[bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an experimental hardfork?
jtimon at jtimon.cc
Wed Aug 19 15:25:53 UTC 2015
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:25 PM, odinn <odinn.cyberguerrilla at riseup.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On 08/19/2015 04:06 AM, Jorge Timón wrote:
>> 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.
> Please read the whole pull request discussing this loathsome subject her
> It was fairly detailed and conclusive. I'm not being a dumdum when I
> say that it is controversial.
And I'm not trying to be a dumdum (whatever that is) when saying that
Bitcoin XT the softfork and BIP101 implemented as a schism hardfork in
Bitcoin XT are different things. One existed before the other. And if
there wasn't a schism hardfork in the making there wouldn't be any
warning about Bitcoin XT in bitcoin.org because Bitcoin XT implemented
the same consensus rules (and I think was largely ignored).
When we say "Bitcoin XT is bad" some users read "Bitcoin Core devs
think any code fork to Bitcoin Core is back because they lose control
The second is not the case: nobody complained or cared about Bitcoin
XT when it implemented the same consensus rules.
>> 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
> Everybody here is well aware of what this sad proposal is. See
> detailed reply to the moaning and groaning of Hearn on this subject,
> where he claimed that "the difference between hard and soft forks is
> actually quite small, has got smaller with time and is thus hardly the
> policy-founding chasm you seem to think it is." He was wrong, of
> course. Thus, my reply to that, which I won't bother to quote in
> detail but which you can read here:
I'm not sure I will learn anything by reading this link (I didn't
reading the previous link).
Have you read BIP99 already? Can you tell me where you disagree with
what's in BIP99 in one of its 2 threads?
> Given the state in which bitcoin is in now, one could say that things
> are fairly horrible, but by no means necessitating, as you put it, a
> schism hardfork. It is clear and evidenced by my previous posts and
> others that Hearn's efforts are an attack on the bitcoin network.
Again, I'm against this Schism hardfork but maybe I'm in favor of an
Schism hardfork in the future, I don't know.
We're both against the Schism hardfork but somehow you think I'm in
favor and are trying to change my mind.
What are we even discussing about?
>>> 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).
> It's not totally fine at all. It shouldn't even exist. People are
> doing other unsuspecting users a disservice by even suggesting that it
> should be downloaded.
Right now it shouldn't be downloaded because it contains this quite
irrational Schism hardfork.
When it was only a not-up-to-date-bitcoin/master + the commits
(non-consensus changes) Hearn would like to see in Bitcoin Core nobody
was specially worried about it.
> The big problem is
>> BIP101 being deployed as a Schism hardfork.
> This is certainly a problem.
So what are we discussing about?
More information about the bitcoin-dev