path: root/43/add0d6f884796b2a85491e2fb62adcc36a6aa4

Return-Path: <cory@atlastechnologiesinc.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AB9749D
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:05:56 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com (mail-wi0-f169.google.com
	[209.85.212.169])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A5F71CB
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:05:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wibxm9 with SMTP id xm9so185210502wib.0
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
	h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
	:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=mr8KWD1NkXLbKzYjqOEotzas7Izmm94oYd4G4MwhGxU=;
	b=IS2fl+QlO94L78adEi7le3yoG/L4sThQNPoBbMLz8NGsqutTBw4Ng0h9WB5YzmKkrP
	Pw/HSdGMjxHB4ZtfcfI5f0GEyZXhL6XaTNs+EaEs6Exai/3fVOkbStGn3qBYxmlh+BXo
	T9DwXdFatjYL5lsYrXd8/d64k+gVUopUFlsLxzQRrCzSmalNbxAc1s3zDl4mxgR3AQZ6
	S8ljHT4EI8GN1D7+oxKZVfEF/1zPBzTGhbPU1XVkmhdn0gvYG2xl44EKWqeooNaZiPBB
	ZEKCW2vMaGLXPM21Z26Sulo4ZZJUBH8bAv2X/spKHp/Ql1KWEFRCUmJa8oDWks5X4RC4
	KMZQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn90tvqCV6QU6N/TrrytTb+pcncQVx1gWRvDGBkjiXGwaKjiKrb9nNAjnD4GUUfzKCxuL35
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.90.83 with SMTP id bu19mr11112570wib.91.1437609953782;
	Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.168.167 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <068B7F93-A1DF-4F8D-84FC-B787C5429D6A@gmail.com>
References: <COL402-EAS482BCC1B2EFF6D50273832CD830@phx.gbl>
	<CAApLimjMPvXHM4McB+xBrho2hktz8Rr7QZyU-Dgbgd7sFdoyLw@mail.gmail.com>
	<068B7F93-A1DF-4F8D-84FC-B787C5429D6A@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 20:05:53 -0400
Message-ID: <CAApLimjiF6zH8GAbTajMTW6p8GtXCGRa5GcV+N2z1soY5fQy+A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Cory Fields <lists@coryfields.com>
To: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core and hard forks
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:05:56 -0000

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 7:53 PM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> wrote:
> FWIW, I had worked on something similar a while back:
> https://github.com/CodeShark/bitcoin/tree/coinparams_new/altconf
>
> I like the idea in principle=E2=80=A6but we should require a new genesis =
block,
> different magic bytes, and a different network port at the very least. :)
>

Not sure if serious, so I'll assume you are :)

Why? The idea in this case would be to allow the user to decide
between (say) "./bitcoind -1mbchain" and "./bitcoind -2mbchain" at
runtime rather than the likely alternative of "./bitcoind" vs
"./bitcoin-fork".

Chain params may be identical other than the value of some future
event (miner vote for example), in which case the configs would run
identically until that point.

If your concern is about nodes with different configs communicating
with eachother, I'd like to reiterate: the idea really is no different
than suggesting that someone fork the codebase and implement their own
changes, it just cuts out most of the work required.

Cory

> On Jul 22, 2015, at 4:42 PM, Cory Fields via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure why Bitcoin Core and the rules and policies that it
> enforces are being conflated in this thread. There's nothing stopping
> us from adding the ability for the user to decide what their consensus
> parameters should be at runtime. In fact, that's already in use:
> ./bitcoind -testnet. As mentioned in another thread, the chain params
> could even come from a config file that the user could edit without
> touching the code.
>
> I realize that it'd be opening Pandora's Box, and likely met with very
> loud and reasonable arguments about the obvious terrible implications,
> but it's at least an alternative to the current status quo of Core's
> conflation with the consensus rules. The idea really is no different
> than suggesting that someone fork the codebase and implement their own
> changes, it just cuts out most of the work required.
>
> With that in place, consensus changes would be more about lobbying and
> coalitions, and less about pull requests.
>
> Cory
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Raystonn via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> If the developers fail to reflect user consensus, the network will let us
> know.
>
>
> This is true with the caveat that there must be more than one option pres=
ent
> for the network to show it's preference.  If developers discourage anythi=
ng
> that forks from the rules enforced by Bitcoin Core, they harm the network=
's
> ability to inform us of a failure to reflect user consensus.
>
> On 22 Jul 2015 3:31 pm, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> I wouldn't go quite that far.  The reality is somewhere in the middle, as
> Bryan Cheng noted in this thread:
>
> Quoting BC,
>
> Upgrading to a version of Bitcoin Core that is incompatible with your
> ideals is in no way a forced choice, as you have stated in your email;
> forks, alternative clients, or staying on an older version are all valid
> choices. If the majority of the network chooses not to endorse a specific
> change, then the majority of the network will continue to operate just fi=
ne
> without it, and properly structured consensus rules will pull the minorit=
y
> along as well.
>
>
> The developers propose a new version, by publishing a new release.  The
> individual network nodes choose to accept or reject that.
>
> So I respectfully disagree with "core devs don't control the network" and
> "core devs control the network" both.
>
> There are checks-and-balances that make the system work.  Consensus is mo=
st
> strongly measured by user actions after software release.  If the develop=
ers
> fail to reflect user consensus, the network will let us know.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Pieter,
>
> I think a core area of disagreement is this:
>
> Bitcoin Core is not running the Bitcoin economy, and its developers have =
no
> authority to set its rules.
>
> In fact Bitcoin Core is running the Bitcoin economy, and its developers d=
o
> have the authority to set its rules. This is enforced by the reality of
> ~100% market share and limited github commit access.
>
> You may not like this situation, but it is what it is. By refusing to mak=
e a
> release with different rules, people who disagree are faced with only two
> options:
>
> 1. Swallow it even if they hate it
> 2. Fork the project and fork the block chain with it (XT)
>
> There are no alternatives. People who object to (2) are inherently
> suggesting (1) is the only acceptable path, which not surprisingly, makes=
 a
> lot of people very angry.
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>