Topic: There is a problem with core development (Read 1411 times)

And that is the problem right there.

Of course as I have pointed out, I didn't even want to post to the dev list without proper discussion on github first.

I agree that the dev list isn't the proper place, github would have been much better.

You did. Several times, on several places, you even did so here several times even though according to yourself its not even the topic. Somehow you keep coming back to it with every 2nd[1] post.

You also had several developers disagree with your view on this, so i really dont see why there is any further need for a discussion. There can be different views on things, different stances and different philosophies. As gmaxwell explained to you the mailing list moderator probably thought the discussion was wasting time on the mailing list. Maybe here[2] is a better place to discuss your idea.

[1] its a guess
[2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=6.0

Who gives a fuck about other people and their problems?

LOL

Going radically off-topic here,

LibreSSL was not forked from OpenSSL because of heartbleed. That was the final straw but that is not why the fork happened.

The fork happened because of a problem with OpenSSL development in general. Concerns were ignored and not addressed, and it was a continual problem. Development wasn't really open.

So LibreSSL forked, cleaned up what needed to be cleaned up, and the developers are extremely responsive. I do post to that devel list, and some of my ideas are stupid and ignored, but not one has been moderated.

Many of the modifications they made improved security. There is no SSLv2 or SSLv3 support for example. OpenSSL retained them. So when a server is misconfigured to not exclude SSLv2 it is already safe from DROWN but the same configuration with the server linked against OpenSSL and it is vulnerable. They have a philosophy of protecting the users.

There were people like me calling for the removal of export ciphers from OpenSSL for years and it fell on deaf ears, that was a server configuration issue and to them it wasn't the job of the library to protect the server. That's a dangerous philosophy.

Nor have issues discussed on github been closed with instructions to "take it to dev list".

-=-

The point I am making - in the TLS world, forks are not devastating but forks in the crypto-currency world that implement consensus differently are dangerous. As such the core development process should try its best to avoid a situation like what happened with OpenSSL where frustrated users fork.

That's the way it seems to you but that's not what I wanted.

I simply wanted to make a point that in my opinion the client layer isn't the best place for the protection, and I was denied the ability to make that point by the list moderator.

Just to be clear, I have a high amount of respect for the bitcoin developers but no system should be above criticism. Criticism drives improvement.

It seems to me that you demand either endless fruitless discussion, or some sort of unmoderated board.

Both of this is readily available, so there's no problem.

Github did not have an open discussion. It was closed with instructions to move it to the dev list.

Dev list did not have an open discussion. At least one message (possibly more, I have no way of knowing) on the topic was kept from the discussion by the list moderator.

-=-

What I want to discuss here isn't the suggested change, hence why I didn't mention it in the opening post.

What I want to discuss here is the fact that open discussion on ideas isn't always allowed to take place.

And for that, yes, we are having an open discussion here - though it keeps going off topic to the idea of TX fee rate protection, which really isn't relevant to the fact that open discussion on ideas to protect users is broken in bitcoin development and needs to be fixed.

My suggestion is to make github more friendly to discussions on this type of issues, and if the devs who read github see something that merits further dev discussion, the dev can take it to the dev list.

That would solve the problem.

Great. We've had an open discussion on github, mailing list and here. So according to you, the decision has been made.

What's the next thing on the agenda?

The devs implement ideas. The number of people with write access to the core code repository is limited and should be limited.

To make changes they don't make requires a code fork, and when that code fork involves a change that requires a block chain hard fork, it is extremely dangerous.

I would rather keep using core than use a fork that does something I like that core doesn't.

I don't know it was really mistake but there have been other cases where it was really mistake.

If it wasn't a mistake then the only logical explanation is money laundering in cooperation with the miner that mined the block.

As far as who is suppose to decide what mistake prevention mechanisms make it into Bitcoin, OPEN DISCUSSION is what ultimately decides those things.

That's all I wanted was open discussion. If the devs felt there was not reason to implement the suggestion, then they don't have to. But open discussion itself was not allowed to take place.

I represent a miner, in a way, so absolutely, you are welcome to explain everything.


Again, it is you who believes the devs are in charge of judging ideas. This is not the case here, anyway.
So tell me about the open discussion. How would it look like? So far we know that there would be zero moderation.

What else? Is there supposed to be some kind of tech support guy? Or do you prefer to talk to someone 'in charge'?

And to be clear, I would have been more than happy to have that open discussion on github and never post to the dev list myself.

That's what I started to do, and only went to the dev list because I was told to take it there.

TLS clients should reject SHA1 in CertificateVerify

TLS 1.3 blocks it as part of the specification because not all clients will.

That's all I'm asking.

-=-

As far as ignoring existing blocks that already have obscenely large TX fees in a transaction, that isn't possible. If it happens at the protocol level it happens when there is a hard fork or it doesn't happen at all.

I shouldn't need to explain that to you.

And again - if the devs think it is a bad idea, that's their call and I will accept their call.

What I don't accept is the lack of open discussion - regardless of what the actual idea is.

You are welcome to ignore block 400893, and the 841 successive blocks in your Core.



Why?

EDIT: How do you know it was really mistake. It was me and I did it on purpose. How do you know it wasn't me?
EDIT: Who is, according to you, supposed to decide what other mistake prevention mechanisms will be incorporated into Bitcoin in the future?

You can process a TX with a 15 BTC fee.

You can't make one, the client protects you.

But you can't run core on Android. You can run core on a laptop if you have the disk space but the constant HD and network activity will use your battery and it uses a lot of memory.

There are legitimate reasons not to run core but to use alternate clients, and not all of them protect the user from an obvious preventable irreversible mistake. The protocol itself can prevent the mistake by making blocks that contain such transactions invalid. That's all I'm suggesting.

I'm sorry but I spotted a nick like your on there.

anyway yes, we run Core and I'm not aware of anything that would prevent me to proccess a transaction with 15 BTC fee.


Who are you to give a fuck about someone else's money? Someone shot himself to the foot while laundering money on Bitcoin? Big deal.

Why do you care about Bitcoin's brand, image or PR?

Everyone who runs bitcoin Core runs it with the fee filtering rules, they aren't nonesense.

Yes, if you run Core, you are running with those rules. I want it in the protocol, not the client, but again that isn't the point of this thread and I don't understand why I keep needing to repeat that.

I give up, I just effing give up.

Core has a problem with open discussion, and there are none so blind as those that refuse to see.

-=-

And how dare you tell me to "Fuck off back to reddit" - I loathe reddit and never visit that place.

And no, I don't want a hard fork until we need it - hence why I reject Classic.

Hard forks should be extremely rare, which is why when they happen we should get the most out of them, which is why open discussion on what goes into the next one should take place. And yes, there will be a next one.

If you disagree with the way the board or mailing list is moderated, move the topic to a different board.

If you bring up a notorious topics like hard fork over and over and over and over and over again, don't be surprised to get ban hammered.

Nothing prevents you to discuss or even develop such an idea for Bitcoin or an altcoin.

You are free to run Bitcoin Core with your custom fee filtering nonsense rules, but we all know the thing you actually care about is how to impose your own rules on the others. Fuck off back to reddit.

Don't know and don't really care. Don't give a rats ass about altcoins, most of them scams and other than namecoin I have yet to see one that truly offers anything interesting of value.

Again this thread isn't about my suggestion anyway. It's about a single person, the list moderator, getting to decide what the devs see in a discussion taking place on the dev list.

-=-

If all my ideas were good I'd be a billionaire. I'm not, so clearly not all my ideas are good. I don't care that much that this suggestion won't be acted upon. The point is that the developers didn't get to even see the arguments being made in support of it - namely that the client isn't the best place for this protection.

Think about it, we patch SSL/TLS servers all the time to protect users for issues that could be *and should be* fixed in the client, do we not?

Clearly the devs understand this is an issue because they already have protection in place in the core client.

I believe that it needs to be a protocol level protection.

I would have been happy to discuss that on github but was told to take it to dev list, where I had never posted before (I was already subscribed) yet on the dev list, a moderator prevents open discussion from taking place.

That's the problem I see - not whether or not my idea is implemented.

How many altcoins have implemented your suggestion?