle is starkly clear to me: that user rights should be the 
primary thing to optimise for. Businesses are providing service to 
users, their interests are secondary in so far as if they are enabled to 
provide better service thats good. Bitcoin is a user p2p currency, with 
a social contract and a strong user ethos. Importing and forcing company 
interests would likely be the start of a slippery slope towards an end 
to Bitcoin.

I always thought is was the exact opposite.  I thought it was expected 
that the only incentive for developers (other than increasing the value 
of coins they hold) is to lobby for changes that will benefit the 
companies that fund them.  That is the only way you are going to get 
more full time developers on board.  It focuses their efforts on  
products and services people want rather than some sort philosophical 
agenda that may be unrealistic.  The notion that large numbers of 
volunteers will do all this work at little or no pay to improve user 
experience is not a realistic long term plan.  I also think it is 
incorrect to assume some kind of social contract and strong user 
ethos.  While many early users are like that I think most potential 
users of Bitcoin don't think that way.

Russ




--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development