path: root/49/c52cb51cd81f127d1fef4dfab80e9dad44934e

Return-Path: <kfriece@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 631898DD
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:57:36 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-lb0-f173.google.com (mail-lb0-f173.google.com
	[209.85.217.173])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A0D71EA
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:57:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by lbcbn3 with SMTP id bn3so62900341lbc.2
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 15 Aug 2015 16:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:content-type; bh=GmFI3iNDaGsxTgYb6POtR08ZzaBSsvEBEsO1TyKRuv8=;
	b=xmqwdivd5N/aga49owUm4AfeQm/mSaDN8AUhf4RFPCcmts4EY6dnnttsvmRmDG2xLf
	UtUNr7JH0iN9IzNq+nAHU38tDfp8uKbhKCHCMG4dmBjSrH/4DdQx7+OpD50bQDm7ddXU
	1V3BJ2H8belERxhvlLyWwLH7/KeIhppyOkrgt9eowGykloTrQapzL9vZkd26deHy653a
	SDTThTAjezeSdKVcfw3oFfnENLN3j1MRzgWZPYmUfPdrkwJB4+JpqaIz/FsXXB8hrAOo
	MILs7EV9+6L29MScB77iP7OUm4E96pm7qBi6meYMTz6ikZHUoOh++l71k6qSw4tHmRwR
	ijMA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.157.136 with SMTP id wm8mr25654551lbb.26.1439683051666; 
	Sat, 15 Aug 2015 16:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.62.147 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 16:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOG=w-uTd_V5usB79sLc8E_3R2oxmYqriO6XnrRVcz3Gw7NHuw@mail.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>
	<90267BA3-06D8-412B-8FF6-BA21BCCA8AB8@gmail.com>
	<CAOG=w-uTd_V5usB79sLc8E_3R2oxmYqriO6XnrRVcz3Gw7NHuw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 19:57:31 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKujSOGL-z-LMq6A2y84=U+GzMGf7EcS9rY24yaW+NqzG=v-bg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ken Friece <kfriece@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c282c0e244d2051d625412
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT 0.11A
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: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:57:36 -0000

--001a11c282c0e244d2051d625412
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Let's start with the definition of a conflict of interest before we go any
further:
A *conflict of interest* (COI) is a situation in which a person or
organization is involved in multiple interests (financial, emotional, or
otherwise), one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the
individual or organization.

Just because a conflict of interest exists does not necessarily mean the
individual with a conflict of interest has engaged in any wrongdoing. They
could be a saint. However, to not even be able to acknowledge that such a
conflict of interest exists when debating such a serious issue as the
bitcoin blocksize is incredibly naive.

On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
wrote:

> Baseless accusations also have no place on this mailing list. They are
> unprofessional, and poisonous to the consensus-building process we all se=
ek
> to engage in.
>
> The Lightning Network effort at Blockstream is purposefully structured to
> avoid any conflict of interest. ALL code related to lightning is availabl=
e
> on Github. There is absolutely nothing that we are holding back, and the
> protocol itself is entirely p2p. There is no privileged entity, Blockstre=
am
> or otherwise.
>
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> 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:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Long term, Bitcoin needs to scale the blockchain in a reasonable manner
>> and implement things like lightning.
>>
>> Limiting the blocksize is a blatant conflict of interest because it
>> creates artificial demand for lightning that would not otherwise exist i=
f
>> the blockchain scaled in a reasonable manner.
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Mark Friedenbach <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 confli=
ct
>>> of interest. Apparently there is tons of money to be made in releasing
>>> open-source protocols! I would hate to miss out on that.
>>>
>>> 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 b=
est
>>> proposal and funded it.
>>> On Aug 15, 2015 3:28 PM, "Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev" <
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I know full well who works for Blockstream and I know you're not one o=
f
>>>> those folks. The Blockstream core devs are very vocal against a reason=
able
>>>> 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 blat=
ant
>>>> conflict of interest.
>>>>
>>>> I'm also trying to figure out how things like lightning are not
>>>> competing directly with miners for fees. More off-chain transactions m=
eans
>>>> less blockchain demand, which would lower on-chain fees. I'm not sure =
what
>>>> is controversial about that statement.
>>>>
>>>> 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-2=
56
>>>> ASIC mining hardware.
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 15, 2015, at 3:01 PM, Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev <
>>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What are you so afraid of, Eric? If Mike's fork is successful,
>>>>> consensus is reached around larger blocks. If it is rejected, the sta=
tus
>>>>> quo will remain for now. Network consensus, NOT CORE DEVELOPER CONSEN=
SUS,
>>>>> is the only thing that matters, and those that go against network con=
sensus
>>>>> will be severely punished with complete loss of income.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 re=
presenting
>>>>> 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 an=
y
>>>>> change in the protocol might bring. And this would be true even if th=
ere
>>>>> were unanimous agreement that the change is good (which there clearly=
 IS
>>>>> NOT in this case) but the deployment mechanism could still break thin=
gs.
>>>>>
>>>>> If anything we should attempt a hard fork with a less contentious
>>>>> change first, just to test deployability.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 see=
ms
>>>>> like the core devs are scared to death that the bitcoin network may c=
hange
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, let=E2=80=99s figure out a hard fork mechanism and test it wit=
h a far
>>>>> less contentious change first
>>>>>
>>>>> Despite significant past technical bitcoin achievements, two of the
>>>>> most vocal opponents to a reasonable blocksize increase work for a co=
mpany
>>>>> (Blockstream) that stands to profit directly from artificially limiti=
ng the
>>>>> blocksize. The whole situation reeks. Because of such a blatant confl=
ict of
>>>>> interest, the ethical thing to do would be for them to either resign =
from
>>>>> Blockstream or immediately withdraw themselves from the blocksize deb=
ate.
>>>>> This is the type of stuff that I hoped would end with Bitcoin, but al=
as, I
>>>>> guess human nature never changes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 mo=
tivated
>>>>> primarily by profit motives.
>>>>>
>>>>> It should also be pointed out that *not* making drastic changes is th=
e
>>>>> default consensus policy=E2=80=A6and the burden of justifying a chang=
e falls on
>>>>> those who want to make the change. Again, the risk of permanent ledge=
r
>>>>> forks far outweighs whatever benefits protocol changes might bring.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 m=
ake
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 out=
side
>>>>> forces and should not have complete control of the blocksize. It's al=
so
>>>>> interesting to note that most of the mining hashpower is already voti=
ng for
>>>>> 8MB blocks BIP100 style.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don=E2=80=99t think the concern here is so much that some people wa=
nt to
>>>>> increase block size. It=E2=80=99s the *way* in which this change is b=
eing pushed
>>>>> that is deeply problematic.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev <
>>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You deeply disappoint me, Mike.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 som=
eone
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I ask of you, as a civilized human being, to stop doing this divisiv=
e
>>>>>> crap. Despite your protestations to the contrary, YOU are the one wh=
o is
>>>>>> proposing a radical departure from the direction of the project. Als=
o, as
>>>>>> several of us have clearly stated before, equating the fork of an op=
en
>>>>>> source project with a fork of a cryptoledger is completely bogus - t=
here=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 inv=
ention do not
>>>>>> believe doing this is a good idea should give you pause.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 techn=
ical abilities
>>>>>> (and I sincerely do believe you have them) you are discrediting your=
self
>>>>>> and hurting your own reputation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Eric
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 15, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev <
>>>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As promised, we have released Bitcoin XT 0.11A which includes the
>>>>>> bigger blocks patch set. You can get it from
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      https://bitcoinxt.software/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 a=
nd many
>>>>>> others feel are important, that a fork is the only way to fix things=
.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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. Ofte=
n 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).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The article is here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It makes no attempt to be neutral: this explains things from our
>>>>>> point of view.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The manifesto is on the website.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 d=
on't
>>>>>> bite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>

--001a11c282c0e244d2051d625412
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Let&#39;s start with the definition of a conflict of inter=
est before we go any further:<br><span class=3D"_Tgc">A <b>conflict of inte=
rest</b> (COI) is a situation in
 which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests=20
(financial, emotional, or otherwise), one of which could possibly=20
corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization.</span><br><div><b=
r>Just because a conflict of interest exists does not necessarily mean the =
individual <span class=3D"_Tgc"></span>with a conflict of interest has enga=
ged in any wrongdoing. They could be a saint. However, to not even be able =
to acknowledge that such a conflict of interest exists when debating such a=
 serious issue as the bitcoin blocksize is incredibly naive. <br><div><div =
class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 a=
t 7:40 PM, Mark Friedenbach <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mark@fr=
iedenbach.org" target=3D"_blank">mark@friedenbach.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:=
<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-lef=
t:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Baseless accusatio=
ns also have no place on this mailing list. They are unprofessional, and po=
isonous to the consensus-building process we all seek to engage in.<br><br>=
</div>The Lightning Network effort at Blockstream is purposefully structure=
d to avoid any conflict of interest. ALL code related to lightning is avail=
able on Github. There is absolutely nothing that we are holding back, and t=
he protocol itself is entirely p2p. There is no privileged entity, Blockstr=
eam or otherwise.<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gma=
il_quote">On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev <s=
pan dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org=
" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wr=
ote:<br><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">=
Please take the lightning 101 discussion to another thread.<div><br></div><=
div>The main point I was trying to make was that Mike is clearly misreprese=
nting the views of a great number of people who have deep, intimate knowled=
ge of how things work and are almost certainly not primarily motivated by t=
heir own potential for profits.</div><div><div><div><br><div><blockquote ty=
pe=3D"cite"><div>On Aug 15, 2015, at 4:04 PM, Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev &l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank=
">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:</div><br><div><div d=
ir=3D"ltr">Being an early hub provider would be an obvious place to start c=
apitalizing on lightning. Early lightning adopters would be in the best pos=
ition to do this.<br><div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=
=3D"gmail_extra">Long term, Bitcoin needs to scale the blockchain in a reas=
onable manner and implement things like lightning. <br><br></div><div class=
=3D"gmail_extra">Limiting the blocksize is a blatant conflict of interest b=
ecause it creates artificial demand for lightning that would not otherwise =
exist if the blockchain scaled in a reasonable manner.<br></div><div class=
=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:5=
5 PM, Mark Friedenbach <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mark@frieden=
bach.org" target=3D"_blank">mark@friedenbach.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><=
blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px=
 #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"ltr">I would like very much to know=
 how it is that we&#39;re supposed to be making money off of lightning, and=
 therefore how it represents a conflict of interest. Apparently there is to=
ns of money to be made in releasing open-source protocols! I would hate to =
miss out on that.</p><p dir=3D"ltr">We are working on lightning because Mik=
e of all people said, essentially, &quot; if you&#39;re so fond of micro pa=
yment channels, why aren&#39;t you working on them?&quot; 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, &quot;Ken Friece via bi=
tcoin-dev&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org=
" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br=
 type=3D"attribution"><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>=
<div>I know full well who works for Blockstream and I know you&#39;re not o=
ne of those folks. The Blockstream core devs are very vocal against a reaso=
nable blocksize increase (17% growth per year in Pieter&#39;s BIP is not wh=
at I consider reasonable because it doesn&#39;t come close to keeping with =
technological increases). I think we can both agree that more on-chain spac=
e means less demand for lightning, and vice versa, which is a blatant confl=
ict of interest.<br><br></div>I&#39;m also trying to figure out how things =
like lightning are not competing directly with miners for fees. More off-ch=
ain transactions means less blockchain demand, which would lower on-chain f=
ees. I&#39;m not sure what is controversial about that statement.<br><br></=
div><div>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-2=
56 ASIC mining hardware.<br></div><div><div><div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"=
><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Eric Lombr=
ozo <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:elombrozo@gmail.com" target=3D"=
_blank">elombrozo@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"g=
mail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-l=
eft:1ex"><div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word"><br><div><blockquote type=3D"c=
ite"><div>On Aug 15, 2015, at 3:01 PM, Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitco=
in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:</div><br><div><div dir=3D"l=
tr"><div><div>What are you so afraid of, Eric? If Mike&#39;s fork is succes=
sful, consensus is reached around larger blocks. If it is rejected, the sta=
tus quo will remain for now. Network consensus, NOT CORE DEVELOPER CONSENSU=
S, is the only thing that matters, and those that go against network consen=
sus will be severely punished with complete loss of income.<br></div></div>=
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>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 peo=
ple 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><br></div=
><div>If anything we should attempt a hard fork with a less contentious cha=
nge first, just to test deployability.</div><div><div><br></div><blockquote=
 type=3D"cite"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div>I&#39;m not sure who appoint=
ed 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 de=
ath 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><br></di=
v><div>Again, let=E2=80=99s figure out a hard fork mechanism and test it wi=
th a far less contentious change first</div><br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><=
div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Despite significant past technical bitcoin achiev=
ements, two of the most vocal opponents to a reasonable blocksize increase =
work for a company (Blockstream) that stands to profit directly from artifi=
cially 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 Bi=
tcoin, but alas, I guess human nature never changes.<br></div></div></div><=
/blockquote><div><br></div><div>For the record, I do not work for Blockstre=
am. Neither do a bunch of other people who have published a number of conce=
rns. Very few of the concerns I=E2=80=99ve seen from the technical communit=
y seem to be motivated primarily by profit motives.</div><div><br></div><di=
v>It should also be pointed out that *not* making drastic changes is the de=
fault 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 f=
orks far outweighs whatever benefits protocol changes might bring.</div><br=
><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Personally, I think m=
iners should give Bitcoin XT a serious look. Miners need to realize that th=
ey are in direct competition with the lightning network and sidechains for =
fees. Miners, ask yourselves if you think you&#39;ll earn more fees with 1 =
MB blocks and more off-chain transactions or with 8 MB blocks and more on-c=
hain transactions=E2=80=A6<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div=
>Miners are NOT in direct competition with the lightning network and sidech=
ains - these claims are patently false. I recommend you take a look at thes=
e 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 respe=
ct, I do not think you properly understand them at all.<br><br><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>The longer this debate drags on, t=
he more I agree with BIP 100 and Jeff Garzik because the core devs are alre=
ady being influenced by outside forces and should not have complete control=
 of the blocksize. It&#39;s also interesting to note that most of the minin=
g hashpower is already voting for 8MB blocks BIP100 style. =C2=A0</div></di=
v></div></blockquote><div><br></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><br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><di=
v 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">&lt;<a href=3D"mai=
lto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@li=
sts.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><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"><div>You deeply disappoint me, Mik=
e.</div><div><br></div><div>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 conc=
erns=E2=80=A6you also seem to fancy yourself more capable of reading into t=
he intentions of someone who disappeared from the scene years ago, before w=
e even were fully aware of many things we now know that bring the original =
=E2=80=9Cplan=E2=80=9D into question.</div><div><br></div><div>I ask of you=
, as a civilized human being, to stop doing this divisive crap. Despite you=
r 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 c=
learly stated before, equating the fork of an open source project with a fo=
rk of a cryptoledger is completely bogus - there=E2=80=99s a lot of other p=
eople=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 intimatel=
y familiar with the inner workings of Satoshi=E2=80=99s invention do not be=
lieve doing this is a good idea should give you pause.</div><div><br></div>=
<div>Please stop using Bitcoin as your own political football=E2=80=A6for t=
he sake of Bitcoin=E2=80=A6and for your own sake. Despite your obvious tech=
nical abilities (and I sincerely do believe you have them) you are discredi=
ting yourself and hurting your own reputation.</div><div><br></div><div><br=
></div><div>- Eric</div><div><br></div><div><div><blockquote type=3D"cite">=
<div>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">bitcoin=
-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:</div><br><div><div dir=3D"ltr=
">Hello,<div><br></div><div>As promised, we have released Bitcoin XT 0.11A =
which includes the bigger blocks patch set. You can get it from</div><div><=
br></div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<a href=3D"https://bitcoinxt.software/" t=
arget=3D"_blank">https://bitcoinxt.software/</a><br></div><div><br></div><d=
iv>I feel sad that it&#39;s come to this, but there is no other way. The Bi=
tcoin Core project has drifted so far from the principles myself and many o=
thers feel are important, that a fork is the only way to fix things.</div><=
div><br></div><div>Forking is a natural thing in the open source community,=
 Bitcoin is not the first and won&#39;t be the last project to go through t=
his. Often in forks, people say there was insufficient communication. So to=
 ensure everything is crystal clear I&#39;ve written a blog post and a kind=
 of &quot;manifesto&quot; to describe why this is happening and how XT plan=
s to be different from Core (assuming adoption, of course).</div><div><br><=
/div><div>The article is here:</div><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <a hr=
ef=3D"https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1" t=
arget=3D"_blank">https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647=
312d22c1</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>It makes no attempt to be neutral=
: this explains things from our point of view.</div><div><br></div><div>The=
 manifesto is on the website.</div><div><br></div><div>I say to all develop=
ers on this list: if you also feel that Core is no longer serving the inter=
ests of Bitcoin users, come join us. We don&#39;t bite.</div><div><br></div=
></div>
_______________________________________________<br>bitcoin-dev mailing list=
<br><a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_bla=
nk">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br><a href=3D"https://lists.l=
inuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" target=3D"_blank">https://=
lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br></div></block=
quote></div><br></div></div><br>___________________________________________=
____<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>bitcoin-dev mailing list=
<br><a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_bla=
nk">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br><a href=3D"https://lists.l=
inuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" target=3D"_blank">https://=
lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br></div></block=
quote></div><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>bitcoin-dev mailing list=
<br><a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_bla=
nk">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br><a href=3D"https://lists.l=
inuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" target=3D"_blank">https://=
lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br></div></block=
quote></div><br></div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________=
________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div>

--001a11c282c0e244d2051d625412--