đź“… Original date posted:2015-08-17
đź“ť Original message:> On Aug 17, 2015, at 8:03 AM, Levin Keller <post at levinkeller.de> wrote:
>
> Dear Eric,
>
> thank you for sharing your thoughts.
>
> It obviously boils down to political beliefs, not so much technical arguments. I understand that you are in favor of a "guided decentralization" and you are most happily invited to follow this path. I don't want to be on it. I want total decentralisation of bitcoin and many other parts of the current system.
I specifically asked you to stop misrepresenting - I’m NOT in favor of guided decentralization, I never said anything like that. *THIS* is the problem…you’re reading intentions into others that simply are NOT there. If you don’t really understand something, ask.
I want complete decentralization - but for practical reasons, which should be obvious, we cannot start at this point. Bitcoin came into existence because Satoshi wrote a whitepaper and implemented the idea - and it was his rules. There was no voting, no committee, no proof-of-work, no nothing…it was a complete dictatorship in the beginning.
>
> So in the end the hard fork might be perfect, because people like you will not waste so much more energy and time fighting people like me (and others) who are following different dogmata because we are using different coins and talking about different code. Interestingly enough in the end we will probably have a winner - determined by the price - so I am looking forward to the outcome. It is just the time so make some bets, which I embrace.
>
> Another interesting thing is, that you actually fear problems arising from this. What do you have to loose? Just stick with the old bitcoin version and weather this storm. Bitcoin is not going to vanish or break from this. It is just forking. One fork will come stronger out of this. You just have to choose a side and live with it, if you loose it all. But that is the story of bitcoin since the beginning. If you ask me, you fear the choice, not the change.
>
Again, misrepresentation - “you fear the choice, not the change” - why should anyone ask *you* what I fear? Why don’t you ask *me*?
> Cheers
>
> Levin
>
> Adam Back via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> schrieb am Mo., 17. Aug. 2015 um 16:37 Uhr:
> 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 network-split.
>
> 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.
>
> Adam
>
> On 17 August 2015 at 15:03, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
> > NxtChg,
> >
> > In the entire history of Bitcoin we’ve never attempted anything even closely resembling a hard fork like what’s being proposed here.
> >
> > 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 <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>;
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150817/9868e4bd/attachment.html>;
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150817/9868e4bd/attachment.sig>;
Eric Lombrozo [ARCHIVE] /
npub1az…t2krq
2023-06-07 17:36:09
in reply to nevent1q…80n2
Author Public Key
npub1azvhdrf9fu6n0tm7yez4j6zcxcedp2ct6nrcq3z74naqs7kgpk8s5t2krqPublished at
2023-06-07 17:36:09Event JSON
{
"id": "a5c98bf8c3ea49d69eadc6d94b817355919d6b704f8202e604b0e66601ac2826",
"pubkey": "e899768d254f3537af7e26455968583632d0ab0bd4c780445eacfa087ac80d8f",
"created_at": 1686159369,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8bab4b65547ea525500c3da32e0aaa3f149ec5abd990afc7ae86d8eed16de657",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"151be680cee92c3425888eba813290babc66e4d64f3b045828aa91ae340ad7b8",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a45b2071acb27d4e292ae549d3ac8f24f003e25f0c5145990646328e2236f5b9"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-17\n📝 Original message:\u003e On Aug 17, 2015, at 8:03 AM, Levin Keller \u003cpost at levinkeller.de\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e Dear Eric,\n\u003e \n\u003e thank you for sharing your thoughts.\n\u003e \n\u003e It obviously boils down to political beliefs, not so much technical arguments. I understand that you are in favor of a \"guided decentralization\" and you are most happily invited to follow this path. I don't want to be on it. I want total decentralisation of bitcoin and many other parts of the current system.\n\nI specifically asked you to stop misrepresenting - I’m NOT in favor of guided decentralization, I never said anything like that. *THIS* is the problem…you’re reading intentions into others that simply are NOT there. If you don’t really understand something, ask.\n\nI want complete decentralization - but for practical reasons, which should be obvious, we cannot start at this point. Bitcoin came into existence because Satoshi wrote a whitepaper and implemented the idea - and it was his rules. There was no voting, no committee, no proof-of-work, no nothing…it was a complete dictatorship in the beginning.\n\n\u003e \n\u003e So in the end the hard fork might be perfect, because people like you will not waste so much more energy and time fighting people like me (and others) who are following different dogmata because we are using different coins and talking about different code. Interestingly enough in the end we will probably have a winner - determined by the price - so I am looking forward to the outcome. It is just the time so make some bets, which I embrace.\n\u003e \n\u003e Another interesting thing is, that you actually fear problems arising from this. What do you have to loose? Just stick with the old bitcoin version and weather this storm. Bitcoin is not going to vanish or break from this. It is just forking. One fork will come stronger out of this. You just have to choose a side and live with it, if you loose it all. But that is the story of bitcoin since the beginning. If you ask me, you fear the choice, not the change.\n\u003e \n\nAgain, misrepresentation - “you fear the choice, not the change” - why should anyone ask *you* what I fear? Why don’t you ask *me*?\n\n\n\u003e Cheers\n\u003e \n\u003e Levin\n\u003e \n\u003e Adam Back via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\u003e schrieb am Mo., 17. Aug. 2015 um 16:37 Uhr:\n\u003e Thank you Eric for saying what needs to be said.\n\u003e \n\u003e Starting a fork war is just not constructive and there are multiple\n\u003e proposals being evaluated here.\n\u003e \n\u003e I think that one thing that is not being so much focussed on is\n\u003e Bitcoin-XT is both a hard-fork and a soft-fork. It's a hard-fork on\n\u003e Bitcoin full-nodes, but it is also a soft-fork attack on Bitcoin core\n\u003e SPV nodes that did not opt-in. It exposes those SPV nodes to loss in\n\u003e the likely event that Bitcoin-XT results in a network-split.\n\u003e \n\u003e The recent proposal here to run noXT (patch to falsely claim to mine\n\u003e on XT while actually rejecting it's blocks) could add enough\n\u003e uncertainty about the activation that Bitcoin-XT would probably have\n\u003e to be aborted.\n\u003e \n\u003e Adam\n\u003e \n\u003e On 17 August 2015 at 15:03, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e NxtChg,\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e In the entire history of Bitcoin we’ve never attempted anything even closely resembling a hard fork like what’s being proposed here.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e 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.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e 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.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e 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.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e 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?!?\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e 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.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e 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.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e 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.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e 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.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e 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.\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev \u003chttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\u003e\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150817/9868e4bd/attachment.html\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 842 bytes\nDesc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150817/9868e4bd/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "b563efa0fd81e12f9484f7eeb2d31f594e8f2df3358cadf063e8f825e54f8fb3fed6e1c62702f8cf784e546c91674495e720ed32bd6ca98eb4436f95af953dad"
}