Gavin said something that is very true. You cannot fall back on a system where a benevolent dictator makes all the final decisions, like it was done when he was still the Lead maintainer, as he called it. Why? Because that person can get run down by a truck as he put it and you will have a leadership void.
I just know one thing, the status quo is not working and needs to be improved. If workshops is the answer for this, then we have to explore it, before we wipe it off the table as a possible solution. That is one way of doing it, and we need to explore it.
The workshop at least give more that 5 people a opportunity to state their case and to raise their concerns. ^hmf^
Topic: Mike Hearn response to "An Open Letter to the Bitcoin Community" (Read 2707 times)
September 03, 2015, 01:08:03 AM
September 03, 2015, 12:51:30 AM
Interestingly this is his last tweet:
Quote
I'm getting a few mistaken follows due to sharing a name with a Bitcoin dev. I like Bitcoin, I wrote about it once, I don't develop for it.
Well that's obviously cause it is indeed not the right guy
This is Mike's twitter account https://twitter.com/OctSkyward
September 03, 2015, 12:41:15 AM
Interestingly this is his last tweet:
Quote
I'm getting a few mistaken follows due to sharing a name with a Bitcoin dev. I like Bitcoin, I wrote about it once, I don't develop for it.
September 03, 2015, 12:17:42 AM
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3j8rg1/an_open_letter_to_the_bitcoin_community_from_the/cunzj9z
Quote
I wasn't asked to sign it. The first time I saw it was today.
Regardless, now I've read it, the letter contains a few statements I would have found it tough to agree with.
It refers to "the consensus building process". There is no such process. This point has been hammered home over and over again by now, but unfortunately, the Bitcoin Core developers seem to be in denial about it. Whenever we ask somebody to write down this process or tell us what it is, most of them go silent and Adam points to "BIP 1", which doesn't specify any decision making process or means for resolving disagreement. It suggests a continuation of the mentality that every decision has one clearly correct answer on which literally everyone can agree if only there is enough time spent talking. That's clearly not the case here.
I'm honestly not sure what else I can do at this point. The Core developers continue to insist that they have some deeply scientific, academic and professional decision making process. They just won't say what it is. They will say, though, "give it more time".
It says:
But this just continues to reflect confusion around what these workshops are actually intended to do. The website FAQ says:
https://scalingbitcoin.org/montreal2015/
Additionally it says governance will not be discussed.
So we have a project that has no formal process (or even an informal one really), yet claims the workshops will help support that process, whilst simultaneously saying that the workshops won't involve any decision making or governance discussion.
I find this to be a rather inconsistent approach.
The final statement I'd disagree with is this one:
The process that served Bitcoin well to date was Satoshi being maintainer, and then Gavin. That was the case up until April of last year. Lots of people really don't like this idea because it sounds so fragile, but for most of Bitcoin's history technical disputes were resolved through Gavin making proposals, listening to feedback and then making a decision in reasonable amounts of time. Bitcoin was not being served by this non-existent fairy tale process that the existing Bitcoin Core guys want so badly to believe in.
Regardless, now I've read it, the letter contains a few statements I would have found it tough to agree with.
It refers to "the consensus building process". There is no such process. This point has been hammered home over and over again by now, but unfortunately, the Bitcoin Core developers seem to be in denial about it. Whenever we ask somebody to write down this process or tell us what it is, most of them go silent and Adam points to "BIP 1", which doesn't specify any decision making process or means for resolving disagreement. It suggests a continuation of the mentality that every decision has one clearly correct answer on which literally everyone can agree if only there is enough time spent talking. That's clearly not the case here.
I'm honestly not sure what else I can do at this point. The Core developers continue to insist that they have some deeply scientific, academic and professional decision making process. They just won't say what it is. They will say, though, "give it more time".
It says:
Quote
We ask the community to not prejudge and instead work collaboratively to reach the best outcome through the existing process and the supporting workshops
This sounds fantastic - there is an existing process and the workshops will support that process.
This sounds fantastic - there is an existing process and the workshops will support that process.
But this just continues to reflect confusion around what these workshops are actually intended to do. The website FAQ says:
https://scalingbitcoin.org/montreal2015/
Quote
Absolutely no decisions are made at workshops
There will probably be no debate
There will probably be no debate
Additionally it says governance will not be discussed.
So we have a project that has no formal process (or even an informal one really), yet claims the workshops will help support that process, whilst simultaneously saying that the workshops won't involve any decision making or governance discussion.
I find this to be a rather inconsistent approach.
The final statement I'd disagree with is this one:
Quote
We believe this is the way forward and reinforces the existing review process that has served the Bitcoin development community (and Bitcoin in general) well to date
The process that served Bitcoin well to date was Satoshi being maintainer, and then Gavin. That was the case up until April of last year. Lots of people really don't like this idea because it sounds so fragile, but for most of Bitcoin's history technical disputes were resolved through Gavin making proposals, listening to feedback and then making a decision in reasonable amounts of time. Bitcoin was not being served by this non-existent fairy tale process that the existing Bitcoin Core guys want so badly to believe in.
Fuck Mike, fuck XT, fuck you and fuck Coinwallet.eu. (199.27.135.46)
i have been quiet for quite some time on this subject hating and stressing in my head. hard to keep up the fight against all of the fud being posted. it really takes the energy out of you.
you my friend hit the nail on the head. +21m
Fuck Mike, fuck XT, fuck you
edited for clarity
September 02, 2015, 10:52:52 PM
It's about how to reach a consensus on a complex topic
You don't need any vote for the validity of "1+1=2", you always reach 100% consensus. The reason you need to vote is because the topic is too complex that majority of participants can not grasp
However, if a topic is too difficult for majority to understand, then you have a complexity problem: The complexity make participants lose their decision making ability, thus they have to rely on political practice (to be more precise, dice casting) to make a decision
In such case, I guess simulation will be a better way to see into the future: Suppose that an airplane's crew member are all dead fighting terrorists, none of the survivors have ever flied an airplane, your best bet is to let the one who have played a lot of flight simulation to land the airplane
You don't need any vote for the validity of "1+1=2", you always reach 100% consensus. The reason you need to vote is because the topic is too complex that majority of participants can not grasp
However, if a topic is too difficult for majority to understand, then you have a complexity problem: The complexity make participants lose their decision making ability, thus they have to rely on political practice (to be more precise, dice casting) to make a decision
In such case, I guess simulation will be a better way to see into the future: Suppose that an airplane's crew member are all dead fighting terrorists, none of the survivors have ever flied an airplane, your best bet is to let the one who have played a lot of flight simulation to land the airplane
Lol another dumb analogy again. Why do you keep embarrassing yourself? Can you just stop talking about things you dont understand?
Lol another dumb sentence again. Why do you keep embarrassing yourself? Can you just stop talking about things you don't understand?
I throw your words back to you. You see, all your talk here are empty templates that can apply to anyone anything, does not make any sense
September 02, 2015, 09:58:27 PM
It's about how to reach a consensus on a complex topic
You don't need any vote for the validity of "1+1=2", you always reach 100% consensus. The reason you need to vote is because the topic is too complex that majority of participants can not grasp
However, if a topic is too difficult for majority to understand, then you have a complexity problem: The complexity make participants lose their decision making ability, thus they have to rely on political practice (to be more precise, dice casting) to make a decision
In such case, I guess simulation will be a better way to see into the future: Suppose that an airplane's crew member are all dead fighting terrorists, none of the survivors have ever flied an airplane, your best bet is to let the one who have played a lot of flight simulation to land the airplane
You don't need any vote for the validity of "1+1=2", you always reach 100% consensus. The reason you need to vote is because the topic is too complex that majority of participants can not grasp
However, if a topic is too difficult for majority to understand, then you have a complexity problem: The complexity make participants lose their decision making ability, thus they have to rely on political practice (to be more precise, dice casting) to make a decision
In such case, I guess simulation will be a better way to see into the future: Suppose that an airplane's crew member are all dead fighting terrorists, none of the survivors have ever flied an airplane, your best bet is to let the one who have played a lot of flight simulation to land the airplane
Lol another dumb analogy again. Why do you keep embarrassing yourself? Can you just stop talking about things you dont understand?
September 02, 2015, 09:55:38 PM
It's about how to reach a consensus on a complex topic
You don't need any vote for the validity of "1+1=2", you always reach 100% consensus. The reason you need to vote is because the topic is too complex that majority of participants can not grasp
However, if a topic is too difficult for majority to understand, then you have a complexity problem: The complexity make participants lose their decision making ability, thus they have to rely on political practice (to be more precise, dice casting) to make a decision
In such case, I guess simulation will be a better way to see into the future: Suppose that an airplane's crew member are all dead fighting terrorists, none of the survivors have ever flied an airplane, your best bet is to let the one who have played a lot of flight simulation to land the airplane
You don't need any vote for the validity of "1+1=2", you always reach 100% consensus. The reason you need to vote is because the topic is too complex that majority of participants can not grasp
However, if a topic is too difficult for majority to understand, then you have a complexity problem: The complexity make participants lose their decision making ability, thus they have to rely on political practice (to be more precise, dice casting) to make a decision
In such case, I guess simulation will be a better way to see into the future: Suppose that an airplane's crew member are all dead fighting terrorists, none of the survivors have ever flied an airplane, your best bet is to let the one who have played a lot of flight simulation to land the airplane
September 02, 2015, 09:52:13 PM
on that same thread Gavin proposed a one-time bump to 20mb with no further increases (as he'd tested that already). Wladimir didn't even bother replying to us.
There is nothing sensible about pushing for a 20mb increase under current circumstances, further increased planned or not.
September 02, 2015, 09:33:42 PM
on that same thread Gavin proposed a one-time bump to 20mb with no further increases (as he'd tested that already). Wladimir didn't even bother replying to us.
September 02, 2015, 08:05:56 PM
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3j8rg1/an_open_letter_to_the_bitcoin_community_from_the/cuo15pt
Quote from: Mike Hearn
I'd be happy if they come to some form of agreement at the second workshop. The website does not suggest that this will happen - the statement that absolutely no decisions are made at workshops (plural) seems definitive.
Still, it may be that whoever wrote the website FAQ isn't really representative of what the attendees will do or want. From the outside looking in, it doesn't seem like a great start. But perhaps things will happen anyway, despite the public statements of some of the attendees.
Regardless, the underlying problems remain. Gavin was having private discussions with some of the signers of this letter months ago, or trying to. So was I. Back in April I asked Wladimir privately what his proposed timeline was for a block size increase, and on that same thread Gavin proposed a one-time bump to 20mb with no further increases (as he'd tested that already). Wladimir didn't even bother replying to us.
Gavin also tried talking to Gregory Maxwell in private. So have I. He simply doesn't respond to our emails either.
There is just no way this project can be credible when key players are signing open letters saying they want some kind of amazing consensus building process .... and yet refuse to even reply to emails from developers who have been contributing to Bitcoin for longer than they have even been around.
Still, it may be that whoever wrote the website FAQ isn't really representative of what the attendees will do or want. From the outside looking in, it doesn't seem like a great start. But perhaps things will happen anyway, despite the public statements of some of the attendees.
Regardless, the underlying problems remain. Gavin was having private discussions with some of the signers of this letter months ago, or trying to. So was I. Back in April I asked Wladimir privately what his proposed timeline was for a block size increase, and on that same thread Gavin proposed a one-time bump to 20mb with no further increases (as he'd tested that already). Wladimir didn't even bother replying to us.
Gavin also tried talking to Gregory Maxwell in private. So have I. He simply doesn't respond to our emails either.
There is just no way this project can be credible when key players are signing open letters saying they want some kind of amazing consensus building process .... and yet refuse to even reply to emails from developers who have been contributing to Bitcoin for longer than they have even been around.
he is right as far as this: Wladimir and Gregory should have given them a courtesy response to the effect of, "no we are not implementing a 20x or a 8000x capacity increase. the small minority of developers that supports such drastic measures -- irrespective of real growth in transactions -- have shown no forethought as to why the drastic nature of these changes is necessary, nor have they accounted for the these various security related issues (x, y, z, ab, cd, ef, gh, etc) that may arise under such conditions"
A simple "Gavin "tests" are broken and we pointed out to you why it is so" could've done the trick as well.
September 02, 2015, 08:03:13 PM
on that same thread Gavin proposed a one-time bump to 20mb with no further increases (as he'd tested that already). Wladimir didn't even bother replying to us.
September 02, 2015, 07:59:09 PM
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3j8rg1/an_open_letter_to_the_bitcoin_community_from_the/cuo15pt
Quote from: Mike Hearn
I'd be happy if they come to some form of agreement at the second workshop. The website does not suggest that this will happen - the statement that absolutely no decisions are made at workshops (plural) seems definitive.
Still, it may be that whoever wrote the website FAQ isn't really representative of what the attendees will do or want. From the outside looking in, it doesn't seem like a great start. But perhaps things will happen anyway, despite the public statements of some of the attendees.
Regardless, the underlying problems remain. Gavin was having private discussions with some of the signers of this letter months ago, or trying to. So was I. Back in April I asked Wladimir privately what his proposed timeline was for a block size increase, and on that same thread Gavin proposed a one-time bump to 20mb with no further increases (as he'd tested that already). Wladimir didn't even bother replying to us.
Gavin also tried talking to Gregory Maxwell in private. So have I. He simply doesn't respond to our emails either.
There is just no way this project can be credible when key players are signing open letters saying they want some kind of amazing consensus building process .... and yet refuse to even reply to emails from developers who have been contributing to Bitcoin for longer than they have even been around.
Still, it may be that whoever wrote the website FAQ isn't really representative of what the attendees will do or want. From the outside looking in, it doesn't seem like a great start. But perhaps things will happen anyway, despite the public statements of some of the attendees.
Regardless, the underlying problems remain. Gavin was having private discussions with some of the signers of this letter months ago, or trying to. So was I. Back in April I asked Wladimir privately what his proposed timeline was for a block size increase, and on that same thread Gavin proposed a one-time bump to 20mb with no further increases (as he'd tested that already). Wladimir didn't even bother replying to us.
Gavin also tried talking to Gregory Maxwell in private. So have I. He simply doesn't respond to our emails either.
There is just no way this project can be credible when key players are signing open letters saying they want some kind of amazing consensus building process .... and yet refuse to even reply to emails from developers who have been contributing to Bitcoin for longer than they have even been around.
he is right as far as this: Wladimir and Gregory should have given them a courtesy response to the effect of, "no we are not implementing a 20x or a 8000x capacity increase. the small minority of developers that supports such drastic measures -- irrespective of real growth in transactions -- have shown no forethought as to why the drastic nature of these changes is necessary, nor have they accounted for the these various security related issues (x, y, z, ab, cd, ef, gh, etc) that may arise under such conditions"
September 02, 2015, 07:45:11 PM
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3j8rg1/an_open_letter_to_the_bitcoin_community_from_the/cuo15pt
Quote from: Mike Hearn
I'd be happy if they come to some form of agreement at the second workshop. The website does not suggest that this will happen - the statement that absolutely no decisions are made at workshops (plural) seems definitive.
Still, it may be that whoever wrote the website FAQ isn't really representative of what the attendees will do or want. From the outside looking in, it doesn't seem like a great start. But perhaps things will happen anyway, despite the public statements of some of the attendees.
Regardless, the underlying problems remain. Gavin was having private discussions with some of the signers of this letter months ago, or trying to. So was I. Back in April I asked Wladimir privately what his proposed timeline was for a block size increase, and on that same thread Gavin proposed a one-time bump to 20mb with no further increases (as he'd tested that already). Wladimir didn't even bother replying to us.
Gavin also tried talking to Gregory Maxwell in private. So have I. He simply doesn't respond to our emails either.
There is just no way this project can be credible when key players are signing open letters saying they want some kind of amazing consensus building process .... and yet refuse to even reply to emails from developers who have been contributing to Bitcoin for longer than they have even been around.
Still, it may be that whoever wrote the website FAQ isn't really representative of what the attendees will do or want. From the outside looking in, it doesn't seem like a great start. But perhaps things will happen anyway, despite the public statements of some of the attendees.
Regardless, the underlying problems remain. Gavin was having private discussions with some of the signers of this letter months ago, or trying to. So was I. Back in April I asked Wladimir privately what his proposed timeline was for a block size increase, and on that same thread Gavin proposed a one-time bump to 20mb with no further increases (as he'd tested that already). Wladimir didn't even bother replying to us.
Gavin also tried talking to Gregory Maxwell in private. So have I. He simply doesn't respond to our emails either.
There is just no way this project can be credible when key players are signing open letters saying they want some kind of amazing consensus building process .... and yet refuse to even reply to emails from developers who have been contributing to Bitcoin for longer than they have even been around.
September 02, 2015, 07:33:04 PM
A Proposal for the Consensus Building Process:
1) All BIP's have equal weight in the voting process.
2)Miners vote with each newly mined Block.
3) BIPs are revised and amended according to argument and reservations submitted so that they are molded into the best possible versions that everyone is happy with.
4) Once 75% of blocks mined within the last 1000 blocks is in support of one BIP, an alert is sent out to everyone indicating that they should switch over to supporting this BIP.
5) Once 90% of blocks mined within the last 1000 blocks indicates support of the BIP the debate is over and the new BIP is implemented, all blocks that do not include the new BIP protocol changes are after that point rejected.
Historically the threshold has been 95% such as with BIP69, but I suggest lowering that to 90%. Agree? Disagree?
A few of us are working on creating an Open Letter to the Devs from The Bitcoin Community which will include this proposal. If you would like to help us shape this document PM me and I will send you a link to the Google Doc so you can help us write the letter.
1) All BIP's have equal weight in the voting process.
2)Miners vote with each newly mined Block.
3) BIPs are revised and amended according to argument and reservations submitted so that they are molded into the best possible versions that everyone is happy with.
4) Once 75% of blocks mined within the last 1000 blocks is in support of one BIP, an alert is sent out to everyone indicating that they should switch over to supporting this BIP.
5) Once 90% of blocks mined within the last 1000 blocks indicates support of the BIP the debate is over and the new BIP is implemented, all blocks that do not include the new BIP protocol changes are after that point rejected.
Historically the threshold has been 95% such as with BIP69, but I suggest lowering that to 90%. Agree? Disagree?
A few of us are working on creating an Open Letter to the Devs from The Bitcoin Community which will include this proposal. If you would like to help us shape this document PM me and I will send you a link to the Google Doc so you can help us write the letter.
What if someone implements a BIP that "establishes that consensus should be aknowledged with only 100 out of 1000 blocks", and this BIP gets >90% of the last blocks mined? :-)
September 02, 2015, 04:25:57 PM
Like I said earlier, doing nothing is preferable to jeopardizing security.
again, most people agree Bip102 doesn't jeopardize security , but the devs would rather do nothing.
Doing nothing until there is a crisis and then rushing an emergency fix seems more dangerous than going with a reasonable approach now and testing the hell out of it. And this is preferable to jeopardizing adoption too.
I believe I have already addressed this. I agree that a simple doubling of the block size is unlikely to jeopardize security. But I'm not sure that it is wise for devs to force the debate at this point by throwing their weight behind this or that proposal, though. The urgency is overstated; if we are still at this impasse in 9 months or a year, I will agree with you, assuming we are actually pushing the 1MB block limit.
However, I don't consider myself to be on "Team BIP102" because I don't want to be biased against potentially better solutions that may arise, and I want to see more rigorous debate, with more emphasis on the technical issues of scaling. Less politics and accusations of nefarious intention, more discussion of technical merits.
September 02, 2015, 04:25:26 PM
Like I said earlier, doing nothing is preferable to jeopardizing security.
again, most people agree Bip102 doesn't jeopardize security , but the devs would rather do nothing.
Doing nothing until there is a crisis and then rushing an emergency fix seems more dangerous than going with a reasonable approach now and testing the hell out of it. And this is preferable to jeopardizing adoption too.
If we have the opportunity to fork the network only once this is what we should aim for. There is still no hurry to adopt BIP102 or any proposals until every alternative has been worked through.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
September 02, 2015, 04:22:19 PM
Like I said earlier, doing nothing is preferable to jeopardizing security.
again, most people agree Bip102 doesn't jeopardize security , but the devs would rather do nothing.
Doing nothing until there is a crisis and then rushing an emergency fix seems more dangerous than going with a reasonable approach now and testing the hell out of it. And this is preferable to jeopardizing adoption too.
September 02, 2015, 03:44:07 PM
Anyone know if Mike Hearn calls himself a libertarian?
I know Gavin does.
Not that it matters but it's interesting to me. Mike & Gavin are really pushing the regulatory agenda.
I know Gavin does.
Not that it matters but it's interesting to me. Mike & Gavin are really pushing the regulatory agenda.
September 02, 2015, 03:33:41 PM
In other words, regardless of
their motives, the core team hasn't come to a consensus, despite some very reasonable proposals (BIP 102) and
in fact have argued nothing should be done until there is a backlog.
While you may feel Gavin is on the deep end of the pool, Greg is certainly on the other extreme.
their motives, the core team hasn't come to a consensus, despite some very reasonable proposals (BIP 102) and
in fact have argued nothing should be done until there is a backlog.
While you may feel Gavin is on the deep end of the pool, Greg is certainly on the other extreme.
Like I said earlier, doing nothing is preferable to jeopardizing security.
I'm also not convinced that waiting until there is a consistent backlog is necessarily wrong. That may have been Satoshi's intent when he said we can change the limit when we need to, in response to the suggestion in 2010 that the block size limit be removed.
I think we all know that this debate really began in earnest following the first stress test and the release of the XT client. Not much time has passed at all. Like I said, I'm not sure it's appropriate for devs to "pick a team" just yet. I think that may simply cause more devolution in this debate.
I have found Greg's approach to be pretty compelling, as he gives considerable forethought to the issues and potential issues that come with scaling. This is in contrast to Gavin's approach, which I believe boils down to this and little more:
Quote
I woulda thunk you were old enough to be confident that technology DOES improve. In fits and starts, but over the long term it definitely gets better.
Sure, technology gets better. That's not a very good basis to support the extent of scaling suggested in BIP101. And his cavalier attitude towards the potential problems that it may cause is a bit insulting.
September 02, 2015, 03:22:12 PM
If BIP101 supporters came around to a more responsible, incremental approach that is line with real transaction growth -- not transaction growth that they want to happen -- this issue would be a lot less controversial.
I agree with that statement... but as I have little to zero contact or influence with Gavin (although he might be reading this), there's not much I can personally do.
the miners too agree on a "approach that is line with real transaction growth"
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools
>60% hashing for BIP100
Jump to: