path: root/1c/1c0a0ae35cebf0809e70c2e23ff963d49da313

Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <jameson.lopp@gmail.com>) id 1YzSmj-0002KL-Lr
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 01 Jun 2015 16:41:57 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.212.178 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.212.178; envelope-from=jameson.lopp@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-wi0-f178.google.com; 
Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com ([209.85.212.178])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1YzSmi-0000yb-2P
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 01 Jun 2015 16:41:57 +0000
Received: by wizo1 with SMTP id o1so112715677wiz.1
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Mon, 01 Jun 2015 09:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.100.197 with SMTP id fa5mr22275522wib.65.1433176910057; 
	Mon, 01 Jun 2015 09:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.27.171.143 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 09:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP1HttM5rRqTchMrsbhfTbASHm3j0q=vjDaTjeYQHHBr9Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFnMCfd8N_2nvspXF+Tro_SsofUUrMy4_QG9tRbPm1pUWtUCXQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP1HttM5rRqTchMrsbhfTbASHm3j0q=vjDaTjeYQHHBr9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 09:41:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CADL_X_cjDdRoJCpi6XxkxDcVQErriutRhMMdxosSD9MbgQ5eEA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jameson Lopp <jameson.lopp@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d041826449fd819051777806d
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(jameson.lopp[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	1.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
	author's domain
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1YzSmi-0000yb-2P
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	=?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgTGVnb3VwaWw=?= <jjlegoupil@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed alternatives to the 20MB step
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 16:41:57 -0000

--f46d041826449fd819051777806d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

The overlapping consensus mechanisms between the Core Developers, the
miners, the block chain based businesses, and the end users make it such
that the very definition of Bitcoin is not just what any single one of
those groups comes to a consensus about. We must ALL be in consensus about
just what Bitcoin actually is and what its goals should be. As such, the
onus is on the Core Developers to convince the other groups to either
accept or reject major changes to the protocol.

Greg made a great point regarding the difficulty in determining the
definition of Bitcoin:
https://twitter.com/lopp/status/596135982539395073/photo/1

My point being that Bitcoin is inherently a political phenomenon; we're
just trying to describe the human politics behind Bitcoin with computer
code that is reasonably secure against attack.

- Jameson

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:

> It's surprising to see a core dev going to the public to defend a proposal
>> most other core devs disagree on, and then lobbying the Bitcoin ecosystem.
>>
>
> I agree that it is a waste of time. Many agree. The Bitcoin ecosystem
> doesn't really need lobbying - my experience from talking to businesses and
> wallet developers months ago is they virtually all see raising capacity as
> a no brainer ... and some of them see this "debate" as despair-inducing
> insanity.
>
> What's happened here is that a small number of people have come to believe
> they have veto power over changes to Bitcoin, and they have also become
> *wildly* out of step with what the wider community wants. That cannot
> last. So, short of some sudden change of heart that lets us kick the can
> down the road a bit longer, a fork is inevitable.
>
> Just be glad it's Gavin driving this and not me ... or a faceless
> coalition of startups.
>
>
>> Decentralization is the core of Bitcoin's security model and thus that's
>> what gives Bitcoin its value.
>>
>
> No. Usage is what gives Bitcoin value.
>
> It's kind of maddening that I have to point this out. Decentralisation is
> a means to an end. I first used Bitcoin in April 2009 and it was perfectly
> decentralised back then: every wallet was a full node and every computer
> was capable of mining.
>
> So if you believe what you just wrote, I guess Bitcoin's value has gone
> down every day since.
>
> On the other hand, if you believe the markets, Bitcoin's value has gone up.
>
> Apparently the question of what gives Bitcoin its value is a bit more
> complicated than that.
>
>
>
>
>> : to incentive layer 2 and offchain solutions to scale Bitcoin : there
>> are promising designs/solutions out there (LN, ChainDB, OtherCoin
>> protocole, ...), but most don't get much attention, because there is right
>> now no need for them. And, I am sure new solutions will be invented.
>>
>
> I have seen this notion a few times. I would like to dispose of it right
> now.
>
> I am one of the wallet developers you would be trying to "incentivise" by
> letting Bitcoin break, and I say: get real. Developers are not some
> bottomless fountain of work that will spit out whatever you like for free
> if you twist their arms badly enough.
>
> The problems that incentivised the creation of Bitcoin existed for decades
> before Bitcoin was actually invented. Incentives are not enough. Someone
> has to actually do the work, too. All proposals on the table would:
>
>    - Involve enormous amounts of effort from many different people
>    - Be technically risky (read: we don't know if they would even work)
>    - Not be Bitcoin
>
> The last point is important: people who got interested in Bitcoin and
> decided to devote their time to it might not feel the same way about some
> network of payment hubs or whatever today's fashion is. Faced with their
> work being broken by armchair developers on some mailing list, they might
> just say screw it and walk away completely.
>
> After all, as the arguments for these systems are not particularly
> logical, they might slave over hot keyboards for a year to support the
> Lightning Network or whatever and then discover that it's no longer the
> fashionable thing ... and that suddenly an even more convoluted design is
> being "incentivised".
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>

--f46d041826449fd819051777806d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div style=3D"font-size:12.8000001907349px">The overlappin=
g consensus mechanisms between the Core Developers, the miners, the block c=
hain based businesses, and the end users make it such that the very definit=
ion of Bitcoin is not just what any single one of those groups comes to a c=
onsensus about. We must ALL be in consensus about just what Bitcoin actuall=
y is and what its goals should be. As such, the onus is on the Core Develop=
ers to convince the other groups to either accept or reject major changes t=
o the protocol.=C2=A0</div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8000001907349px"><br>=
</div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8000001907349px">Greg made a great point r=
egarding the difficulty in determining the definition of Bitcoin:=C2=A0<a h=
ref=3D"https://twitter.com/lopp/status/596135982539395073/photo/1" target=
=3D"_blank">https://twitter.com/lopp/status/596135982539395073/photo/1</a><=
/div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8000001907349px"><br></div><div style=3D"fo=
nt-size:12.8000001907349px">My point being that Bitcoin is inherently a pol=
itical phenomenon; we&#39;re just trying to describe the human politics beh=
ind Bitcoin with computer code that is reasonably secure against attack.</d=
iv><div style=3D"font-size:12.8000001907349px"><br></div><div style=3D"font=
-size:12.8000001907349px">- Jameson</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><=
br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Mike Hearn <s=
pan dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mike@plan99.net" target=3D"_blank">mi=
ke@plan99.net</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" st=
yle=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div =
dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><span cla=
ss=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"><div>It&#39;s surpr=
ising to see a core dev going to the public to defend a proposal most other=
 core devs disagree on, and then lobbying the Bitcoin ecosystem.<br></div><=
/div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>I agree that it is a waste of =
time. Many agree. The Bitcoin ecosystem doesn&#39;t really need lobbying - =
my experience from talking to businesses and wallet developers months ago i=
s they virtually all see raising capacity as a no brainer ... and some of t=
hem see this &quot;debate&quot; as despair-inducing insanity.</div><div><br=
></div><div>What&#39;s happened here is that a small number of people have =
come to believe they have veto power over changes to Bitcoin, and they have=
 also become <i>wildly</i>=C2=A0out of step with what the wider community w=
ants. That cannot last. So, short of some sudden change of heart that lets =
us kick the can down the road a bit longer, a fork is inevitable.</div><div=
><br></div><div>Just be glad it&#39;s Gavin driving this and not me ... or =
a faceless coalition of startups.</div><span class=3D""><div>=C2=A0</div><b=
lockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px =
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Decentralization is the =
core of Bitcoin&#39;s security model and thus that&#39;s what gives Bitcoin=
 its value.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>No. Usag=
e is what gives Bitcoin value.</div><div><br></div><div>It&#39;s kind of ma=
ddening that I have to point this out. Decentralisation is a means to an en=
d. I first used Bitcoin in April 2009 and it was perfectly decentralised ba=
ck then: every wallet was a full node and every computer was capable of min=
ing.</div><div><br></div><div>So if you believe what you just wrote, I gues=
s Bitcoin&#39;s value has gone down every day since.</div><div><br></div><d=
iv>On the other hand, if you believe the markets, Bitcoin&#39;s value has g=
one up.</div><div><br></div><div>Apparently the question of what gives Bitc=
oin its value is a bit more complicated than that.</div><span class=3D""><d=
iv><br></div><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quo=
te" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"=
><div dir=3D"ltr"><div></div><div>: to incentive layer 2 and offchain solut=
ions to scale Bitcoin : there=20
are promising designs/solutions out there (LN, ChainDB, OtherCoin=20
protocole, ...), but most don&#39;t get much attention, because there is=20
right now no need for them. And, I am sure new solutions will be=20
invented.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>I have see=
n this notion a few times. I would like to dispose of it right now.</div><d=
iv><br></div><div>I am one of the wallet developers you would be trying to =
&quot;incentivise&quot; by letting Bitcoin break, and I say: get real. Deve=
lopers are not some bottomless fountain of work that will spit out whatever=
 you like for free if you twist their arms badly enough.</div><div><br></di=
v><div>The problems that incentivised the creation of Bitcoin existed for d=
ecades before Bitcoin was actually invented. Incentives are not enough. Som=
eone has to actually do the work, too. All proposals on the table would:</d=
iv><div><ul><li>Involve enormous amounts of effort from many different peop=
le</li><li>Be technically risky (read: we don&#39;t know if they would even=
 work)</li><li>Not be Bitcoin</li></ul><div>The last point is important: pe=
ople who got interested in Bitcoin and decided to devote their time to it m=
ight not feel the same way about some network of payment hubs or whatever t=
oday&#39;s fashion is. Faced with their work being broken by armchair devel=
opers on some mailing list, they might just say screw it and walk away comp=
letely.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>After all, as the arguments for thes=
e systems are not particularly logical, they might slave over hot keyboards=
 for a year to support the Lightning Network or whatever and then discover =
that it&#39;s no longer the fashionable thing ... and that suddenly an even=
 more convoluted design is being &quot;incentivised&quot;.</div></div><div>=
<br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div>
<br>-----------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------<br>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo=
pment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>

--f46d041826449fd819051777806d--