you can only wonder what new "features" will be in it, given Hearn's clear bias for centralized trust-based systems.
Based on Hearn's previous proposals, and his complete control over XT, potential features include:
- Automatic updates
- Redlists
- Blacklists
- Whitelists
- Coin tainting
Based on Hearn's previous proposals, and his complete control over XT, potential features include:
- Automatic updates
- Redlists
- Blacklists
- Whitelists
- Coin tainting
Bitcoin's CTO calls out [email protected] and [email protected] for being epic shitlords:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010439.html
Quote
[bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
Adam Back adam at cypherspace.org
Wed Aug 19 16:53:13 UTC 2015
It seems to be a recurring meme that BIP 101 is somehow "a solution
put forward" where BIP 100, 102, 103, flexcap, extension blocks etc
etc are not.
That is not at ALL the case, and is insulting (present company excluded).
It is just that no one else is reckless enough to bypass the review
process and risk a controversial hard fork deployment war. Myself and
many other people warned Gavin a network fork "war" would start (ie
someone would think of some way to sabotage or attack the deployment
of Bitcoin-XT via protocol, code, policy, consensus soft-fork etc. He
ignored the warnings. Many also warned that 75% was an optimally BAD
trigger ratio (and that in a hard fork it is not a miner vote really
as in soft-forks). Gavin & Mike ignored that warning to. I know they
heard those warnings because I told them 1:1 in person or via email
and had on going conversations. Others did too.
People can not blame bitcoin core or me, that this then predictably
happened exactly as we said it would - it was completely obvious and
predictable.
In fact noBitcoinXT is even more dangerous and therefore amplified in
effect in creating mutual assured destruction kind of risk profile
than the loose spectrum of technical counters imagined. I did not
personally put much effort into thinking about counters because I
though it counter productive and hoped that Gavin & Mike would have
the maturity to not start down such a path.
Again any of the other proposals can easily be implemented. They
*could* also spin up a web page and put up binaries, however no one
else was crazy enough to try to start a deployment in that way.
It is also puzzling timing - with all these BIPs and ongoing
discussion and workshops coming imminently to then release ahead of
that process where as far as I know Gavin said he was equally happy
with BIP 100 or other proposal which ever is best, and on basically
the eve of workshops planned to progress this collaboratively.
Bitcoin-XT is also under tested, people are finding privacy bugs and
other issues. (Not even mentioning the above 75% optimally bad
parameter, and the damage to community reputation and collaborative
environment that this all causes.)
Very disappointing Gavin and Mike.
I find it quite notable that Gavin and Mike have been radio silent on
the bitcoin-dev list and yet we see a stream of media articles, blog
posts, pod casts, and from what I can tell ongoing backroom lobbying
of companies to run bitcoin-XT without trying AT ALL to offer a
neutral or balanced or multi proposal information package so that
companies technical people can make a balanced informed decision.
That is what the workshops are trying to provide.
Gavin, Mike - anything to say here?
Adam
Adam Back adam at cypherspace.org
Wed Aug 19 16:53:13 UTC 2015
It seems to be a recurring meme that BIP 101 is somehow "a solution
put forward" where BIP 100, 102, 103, flexcap, extension blocks etc
etc are not.
That is not at ALL the case, and is insulting (present company excluded).
It is just that no one else is reckless enough to bypass the review
process and risk a controversial hard fork deployment war. Myself and
many other people warned Gavin a network fork "war" would start (ie
someone would think of some way to sabotage or attack the deployment
of Bitcoin-XT via protocol, code, policy, consensus soft-fork etc. He
ignored the warnings. Many also warned that 75% was an optimally BAD
trigger ratio (and that in a hard fork it is not a miner vote really
as in soft-forks). Gavin & Mike ignored that warning to. I know they
heard those warnings because I told them 1:1 in person or via email
and had on going conversations. Others did too.
People can not blame bitcoin core or me, that this then predictably
happened exactly as we said it would - it was completely obvious and
predictable.
In fact noBitcoinXT is even more dangerous and therefore amplified in
effect in creating mutual assured destruction kind of risk profile
than the loose spectrum of technical counters imagined. I did not
personally put much effort into thinking about counters because I
though it counter productive and hoped that Gavin & Mike would have
the maturity to not start down such a path.
Again any of the other proposals can easily be implemented. They
*could* also spin up a web page and put up binaries, however no one
else was crazy enough to try to start a deployment in that way.
It is also puzzling timing - with all these BIPs and ongoing
discussion and workshops coming imminently to then release ahead of
that process where as far as I know Gavin said he was equally happy
with BIP 100 or other proposal which ever is best, and on basically
the eve of workshops planned to progress this collaboratively.
Bitcoin-XT is also under tested, people are finding privacy bugs and
other issues. (Not even mentioning the above 75% optimally bad
parameter, and the damage to community reputation and collaborative
environment that this all causes.)
Very disappointing Gavin and Mike.
I find it quite notable that Gavin and Mike have been radio silent on
the bitcoin-dev list and yet we see a stream of media articles, blog
posts, pod casts, and from what I can tell ongoing backroom lobbying
of companies to run bitcoin-XT without trying AT ALL to offer a
neutral or balanced or multi proposal information package so that
companies technical people can make a balanced informed decision.
That is what the workshops are trying to provide.
Gavin, Mike - anything to say here?
Adam
Just for completeness, here's the reply.
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010496.html
Quote
[bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
Mike Hearn hearn at vinumeris.com
Thu Aug 20 09:00:14 UTC 2015
>
> 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.
So the entire Bitcoin Core BIP process was followed to the letter. The net
result was this. There were, in fact, bugs in the implementation of BIP
101. They were found when Gavin submitted the code to the XT community
review process, which resulted in *actual* peer review. Additionally, there
was much discussion of technical details on the XT mailing list that
Bitcoin Core entirely ignored.
Mike Hearn hearn at vinumeris.com
Thu Aug 20 09:00:14 UTC 2015
>
> 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.
So the entire Bitcoin Core BIP process was followed to the letter. The net
result was this. There were, in fact, bugs in the implementation of BIP
101. They were found when Gavin submitted the code to the XT community
review process, which resulted in *actual* peer review. Additionally, there
was much discussion of technical details on the XT mailing list that
Bitcoin Core entirely ignored.
