[bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an experimental hardfork?

Jorge Timón jtimon at jtimon.cc
Wed Aug 19 11:06:07 UTC 2015


On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:14 PM, odinn <odinn.cyberguerrilla at riseup.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Firstly, XT is controversial, not uncontroversial;

XT it's just a software fork.
BIP101 (as currently implemented in Bitcoin XT) is a Schism hardfork
(or an altcoin), but BIP101 could be modified to be deployed like an
uncontroversial hardfork (in current bip99's draft, a given height
plus 95% mining upgrade confirmation after that).

> Third, it poses major risks as a non-peer reviewed alt with a number
> of problematic features (with the privacy problems recently mentioned
> on this list being just one of them)
>
> Fourth, it has not followed any semblance of process in terms of the
> development funnel or BIPS process, with XT developers instead
> choosing instead a dangerous path of hard forking bitcoin while being
> well aware of miner voting on viable solutions which have followed
> process.

I'm not defending the Schism hardfork being proposed. I am very
worried about it and I have publicly said so several times.
If Bitcoin XT didn't contained the Schism bip101 hardfork I wouldn't
be so worried: users are free to use software that is less reviewed at
their own risk.

> The following proposals
> http://bipsxdevs.azurewebsites.net/
> regardless of what you think of any one of them, are deserving of
> attention (BIP 100 / BIP 101) and are being voted on as you read this
> by miners. (BIP sipa is not yet numbered, and BIP 102 is a backup
> /fallback option.)  BIP 100 is probably the best of these (note, in
> part, it schedules a hardfork on testnet in September).

It's users and not miners who decide the consensus rules.

> Contentious hard forks are bad for Bitcoin.
> https://bitcoin.org/en/posts/hard-fork-policy
> You may want to read this again if you haven't recently.

You may want to read BIP99 to understand that I know this, but still
think that Schism hardforks may be necessary in some situations (I
don't think this one is reasonable though).

> There is no basis for further promoting XT by suggesting that it
> should even be tested.

All I'm saying is that Bitcoin XT the software fork is totally fine
(like other alternative Bitcoin implementations). The big problem is
BIP101 being deployed as a Schism hardfork.


More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list