Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_9EB5D894-B637-4D65-A9E1-6B5C8D35C675";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKujSOHPRmbSx=wydx9bCkUCuQQAzd=Xre_Xa86Zjzm_afpa6A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 16:07:45 -0700
Message-Id: <90267BA3-06D8-412B-8FF6-BA21BCCA8AB8@gmail.com>
References: <CA+w+GKT7t5OahS-+P=QAmOyFzPnOs4J6KSo+mhSrC0YggmMupg@mail.gmail.com>
	<E7866FD5-9CEC-400F-8270-407499E0B012@gmail.com>
	<CAKujSOFNHNngt0HV=B3YHxOwXksk+JZDaHt+mUVniwMPTM6SaA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CC1B6D0E-F9D5-422B-980D-C589CDC00612@gmail.com>
	<CAKujSOGdXoo4DORHtD7KV1fgjHzvcSQnUr=yNL4ruKhn1Lwjig@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOG=w-vGoPuDBcDkdrLVEoE5Q_UzVR7FfThBT9QALgiSSHDsFg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKujSOHPRmbSx=wydx9bCkUCuQQAzd=Xre_Xa86Zjzm_afpa6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ken Friece <kfriece@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT 0.11A
Precedence: list


--Apple-Mail=_9EB5D894-B637-4D65-A9E1-6B5C8D35C675
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_5F12ACE6-10D0-4EA9-91D4-ED691C3E3E65"


--Apple-Mail=_5F12ACE6-10D0-4EA9-91D4-ED691C3E3E65
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

Please take the lightning 101 discussion to another thread.

The main point I was trying to make was that Mike is clearly =
misrepresenting the views of a great number of people who have deep, =
intimate knowledge of how things work and are almost certainly not =
primarily motivated by their own potential for profits.

> On Aug 15, 2015, at 4:04 PM, Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>=20
> Being an early hub provider would be an obvious place to start =
capitalizing on lightning. Early lightning adopters would be in the best =
position to do this.
>=20
> Long term, Bitcoin needs to scale the blockchain in a reasonable =
manner and implement things like lightning.
>=20
> Limiting the blocksize is a blatant conflict of interest because it =
creates artificial demand for lightning that would not otherwise exist =
if the blockchain scaled in a reasonable manner.
>=20
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Mark Friedenbach =
<mark@friedenbach.org <mailto:mark@friedenbach.org>> wrote:
> I would like very much to know how it is that we're supposed to be =
making money off of lightning, and therefore how it represents a =
conflict of interest. Apparently there is tons of money to be made in =
releasing open-source protocols! I would hate to miss out on that.
>=20
> We are working on lightning because Mike of all people said, =
essentially, " if you're so fond of micro payment channels, why aren't =
you working on them?" And he was right! So we looked around and found =
the best proposal and funded it.
>=20
> On Aug 15, 2015 3:28 PM, "Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev" =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org =
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
> I know full well who works for Blockstream and I know you're not one =
of those folks. The Blockstream core devs are very vocal against a =
reasonable blocksize increase (17% growth per year in Pieter's BIP is =
not what I consider reasonable because it doesn't come close to keeping =
with technological increases). I think we can both agree that more =
on-chain space means less demand for lightning, and vice versa, which is =
a blatant conflict of interest.
>=20
> I'm also trying to figure out how things like lightning are not =
competing directly with miners for fees. More off-chain transactions =
means less blockchain demand, which would lower on-chain fees. I'm not =
sure what is controversial about that statement.
>=20
> The lightning network concept is actually a brilliant way to take fees =
away from miners without having to make any investment at all in SSH-256 =
ASIC mining hardware.
>=20
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com =
<mailto:elombrozo@gmail.com>> wrote:
>=20
>> On Aug 15, 2015, at 3:01 PM, Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org =
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>>=20
>> What are you so afraid of, Eric? If Mike's fork is successful, =
consensus is reached around larger blocks. If it is rejected, the status =
quo will remain for now. Network consensus, NOT CORE DEVELOPER =
CONSENSUS, is the only thing that matters, and those that go against =
network consensus will be severely punished with complete loss of =
income.
>=20
> I fully agree that core developers are not the only people who should =
have a say in this. But again, we=E2=80=99re not talking about merely =
forking some open source project - we=E2=80=99re talking about forking a =
ledger representing real assets that real people are holding=E2=80=A6and =
I think it=E2=80=99s fair to say that the risk of permanent ledger forks =
far outweighs whatever benefits any change in the protocol might bring. =
And this would be true even if there were unanimous agreement that the =
change is good (which there clearly IS NOT in this case) but the =
deployment mechanism could still break things.
>=20
> If anything we should attempt a hard fork with a less contentious =
change first, just to test deployability.
>=20
>> I'm not sure who appointed the core devs some sort of Bitcoin Gods =
that can hold up any change that they happen to disagree with. It seems =
like the core devs are scared to death that the bitcoin network may =
change without their blessing, so they go on and on about how terrible =
hard forks are. Hard forks are the only way to keep core devs in check.
>=20
> Again, let=E2=80=99s figure out a hard fork mechanism and test it with =
a far less contentious change first
>=20
>> Despite significant past technical bitcoin achievements, two of the =
most vocal opponents to a reasonable blocksize increase work for a =
company (Blockstream) that stands to profit directly from artificially =
limiting the blocksize. The whole situation reeks. Because of such a =
blatant conflict of interest, the ethical thing to do would be for them =
to either resign from Blockstream or immediately withdraw themselves =
from the blocksize debate. This is the type of stuff that I hoped would =
end with Bitcoin, but alas, I guess human nature never changes.
>=20
> For the record, I do not work for Blockstream. Neither do a bunch of =
other people who have published a number of concerns. Very few of the =
concerns I=E2=80=99ve seen from the technical community seem to be =
motivated primarily by profit motives.
>=20
> It should also be pointed out that *not* making drastic changes is the =
default consensus policy=E2=80=A6and the burden of justifying a change =
falls on those who want to make the change. Again, the risk of permanent =
ledger forks far outweighs whatever benefits protocol changes might =
bring.
>=20
>> Personally, I think miners should give Bitcoin XT a serious look. =
Miners need to realize that they are in direct competition with the =
lightning network and sidechains for fees. Miners, ask yourselves if you =
think you'll earn more fees with 1 MB blocks and more off-chain =
transactions or with 8 MB blocks and more on-chain transactions=E2=80=A6
>=20
> Miners are NOT in direct competition with the lightning network and =
sidechains - these claims are patently false. I recommend you take a =
look at these ideas and understand them a little better before trying to =
make any such claims. Again, I do not work for Blockstream=E2=80=A6and =
my agenda in this post is not to promote either of these ideas=E2=80=A6but=
 with all due respect, I do not think you properly understand them at =
all.
>=20
>> The longer this debate drags on, the more I agree with BIP 100 and =
Jeff Garzik because the core devs are already being influenced by =
outside forces and should not have complete control of the blocksize. =
It's also interesting to note that most of the mining hashpower is =
already voting for 8MB blocks BIP100 style.
>=20
> I don=E2=80=99t think the concern here is so much that some people =
want to increase block size. It=E2=80=99s the *way* in which this change =
is being pushed that is deeply problematic.
>=20
>> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org =
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>> You deeply disappoint me, Mike.
>>=20
>> Not only do you misrepresent many cogent, well thought out positions =
from a great number of people who have published and posted a number of =
articles detailing an explaining in-depth technical concerns=E2=80=A6you =
also seem to fancy yourself more capable of reading into the intentions =
of someone who disappeared from the scene years ago, before we even were =
fully aware of many things we now know that bring the original =
=E2=80=9Cplan=E2=80=9D into question.
>>=20
>> I ask of you, as a civilized human being, to stop doing this divisive =
crap. Despite your protestations to the contrary, YOU are the one who is =
proposing a radical departure from the direction of the project. Also, =
as several of us have clearly stated before, equating the fork of an =
open source project with a fork of a cryptoledger is completely bogus - =
there=E2=80=99s a lot of other people=E2=80=99s money at stake. This =
isn=E2=80=99t a democracy - consensus is all or nothing. The fact that a =
good number of the people most intimately familiar with the inner =
workings of Satoshi=E2=80=99s invention do not believe doing this is a =
good idea should give you pause.
>>=20
>> Please stop using Bitcoin as your own political football=E2=80=A6for =
the sake of Bitcoin=E2=80=A6and for your own sake. Despite your obvious =
technical abilities (and I sincerely do believe you have them) you are =
discrediting yourself and hurting your own reputation.
>>=20
>>=20
>> - Eric
>>=20
>>> On Aug 15, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org =
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> Hello,
>>>=20
>>> As promised, we have released Bitcoin XT 0.11A which includes the =
bigger blocks patch set. You can get it from
>>>=20
>>>      https://bitcoinxt.software/ <https://bitcoinxt.software/>
>>>=20
>>> I feel sad that it's come to this, but there is no other way. The =
Bitcoin Core project has drifted so far from the principles myself and =
many others feel are important, that a fork is the only way to fix =
things.
>>>=20
>>> Forking is a natural thing in the open source community, Bitcoin is =
not the first and won't be the last project to go through this. Often in =
forks, people say there was insufficient communication. So to ensure =
everything is crystal clear I've written a blog post and a kind of =
"manifesto" to describe why this is happening and how XT plans to be =
different from Core (assuming adoption, of course).
>>>=20
>>> The article is here:
>>>=20
>>>     =
https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1 =
<https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1>
>>>=20
>>> It makes no attempt to be neutral: this explains things from our =
point of view.
>>>=20
>>> The manifesto is on the website.
>>>=20
>>> I say to all developers on this list: if you also feel that Core is =
no longer serving the interests of Bitcoin users, come join us. We don't =
bite.
>>>=20
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org =
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev =
<https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>
>>=20
>>=20
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org =
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev =
<https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>
>>=20
>>=20
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org =
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev =
<https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>
>=20
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org =
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev =
<https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--Apple-Mail=_5F12ACE6-10D0-4EA9-91D4-ED691C3E3E65
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=utf-8

<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" =
class=3D"">Please take the lightning 101 discussion to another =
thread.<div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">The main =
point I was trying to make was that Mike is clearly misrepresenting the =
views of a great number of people who have deep, intimate knowledge of =
how things work and are almost certainly not primarily motivated by =
their own potential for profits.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""><div><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D"">On =
Aug 15, 2015, at 4:04 PM, Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" =
class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:</div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" =
class=3D"">Being an early hub provider would be an obvious place to =
start capitalizing on lightning. Early lightning adopters would be in =
the best position to do this.<br class=3D""><div class=3D""><div =
class=3D"gmail_extra"><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Long=
 term, Bitcoin needs to scale the blockchain in a reasonable manner and =
implement things like lightning. <br class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"gmail_extra">Limiting the blocksize is a blatant conflict of =
interest because it creates artificial demand for lightning that would =
not otherwise exist if the blockchain scaled in a reasonable manner.<br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br class=3D""><div =
class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Mark Friedenbach =
<span dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mark@friedenbach.org" =
target=3D"_blank" class=3D"">mark@friedenbach.org</a>&gt;</span> =
wrote:<br class=3D""><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 =
0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"ltr" =
class=3D"">I would like very much to know how it is that we're supposed =
to be making money off of lightning, and therefore how it represents a =
conflict of interest. Apparently there is tons of money to be made in =
releasing open-source protocols! I would hate to miss out on that.</p><p =
dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"">We are working on lightning because Mike of all =
people said, essentially, " if you're so fond of micro payment channels, =
why aren't you working on them?" And he was right! So we looked around =
and found the best proposal and funded it.</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Aug 15, 2015 3:28 PM, "Ken Friece via =
bitcoin-dev" &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" =
target=3D"_blank" class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;=
 wrote:<br type=3D"attribution" class=3D""><blockquote =
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc =
solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div class=3D""><div =
class=3D"">I know full well who works for Blockstream and I know you're =
not one of those folks. The Blockstream core devs are very vocal against =
a reasonable blocksize increase (17% growth per year in Pieter's BIP is =
not what I consider reasonable because it doesn't come close to keeping =
with technological increases). I think we can both agree that more =
on-chain space means less demand for lightning, and vice versa, which is =
a blatant conflict of interest.<br class=3D""><br class=3D""></div>I'm =
also trying to figure out how things like lightning are not competing =
directly with miners for fees. More off-chain transactions means less =
blockchain demand, which would lower on-chain fees. I'm not sure what is =
controversial about that statement.<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">The lightning network concept is =
actually a brilliant way to take fees away from miners without having to =
make any investment at all in SSH-256 ASIC mining hardware.<br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D""><div class=3D""><div class=3D""><div =
class=3D"gmail_extra"><br class=3D""><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, =
Aug 15, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Eric Lombrozo <span dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"">&lt;<a=
 href=3D"mailto:elombrozo@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">elombrozo@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br =
class=3D""><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 =
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div =
style=3D"word-wrap:break-word" class=3D""><br class=3D""><div =
class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D"">On Aug =
15, 2015, at 3:01 PM, Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:</div><br =
class=3D""><div class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div =
class=3D""><div class=3D"">What are you so afraid of, Eric? If Mike's =
fork is successful, consensus is reached around larger blocks. If it is =
rejected, the status quo will remain for now. Network consensus, NOT =
CORE DEVELOPER CONSENSUS, is the only thing that matters, and those that =
go against network consensus will be severely punished with complete =
loss of income.<br class=3D""></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div>I fully agree that core developers are =
not the only people who should have a say in this. But again, we=E2=80=99r=
e not talking about merely forking some open source project - we=E2=80=99r=
e talking about forking a ledger representing real assets that real =
people are holding=E2=80=A6and I think it=E2=80=99s fair to say that the =
risk of permanent ledger forks far outweighs whatever benefits any =
change in the protocol might bring. And this would be true even if there =
were unanimous agreement that the change is good (which there clearly IS =
NOT in this case) but the deployment mechanism could still break =
things.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">If =
anything we should attempt a hard fork with a less contentious change =
first, just to test deployability.</div><div class=3D""><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div =
class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div class=3D""><div class=3D"">I'm=
 not sure who appointed the core devs some sort of Bitcoin Gods that can =
hold up any change that they happen to disagree with. It seems like the =
core devs are scared to death that the bitcoin network may change =
without their blessing, so they go on and on about how terrible hard =
forks are. Hard forks are the only way to keep core devs in =
check.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Again, let=E2=80=99s figure out a hard =
fork mechanism and test it with a far less contentious change =
first</div><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div =
class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div class=3D"">Despite =
significant past technical bitcoin achievements, two of the most vocal =
opponents to a reasonable blocksize increase work for a company =
(Blockstream) that stands to profit directly from artificially limiting =
the blocksize. The whole situation reeks. Because of such a blatant =
conflict of interest, the ethical thing to do would be for them to =
either resign from Blockstream or immediately withdraw themselves from =
the blocksize debate. This is the type of stuff that I hoped would end =
with Bitcoin, but alas, I guess human nature never changes.<br =
class=3D""></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">For the record, I do not work for =
Blockstream. Neither do a bunch of other people who have published a =
number of concerns. Very few of the concerns I=E2=80=99ve seen from the =
technical community seem to be motivated primarily by profit =
motives.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">It =
should also be pointed out that *not* making drastic changes is the =
default consensus policy=E2=80=A6and the burden of justifying a change =
falls on those who want to make the change. Again, the risk of permanent =
ledger forks far outweighs whatever benefits protocol changes might =
bring.</div><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div =
class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div class=3D"">Personally, I =
think miners should give Bitcoin XT a serious look. Miners need to =
realize that they are in direct competition with the lightning network =
and sidechains for fees. Miners, ask yourselves if you think you'll earn =
more fees with 1 MB blocks and more off-chain transactions or with 8 MB =
blocks and more on-chain transactions=E2=80=A6<br =
class=3D""></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div>Miners are NOT in direct competition with the lightning =
network and sidechains - these claims are patently false. I recommend =
you take a look at these ideas and understand them a little better =
before trying to make any such claims. Again, I do not work for =
Blockstream=E2=80=A6and my agenda in this post is not to promote either =
of these ideas=E2=80=A6but with all due respect, I do not think you =
properly understand them at all.<br class=3D""><br class=3D""><blockquote =
type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div =
class=3D"">The longer this debate drags on, the more I agree with BIP =
100 and Jeff Garzik because the core devs are already being influenced =
by outside forces and should not have complete control of the blocksize. =
It's also interesting to note that most of the mining hashpower is =
already voting for 8MB blocks BIP100 style. =
&nbsp;</div></div></div></blockquote><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div>I don=E2=80=99t think the concern here is so much that =
some people want to increase block size. It=E2=80=99s the *way* in which =
this change is being pushed that is deeply problematic.</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div =
class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div class=3D""><div =
class=3D""><div class=3D""><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div =
class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Eric Lombrozo via =
bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"">&lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> =
wrote:<br class=3D""><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 =
0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div =
style=3D"word-wrap:break-word" class=3D""><div class=3D"">You deeply =
disappoint me, Mike.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">Not only do you misrepresent many cogent, well thought out =
positions from a great number of people who have published and posted a =
number of articles detailing an explaining in-depth technical =
concerns=E2=80=A6you also seem to fancy yourself more capable of reading =
into the intentions of someone who disappeared from the scene years ago, =
before we even were fully aware of many things we now know that bring =
the original =E2=80=9Cplan=E2=80=9D into question.</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I ask of you, as a =
civilized human being, to stop doing this divisive crap. Despite your =
protestations to the contrary, YOU are the one who is proposing a =
radical departure from the direction of the project. Also, as several of =
us have clearly stated before, equating the fork of an open source =
project with a fork of a cryptoledger is completely bogus - there=E2=80=99=
s a lot of other people=E2=80=99s money at stake. This isn=E2=80=99t a =
democracy - consensus is all or nothing. The fact that a good number of =
the people most intimately familiar with the inner workings of =
Satoshi=E2=80=99s invention do not believe doing this is a good idea =
should give you pause.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">Please stop using Bitcoin as your own political =
football=E2=80=A6for the sake of Bitcoin=E2=80=A6and for your own sake. =
Despite your obvious technical abilities (and I sincerely do believe you =
have them) you are discrediting yourself and hurting your own =
reputation.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">- Eric</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D""><div class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite"=
 class=3D""><div class=3D"">On Aug 15, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Mike Hearn via =
bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" =
target=3D"_blank" class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;=
 wrote:</div><br class=3D""><div class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" =
class=3D"">Hello,<div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">As =
promised, we have released Bitcoin XT 0.11A which includes the bigger =
blocks patch set. You can get it from</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<a =
href=3D"https://bitcoinxt.software/" target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">https://bitcoinxt.software/</a><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I feel sad that it's =
come to this, but there is no other way. The Bitcoin Core project has =
drifted so far from the principles myself and many others feel are =
important, that a fork is the only way to fix things.</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Forking is a natural =
thing in the open source community, Bitcoin is not the first and won't =
be the last project to go through this. Often in forks, people say there =
was insufficient communication. So to ensure everything is crystal clear =
I've written a blog post and a kind of "manifesto" to describe why this =
is happening and how XT plans to be different from Core (assuming =
adoption, of course).</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">The article is here:</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">&nbsp; &nbsp; <a =
href=3D"https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1=
" target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d2=
2c1</a><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">It makes no attempt to be neutral: this explains things from =
our point of view.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">The manifesto is on the website.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I say to all developers on this list: =
if you also feel that Core is no longer serving the interests of Bitcoin =
users, come join us. We don't bite.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class=3D"">bitcoin-dev =
mailing list<br class=3D""><a =
href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br class=3D""><a =
href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<=
/a><br class=3D""></div></blockquote></div><br class=3D""></div></div><br =
class=3D"">_______________________________________________<br class=3D"">
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br class=3D"">
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank"=
 class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br class=3D"">
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"=
 rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<=
/a><br class=3D"">
<br class=3D""></blockquote></div><br =
class=3D""></div></div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class=3D"">bitcoin-dev =
mailing list<br class=3D""><a =
href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br class=3D""><a =
href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<=
/a><br class=3D""></div></blockquote></div><br =
class=3D""></div></blockquote></div><br =
class=3D""></div></div></div></div></div>
<br class=3D"">_______________________________________________<br =
class=3D"">
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br class=3D"">
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank"=
 class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br class=3D"">
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"=
 rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<=
/a><br class=3D"">
<br class=3D""></blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div><br class=3D""></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class=3D"">bitcoin-dev =
mailing list<br class=3D""><a =
href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" =
class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br =
class=3D"">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<=
br class=3D""></div></blockquote></div><br class=3D""></div></body></html>=

--Apple-Mail=_5F12ACE6-10D0-4EA9-91D4-ED691C3E3E65--

--Apple-Mail=_9EB5D894-B637-4D65-A9E1-6B5C8D35C675
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=qr6i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_9EB5D894-B637-4D65-A9E1-6B5C8D35C675--