[bitcoin-dev] Annoucing Not-BitcoinXT
odinn.cyberguerrilla at riseup.net
Wed Aug 19 03:49:06 UTC 2015
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 08/17/2015 07:36 AM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Thank you Eric for saying what needs to be said.
> Starting a fork war is just not constructive and there are
> multiple proposals being evaluated here.
> I think that one thing that is not being so much focussed on is
> Bitcoin-XT is both a hard-fork and a soft-fork. It's a hard-fork
> on Bitcoin full-nodes, but it is also a soft-fork attack on Bitcoin
> core SPV nodes that did not opt-in. It exposes those SPV nodes to
> loss in the likely event that Bitcoin-XT results in a
> The recent proposal here to run noXT (patch to falsely claim to
> mine on XT while actually rejecting it's blocks) could add enough
> uncertainty about the activation that Bitcoin-XT would probably
> have to be aborted.
> On 17 August 2015 at 15:03, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> In the entire history of Bitcoin we’ve never attempted anything
>> even closely resembling a hard fork like what’s being proposed
>> Many of us have wanted to push our own hard-forking changes to
>> the protocol…and have been frustrated because of the inability to
>> do so.
>> This inability is not due to any malice on anyone’s part…it is a
>> feature of Satoshi’s protocol. For better or worse, it is *very
>> hard* to change the rules…and this is exactly what imbues Bitcoin
>> with one of its most powerful attributes: very well-defined
>> settlement guarantees that cannot be suddenly altered nor
>> reversed by anyone.
>> We’ve managed to have a few soft forks in the past…and for the
>> most part these changes have been pretty uncontroversial…or at
>> least, they have not had nearly the level of political
>> divisiveness that this block size issue is having. And even then,
>> we’ve encountered a number of problems with these deployments
>> that have at times required goodwill cooperation between
>> developers and mining pool operators to fix.
>> Again, we have NEVER attempted anything even remotely like what’s
>> being proposed - we’ve never done any sort of hard fork before
>> like this. If even fairly uncontroversial soft forks have caused
>> problems, can you imagine the kinds of potential problems that a
>> hard fork over some highly polarizing issue might raise? Do you
>> really think people are going to want to cooperate?!?
>> I can understand that some people would like bigger blocks. Other
>> people might want feature X, others feature Y…and we can argue
>> the merits of this or that to death…but the fact remains that we
>> have NEVER attempted any hard forking change…not even with a
>> simple, totally uncontroversial no-brainer improvement that would
>> not risk any sort of ill-will that could hamper remedies were it
>> not to go as smoothly as we like. *THIS* is the fundamental
>> problem - the whole bigger block thing is a minor issue by
>> comparison…it could be any controversial change, really.
>> Would you want to send your test pilots on their first flight…the
>> first time an aircraft is ever flown…directly into combat without
>> having tested the plane? This is what attempting a hard fork
>> mechanism that’s NEVER been done before in such a politically
>> divisive environment basically amounts to…but it’s even worse.
>> We’re basically risking the entire air force (not just one plane)
>> over an argument regarding how many seats a plane should have
>> that we’ve never flown before.
>> We’re talking billlions of dollars’ worth of other people’s money
>> that is on the line here. Don’t we owe it to them to at least
>> test out the system on a far less controversial, far less
>> divisive change first to make sure we can even deploy it without
>> things breaking? I don’t even care about the merits regarding
>> bigger blocks vs. smaller blocks at this point, to be quite
>> honest - that’s such a petty thing compared to what I’m talking
>> about here. If we attempt a novel hard-forking mechanism that’s
>> NEVER been attempted before (and which as many have pointed out
>> is potentially fraught with serious problems) on such a
>> politically divisive, polarizing issue, the result is each side
>> will refuse to cooperate with the other out of spite…and can
>> easily lead to a war, tanking the value of everyone’s assets on
>> both chains. All so we can process 8 times the number of
>> transactions we currently do? Even if it were 100 times, we
>> wouldn’t even come close to touching big payment processors like
>> Visa. It’s hard to imagine a protocol improvement that’s worth
>> the risk.
>> I urge you to at least try to see the bigger picture here…and to
>> understand that nobody is trying to stop anyone from doing
>> anything out of some desire for maintaining control - NONE of us
>> are able to deploy hard forks right now without facing these
>> problems. And different people obviously have different
>> priorities and preferences as to which of these changes would be
>> best to do first. This whole XT thing is essentially giving *one*
>> proposal special treatment above those that others have proposed.
>> Many of us have only held back from doing this out of our belief
>> that goodwill amongst network participants is more important than
>> trying to push some pet feature some of us want.
>> Please stop this negativity - we ALL want the best for Bitcoin
>> and are doing our best, given what we understand and know, to do
>> what’s right.
> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing
> list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the bitcoin-dev