1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
|
Return-Path: <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7DE38E3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 03:01:42 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mx1.riseup.net (mx1.riseup.net [198.252.153.129])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18E4C1F5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 03:01:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from piha.riseup.net (unknown [10.0.1.162])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(Client CN "*.riseup.net",
Issuer "COMODO RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (verified OK))
by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66396C1564;
Thu, 20 Aug 2015 20:01:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak;
t=1440126101; bh=rz0agBb6/6j4ScZzUY6sKIFIyz0oYob0lEjP6+MRLsI=;
h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From;
b=SAPie3yF+iUHVc4JhatiouY2q82nvEdL5eVNTiaCwrVC2axJCMcoOfYWJfJEqh97j
tYjE8a0fAGENXCXuwN2F/CCgMZ0kp7I917ua7jANg1lYlrhcWb7z/So89Yabm/nI2J
lE3J+3Fy6KjdkTA4BUpCNSfms7NOa9SqZ0lFXbJM=
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
(Authenticated sender: odinn.cyberguerrilla)
with ESMTPSA id E1FA2140C9E
Message-ID: <55D69494.2080906@riseup.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 20:01:40 -0700
From: odinn <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>, Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris.com>
References: <CALqxMTFkgGx0FxMiZ77inOZSs_+TQ88Wpj-q-c12COkO9tP4gQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+w+GKTXAvq76sX4ttiYHhRcGp1MOynGAovYs8Dq1A1Q=9K4KQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20150820091334.GA5448@muck>
In-Reply-To: <20150820091334.GA5448@muck>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.7 at mx1.riseup.net
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RP_MATCHES_RCVD,
UNPARSEABLE_RELAY 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 Fork
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: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 03:01:42 -0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Bitcoin XT isn't technically an implementation of BIP 101.
It's really just an attack on the bitcoin network, not a whole
different than any of a variety of attacks one could perform on the
network.
Facts are as follows.
The published implementation of BIP 101 is shown on the BIP 101 page:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki
at:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki#Implement
ation
The only text in the Implementation section is the following link:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6341
Which is closed by Gavin.
I am wondering why this drama continues, sort of stunned (but not
surprised) by Hearn's XT-hyping, bitcoin-attacking behavior and
crazed, delusional attitude, and hoping that consensus will be reached
on something - by something, I mean one of the following as shown at
http://bipsxdevs.azurewebsites.net/ -
well before XT achieves its goals.
By the way, since http://bipsxdevs.azurewebsites.net/ doesn't yet
appear to have any developers' signatures on it (except for luke-jr),
I'd like to take a moment to ask the developers if you could please
visit that site and put your signatures to it. (Thanks to luke-jr for
being the first one.)
- - O
On 08/20/2015 02:13 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:00:14AM +0200, Mike Hearn via
> bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>>
>>> It is just that no one else is reckless enough to bypass the
>>> review process
>>
>>
>> I keep seeing this notion crop up.
>>
>> I want to kill this idea right now:
>>
>> - There were months of public discussion leading to up the
>> authoring of BIP 101, both on this mailing list and elsewhere.
>>
>> - BIP 101 was submitted for review via the normal process. Jeff
>> Garzik specifically called Gavin out on Twitter and thanked him
>> for following the process:
>>
>> https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/614412097359708160
>>
>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/163
>>
>> As you can see, other than a few minor typo fixes and a comment
>> by sipa, there was no other review offered.
>>
>> - The implementation for BIP 101 was submitted to Bitcoin Core as
>> a pull request, to invoke the code review process:
>>
>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6341
>>
>> Some minor code layout suggestions were made by Cory and
>> incorporated. Peter popped up to say there was no chance it'd
>> ever be accepted ..... and no further review was done.
>
> No, I said there was no chance it'd be accepted "due to a number
> of BIP-level issues in addition to debate about the patch itself.
> For instance, Gavin has never given any details about testing; at
> minimum we'd need a BIP16 style quality assurance document. We also
> frown on writing software with building expiration dates, let alone
> expiration dates that trigger non-deterministically. (Note how my
> recently merged CLTV considered the year 2038 problem to avoid
> needing a hard fork at that date)"
>
> Of course no further review was done - issues were identified and
> they didn't get fixed. Why would we do further review on something
> that was broken whose author wasn't interested in fixing even
> non-controversial and obvious problems?
>
> The process is to do review, fix issues identified, and repeat
> until all issues are fixed.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing
> list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
- --
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJV1pSTAAoJEGxwq/inSG8Css4IAMDPeUGm0hmScg1a2vDh+Vob
oeMGzwNfJngzFYpjvc+Wg+BnSTJBTWuc/lAm1Y4Rrdra6/o8CmYx9HERKFzaMszm
gZ0JQGsB7F7FPBwcLpXW+GI2mZz+orQoDXYB38ICF5arBIL95EyjNxEIcWR7Yb3+
XHsEFSlcxSKtF2UzkZHH10VALD7exveXAfdCNFSh/C1lcS+MqrhNjQ7Cal2BdJt3
Rnz7snTOYYb7hlTphEzHMA/9ftLIaQoNJZcVKg//5xgouc+C1S29St0pnTW6dsOD
p+VAfTnXb+PCSVl3mK8twEx2YqINK8IbK3DsnjXk/+zNZPyEa5wqnntZTI/0eSg=
=nakV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
