MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <55D45715.4010107@riseup.net>
References: <d17549688c0c747b2077c1f6f96b6445@xbt.hk>
	<CAJN5wHV-qyOcEw5spQc74nT7_b29WMiDTmi4Jj0ri_rGCQz2ng@mail.gmail.com>
	<E9543641-9D73-4A00-9CB3-FAB62BFB490E@gmail.com>
	<CAJN5wHXRwQZ6YmiZiCE9Gx4d-3FTzy1Zv7i2noia0mwtRwVL+w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDp69g8H4Was2qzixPq3qwQ_smzzeFpE+y2GYEK6F4kUrw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55D45715.4010107@riseup.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:06:07 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDr2o82O5jtpv=MovAcsvf9xV5u54d4oFajuvuz1QuKZoA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: odinn <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an
 experimental hardfork?
Precedence: list

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:14 PM, odinn <odinn.cyberguerrilla@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.