📅 Original date posted:2015-06-18
📝 Original message:On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Aaron Voisine <voisine at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> hell even some major changes to the non-consunsus code to make it
adequately handle the situation when blocks fill up
This will have to eventually be done in addition to any other "alternative"
unless the plan is to keep rising the limit until it is removed or
irrelevant.
Maybe this should be the priority? Maybe this is the "alternative" that
some no-block-size-limit proponents (meaning people who think that
centralization is not a concern when deciding the block size limit) claim
nobody was putting forward?
Anyway, it's sad that we're always mixing 2 different topics: hardfork
deployment and blocksize limit. I wish we talked more about the former, I
wish we would have talked about it it long before the block size debate
became "urgent" (or at least before it was being perceived as urgent).
We've had plenty of time to deploy non-emergency hardforks but apparently
no one was interested (say, for fixing miner but known bugs like the
timetravel attack).
In fact, I plan to eventually propose such a fork, I agree with gavin that
"hardforks aren't possible" is not an answer, though finding opposition to
a concrete hardfork in a concrete point in time doesn't mean that
"hardforks aren't possible". I believe I have proposed many more hardforks
than Gavin, all of them rejected and I still hope some of them will
eventually make it into bitcoin main.
When it was clear that wouldn't be the case I'm afraid the only answer is
creating an altcoin (like Mark and I did with Freicoin and "xtcoin" could
become [hopefully not destroying bitcoin main in the process]).
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Aaron Voisine <voisine at gmail.com> wrote:
> Wasn't the XT hard fork proposed as a last resort, should the bitcoin-core
> maintainers simply refuse to lift the 1Mb limit? No one wants to go that
> route. An alternate hard-fork proposal like BIP100 that gets consensus, or
> a modified version of gavin's that ups the limit to 8Mb instead of 20Mb, or
> hell even some major changes to the non-consunsus code to make it
> adequately handle the situation when blocks fill up, and allow wallet
> software to continue working with a send-and-forget use pattern, any of
> these would be enough to avoid the need for an XT only hard-fork.
>
> So far BIP100 is the only one that seems to actually be getting any sort
> of momentum toward consensus, and it was proposed... 2 days ago? When the
> XT fork was proposed as a last resort, it was when the opponents were (to
> my understanding) suggesting we just let blocks fill up, and hopefully
> things would just work out on their own.
>
>
>
> Aaron Voisine
> co-founder and CEO
> breadwallet.com
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Brian Hoffman <brianchoffman at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Who is actually planning to move to Bitcoin-XT if this happens?
>>
>> Just Gavin and Mike?
>>
>> [image: image1.JPG]
>>
>> On Jun 15, 2015, at 6:17 PM, Faiz Khan <faizkhan00 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm quite puzzled by the response myself, it doesn't seem to address some
>> of the (more serious) concerns that Adam put out, the most important
>> question that was asked being the one regarding personal ownership of the
>> proposed fork:
>>
>> "How do you plan to deal with security & incident response for the
>> duration you describe where you will have control while you are deploying
>> the unilateral hard-fork and being in sole maintainership control?"
>>
>> I do genuinely hope that whomever (now and future) wishes to fork the
>> protocol reconsider first whether they are truly ready to test/flex their
>> reputation/skills/resources in this way... Intuitively, to me it seems
>> counterproductive, and I don't fully believe it is within a single
>> developer's talents to manage the process start-to-finish (as it is
>> non-trivial to hard-fork successfully, others have rehashed this in other
>> threads)...
>>
>> That being said I think it appropriate if Adam's questions were responded
>> in-line when Mike is feeling up to it. I think that the answers are
>> important for the community to hear when such a drastic change is being
>> espoused.
>>
>> Faiz
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Re: anyone who agrees with noted non-programmers Mike&Gavin must be
>>>> non-technical, stupid, uninformed, etc .... OK, go ahead and show them the
>>>> error of their ways. Anyone can write blogs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I worry that if this is the level of care you take with reading and
>>> (mis)interpreting Adam's messages, that you might not be taking extreme
>>> care with evaluating consensus changes, even while tired or sleeping. I
>>> encourage you to evaluate both messages and source code more carefully,
>>> especially in the world of bitcoin. However, this goes for everyone and not
>>> just you. Specifically, when Adam mentioned your conversations with
>>> non-technical people, he did not mean "Mike has talked with people who have
>>> possibly not made pull requests to Bitcoin Core, so therefore Mike is a
>>> non-programmer". Communication is difficult and I can understand that, but
>>> we really have to be more careful when evaluating each other's messages;
>>> technical miscommunication can be catastrophic in this context. On the
>>> topic of whether you are a programmer, I suspect that ever since you built
>>> CIA.vc we have all known you're a programmer, Mike.
>>>
>>> - Bryan
>>> http://heybryan.org/
>>> 1 512 203 0507
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> My regards,
>>>
>>> Faiz Khan
>>>
>>> <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>;
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150618/5df84554/attachment.html>;
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image1.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 22107 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150618/5df84554/attachment.jpe>;
Jorge Timón [ARCHIVE] /
npub1fx…cl2d8
2023-06-07 15:38:15
in reply to nevent1q…g0av
Author Public Key
npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8Published at
2023-06-07 15:38:15Event JSON
{
"id": "6305a0538f76fe2f683460bd2d25befa8d959e1ad8f861a5c0df81cf1e302c4f",
"pubkey": "498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84",
"created_at": 1686152295,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"c55960f842472012dd9d15b2051fcbd70eb3de46e90355da852eabf498d858a6",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"0f112af8f4fd642f0d856d578c6232be9c3f3bbb7c129c0d0e88372c15b0a9cc",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-18\n📝 Original message:On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Aaron Voisine \u003cvoisine at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e hell even some major changes to the non-consunsus code to make it\nadequately handle the situation when blocks fill up\n\n\nThis will have to eventually be done in addition to any other \"alternative\"\nunless the plan is to keep rising the limit until it is removed or\nirrelevant.\n\nMaybe this should be the priority? Maybe this is the \"alternative\" that\nsome no-block-size-limit proponents (meaning people who think that\ncentralization is not a concern when deciding the block size limit) claim\nnobody was putting forward?\n\nAnyway, it's sad that we're always mixing 2 different topics: hardfork\ndeployment and blocksize limit. I wish we talked more about the former, I\nwish we would have talked about it it long before the block size debate\nbecame \"urgent\" (or at least before it was being perceived as urgent).\nWe've had plenty of time to deploy non-emergency hardforks but apparently\nno one was interested (say, for fixing miner but known bugs like the\ntimetravel attack).\nIn fact, I plan to eventually propose such a fork, I agree with gavin that\n\"hardforks aren't possible\" is not an answer, though finding opposition to\na concrete hardfork in a concrete point in time doesn't mean that\n\"hardforks aren't possible\". I believe I have proposed many more hardforks\nthan Gavin, all of them rejected and I still hope some of them will\neventually make it into bitcoin main.\nWhen it was clear that wouldn't be the case I'm afraid the only answer is\ncreating an altcoin (like Mark and I did with Freicoin and \"xtcoin\" could\nbecome [hopefully not destroying bitcoin main in the process]).\n\nOn Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Aaron Voisine \u003cvoisine at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Wasn't the XT hard fork proposed as a last resort, should the bitcoin-core\n\u003e maintainers simply refuse to lift the 1Mb limit? No one wants to go that\n\u003e route. An alternate hard-fork proposal like BIP100 that gets consensus, or\n\u003e a modified version of gavin's that ups the limit to 8Mb instead of 20Mb, or\n\u003e hell even some major changes to the non-consunsus code to make it\n\u003e adequately handle the situation when blocks fill up, and allow wallet\n\u003e software to continue working with a send-and-forget use pattern, any of\n\u003e these would be enough to avoid the need for an XT only hard-fork.\n\u003e\n\u003e So far BIP100 is the only one that seems to actually be getting any sort\n\u003e of momentum toward consensus, and it was proposed... 2 days ago? When the\n\u003e XT fork was proposed as a last resort, it was when the opponents were (to\n\u003e my understanding) suggesting we just let blocks fill up, and hopefully\n\u003e things would just work out on their own.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Aaron Voisine\n\u003e co-founder and CEO\n\u003e breadwallet.com\n\u003e\n\u003e On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Brian Hoffman \u003cbrianchoffman at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Who is actually planning to move to Bitcoin-XT if this happens?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Just Gavin and Mike?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e [image: image1.JPG]\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Jun 15, 2015, at 6:17 PM, Faiz Khan \u003cfaizkhan00 at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I'm quite puzzled by the response myself, it doesn't seem to address some\n\u003e\u003e of the (more serious) concerns that Adam put out, the most important\n\u003e\u003e question that was asked being the one regarding personal ownership of the\n\u003e\u003e proposed fork:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e \"How do you plan to deal with security \u0026 incident response for the\n\u003e\u003e duration you describe where you will have control while you are deploying\n\u003e\u003e the unilateral hard-fork and being in sole maintainership control?\"\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I do genuinely hope that whomever (now and future) wishes to fork the\n\u003e\u003e protocol reconsider first whether they are truly ready to test/flex their\n\u003e\u003e reputation/skills/resources in this way... Intuitively, to me it seems\n\u003e\u003e counterproductive, and I don't fully believe it is within a single\n\u003e\u003e developer's talents to manage the process start-to-finish (as it is\n\u003e\u003e non-trivial to hard-fork successfully, others have rehashed this in other\n\u003e\u003e threads)...\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e That being said I think it appropriate if Adam's questions were responded\n\u003e\u003e in-line when Mike is feeling up to it. I think that the answers are\n\u003e\u003e important for the community to hear when such a drastic change is being\n\u003e\u003e espoused.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Faiz\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Bryan Bishop \u003ckanzure at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Re: anyone who agrees with noted non-programmers Mike\u0026Gavin must be\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e non-technical, stupid, uninformed, etc .... OK, go ahead and show them the\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e error of their ways. Anyone can write blogs.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e I worry that if this is the level of care you take with reading and\n\u003e\u003e\u003e (mis)interpreting Adam's messages, that you might not be taking extreme\n\u003e\u003e\u003e care with evaluating consensus changes, even while tired or sleeping. I\n\u003e\u003e\u003e encourage you to evaluate both messages and source code more carefully,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e especially in the world of bitcoin. However, this goes for everyone and not\n\u003e\u003e\u003e just you. Specifically, when Adam mentioned your conversations with\n\u003e\u003e\u003e non-technical people, he did not mean \"Mike has talked with people who have\n\u003e\u003e\u003e possibly not made pull requests to Bitcoin Core, so therefore Mike is a\n\u003e\u003e\u003e non-programmer\". Communication is difficult and I can understand that, but\n\u003e\u003e\u003e we really have to be more careful when evaluating each other's messages;\n\u003e\u003e\u003e technical miscommunication can be catastrophic in this context. On the\n\u003e\u003e\u003e topic of whether you are a programmer, I suspect that ever since you built\n\u003e\u003e\u003e CIA.vc we have all known you're a programmer, Mike.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e - Bryan\n\u003e\u003e\u003e http://heybryan.org/\n\u003e\u003e\u003e 1 512 203 0507\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e\u003e\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e --\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e My regards,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Faiz Khan\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003chttps://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150618/5df84554/attachment.html\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: image1.JPG\nType: image/jpeg\nSize: 22107 bytes\nDesc: not available\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150618/5df84554/attachment.jpe\u003e",
"sig": "04d744bd933e5eb96f0b8a96ac83966f026c4d9c3ab5cd4bdd4df5263504d5192bf137bdd2a3353c7a24ade5df6c27f317a708d00febe57eb3efb66db306b352"
}