path: root/a0/7dc9051a3fbe4c0bf2fa8a6850c6f066040cce

Return-Path: <mark@friedenbach.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F41E08DD
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:40:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ig0-f177.google.com (mail-ig0-f177.google.com
	[209.85.213.177])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B59925A
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:40:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by igfj19 with SMTP id j19so34795702igf.0
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 15 Aug 2015 16:40:33 -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:from:date
	:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type;
	bh=Rp3ED0I5H0t6G+OwcA8BHvZdeMGIjefBmbUjPDvLczA=;
	b=OAtTkkZmGfgjSzKtIr6gXr1NBc2F8mnR2oa8rcbyJojCBjpttPtyvibrZltgVYaRT/
	3IeT7GsBnXwQEQ2uojXHtKRY5FKtfr+qan7hVubLu73oCl1Ce/7owpREruYKmesuIsc9
	aPNwYWY2BSY/13JEZ6rENIuFE/wqTQxXnwDN7fOkv5fv3TyhuZ/RWf85nzoEAHG8xKpb
	k+LrcBisHnprUu51Det4cff7SufeZPj4gFvXS9mryBMOeDrlmlvYkvwDMm53tl3PZa3x
	lImow4eUq48bd1nWnTri/aMkbQoziDuvsxzuLbnYQ9OtL67HYRz48wr2eZo/P42oJbgg
	UvEw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmXVJc/YY4e92oglyHSc6v2vB3WGeAxB7nCNoXggxPSGwnx5Y2UKhhMYvtpNqzo2tXFvDhh
X-Received: by 10.50.112.229 with SMTP id it5mr10558083igb.46.1439682033477;
	Sat, 15 Aug 2015 16:40:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.138.14 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 16:40:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [50.0.37.37]
In-Reply-To: <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>
	<90267BA3-06D8-412B-8FF6-BA21BCCA8AB8@gmail.com>
From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 16:40:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOG=w-uTd_V5usB79sLc8E_3R2oxmYqriO6XnrRVcz3Gw7NHuw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0118417e320702051d621862
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.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 23:40:36 -0000

--089e0118417e320702051d621862
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Baseless accusations also have no place on this mailing list. They are
unprofessional, and poisonous to the consensus-building process we all seek
to engage in.

The Lightning Network effort at Blockstream is purposefully structured to
avoid any conflict of interest. ALL code related to lightning is available
on Github. There is absolutely nothing that we are holding back, and the
protocol itself is entirely p2p. There is no privileged entity, Blockstream
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 if
> 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 makin=
g
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>> 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 of
>>> those folks. The Blockstream core devs are very vocal against a reasona=
ble
>>> 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 blata=
nt
>>> 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 me=
ans
>>> less blockchain demand, which would lower on-chain fees. I'm not sure w=
hat
>>> 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-25=
6
>>> 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 stat=
us
>>>> quo will remain for now. Network consensus, NOT CORE DEVELOPER CONSENS=
US,
>>>> is the only thing that matters, and those that go against network cons=
ensus
>>>> 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 rep=
resenting
>>>> 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 the=
re
>>>> were unanimous agreement that the change is good (which there clearly =
IS
>>>> NOT in this case) but the deployment mechanism could still break thing=
s.
>>>>
>>>> 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 tha=
t
>>>> can hold up any change that they happen to disagree with. It seems lik=
e the
>>>> core devs are scared to death that the bitcoin network may change with=
out
>>>> 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 with=
 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 com=
pany
>>>> (Blockstream) that stands to profit directly from artificially limitin=
g the
>>>> blocksize. The whole situation reeks. Because of such a blatant confli=
ct of
>>>> interest, the ethical thing to do would be for them to either resign f=
rom
>>>> Blockstream or immediately withdraw themselves from the blocksize deba=
te.
>>>> This is the type of stuff that I hoped would end with Bitcoin, but ala=
s, 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 mot=
ivated
>>>> primarily by profit motives.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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 y=
ou
>>>> 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 l=
ook
>>>> at these ideas and understand them a little better before trying to ma=
ke
>>>> any such claims. Again, I do not work for Blockstream=E2=80=A6and my a=
genda 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 Jef=
f
>>>> Garzik because the core devs are already being influenced by outside f=
orces
>>>> and should not have complete control of the blocksize. It's also
>>>> interesting to note that most of the mining hashpower is already votin=
g for
>>>> 8MB blocks BIP100 style.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don=E2=80=99t think the concern here is so much that some people wan=
t to
>>>> increase block size. It=E2=80=99s the *way* in which this change is be=
ing 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=A6=
you also seem
>>>>> to fancy yourself more capable of reading into the intentions of some=
one
>>>>> who disappeared from the scene years ago, before we even were fully a=
ware
>>>>> 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 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 ope=
n
>>>>> source project with a fork of a cryptoledger is completely bogus - th=
ere=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 inve=
ntion 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 techni=
cal abilities
>>>>> (and I sincerely do believe you have them) you are discrediting yours=
elf
>>>>> 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 an=
d 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. 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).
>>>>>
>>>>> The article is here:
>>>>>
>>>>>     https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c=
1
>>>>>
>>>>> It makes no attempt to be neutral: this explains things from our poin=
t
>>>>> of view.
>>>>>
>>>>> The manifesto is on the website.
>>>>>
>>>>> I say to all developers on this list: if you also feel that Core is n=
o
>>>>> longer serving the interests of Bitcoin users, come join us. We don'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
>
>

--089e0118417e320702051d621862
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Baseless accusations also have no place on this maili=
ng list. They are unprofessional, and poisonous to the consensus-building p=
rocess we all seek to engage in.<br><br></div>The Lightning Network effort =
at Blockstream is purposefully structured to avoid any conflict of interest=
. ALL code related to lightning is available on Github. There is absolutely=
 nothing that we are holding back, and the protocol itself is entirely p2p.=
 There is no privileged entity, Blockstream or otherwise.<br></div><div cla=
ss=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 4=
:07 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mail=
to:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lis=
ts.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:1=
ex"><div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word">Please take the lightning 101 discu=
ssion to another thread.<div><br></div><div>The main point I was trying to =
make was that Mike is clearly misrepresenting the views of a great number o=
f people who have deep, intimate knowledge of how things work and are almos=
t certainly not primarily motivated by their own potential for profits.</di=
v><div><div class=3D"h5"><div><br><div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div>On Au=
g 15, 2015, at 4:04 PM, Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bi=
tcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.li=
nuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:</div><br><div><div dir=3D"ltr">Being an ea=
rly hub provider would be an obvious place to start capitalizing on lightni=
ng. Early lightning adopters would be in the best position to do this.<br><=
div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Long te=
rm, Bitcoin needs to scale the blockchain in a reasonable manner and implem=
ent things like lightning. <br><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Limitin=
g the blocksize is a blatant conflict of interest because it creates artifi=
cial 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 6:55 PM, Mark Friedenbach <s=
pan dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mark@friedenbach.org" target=3D"_blan=
k">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 represe=
nts 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 d=
ir=3D"ltr">We are working on lightning because Mike of all people said, ess=
entially, &quot; if you&#39;re so fond of micro payment 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">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>

--089e0118417e320702051d621862--