Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Laszlo Hanyecz <laszlo@heliacal.net>
In-Reply-To: <6EC9DDF352DC4838AE9B088AB372428A25E1F42A@DS04>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 19:08:58 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BFFD13C0-DBE2-4EA0-9FBC-5E334A722527@heliacal.net>
References: <6EC9DDF352DC4838AE9B088AB372428A25E1F42A@DS04>
To: satoshi@vistomail.com
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
Precedence: list

Sounds legit.

On Aug 15, 2015, at 5:43 PM, Satoshi Nakamoto via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> I have been following the recent block size debates through the =
mailing list.  I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork =
proposal would achieve widespread consensus.  However with the formal =
release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am =
forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.
>=20
> The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my =
original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth.  When I =
designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future =
modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous =
agreement.  Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of =
charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, =
or Satoshi Nakamoto.  Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they =
have to do it without being forced or pressured into it.  By doing a =
fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" =
they claim to honour.
>=20
> They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was =
supposed to be.  However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that =
time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my =
early opinions.  For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its =
effects on the security of the network.  Making Bitcoin a competitive =
monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a =
trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust =
solution.  I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes =
instead of relying solely on altruism.
>=20
> If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what =
"Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through =
the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare =
Bitcoin a failed project.  Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and =
socially robust.  This present situation has been very disappointing to =
watch unfold.
>=20
> Satoshi Nakamoto
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev