Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[theZerg]

Bitcoin core would not be gone... just feature frozen. If you want RBF or SW you'd have to use the blockstream core release just like if u want block size removed from consensus u use BU.

Gavin is still part of the bitcoin github org. And first listed... I'm guessing he is the org owner.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Oooh, that is interesting. So they would be forced to hard fork in such changes? [Nevermind, I get it now.]

 

[cypherdoc]

pwuille has our future pre-determined:

"Better late than never, let me comment on why I believe pursuing this plan
is important.

For months, the block size debate, and the apparent need for agreement on a
hardfork has distracted from needed engineering work, fed the external
impression that nothing is being done, and generally created a toxic
environment to work in. It has affected my own productivity and health, and
I do not think I am alone.

I believe that soft-fork segwit can help us out of this deadlock and get us
going again. It does not require the pervasive assumption that the entire
world will simultaneously switch to new consensus rules like a hardfork
does, while at the same time:
* Give a short-term capacity bump
* Show the world that scalability is being worked on
* Actually improve scalability (as opposed to just scale) by reducing
bandwidth/storage and indirectly improving the effectiveness of systems
like Lightning.
* Solve several unrelated problems at the same time (fraud proofs, script
extensibility, malleability, ...).

So I'd like to ask the community that we work towards this plan, as it
allows to make progress without being forced to make a possibly divisive
choice for one hardfork or another yet.

--
Pieter"

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/012090.html

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Pieter Wuille: It does not require the pervasive assumption that the entire
world will simultaneously switch to new consensus rules like a hardfork
does

See this is why I'm so eager to get fork arbitrage understood by everyone. These guys think they need to soft fork because it seems to them impossible to herd all these cats into one van. Due to unfamiliarity with economics, they miss the market solution that brings all the relevant stakeholders into line by a powerful monetary incentive: the promise of doubling their coins if they bet on the right branch of the hard fork. (Of course they can also abstain from betting and just watch. Plenty of people will bet to make it work.)

 

[cypherdoc]

Oooh, that is interesting. So they would be forced to hard fork in such changes?

just ask it in plain English.

if @Gavin Andresen shut down the Core github account, then Core would have to open up a new github acct and will users be forced to DL new code to adopt SW and RBF? sounds like it b/c new commit keys that sign the distributions and all releases would have to be issued. @theZerg?

 

[Erdogan]

@Aquent
No one should use this library. There is no way it is possible to gain a 700% performance improvement on straight forward algebraic calculations on modern systems, unless you fundamentally change the calculations that are performed. Modern compilers do an excellent job with optimizing cryptography type functions, which consist of straight forward arithmetic instructions in some number of loops. And modern hardware with out-of-order execution and branch prediction will fix any remaining optimization missing and ensure the hardware pipeline remains full.

The only way to get a 700% performance gain is if you change the very nature of the algorithms, in cryptography that breaks the entire security model. Period.

Greg simultaneously claims an unprecedented amount of testing has been done while also saying the techniques they used have not been seen elsewhere. This is impossible as these two statements are not compatible. An unprecedented amount of testing would mean open academic testing and probing for flaws over ~20 years. That is the level of testing new crypto algorithms are put through.

If a flaw is found here (and there almost always is a flaw found eventually) then that will be worse for Bitcoin then RBF and 1MB combined because it breaks all trust.

Greg's stated believe that performance is critical to the security model is flat out wrong. Trust in the algorithms is critical to the security model, if performance is a problem just scale out to more cores, that is what all applications do.

Given what I've read on this topic, I would never consider using the newer crypto toolkit they're providing, well maybe after 20 years of testing and verification. I guess that means I will stay with an older client or a forked client, which I know will protect my coins. But if just one person gets their coins stolen as a result of this, then the value of those coins will probably be zero...

Which full node version do you suggest to use?

 

[freetrader]

Bitcoin core would not be gone... just feature frozen. If you want RBF or SW you'd have to use the blockstream core release just like if u want block size removed from consensus u use BU.

F-Day.

My gut reaction is this might damage Gavin's rep, but I'll be damned if it doesn't have some appeal in ushering in a new era of fork-awareness.

P.S. had to educate myself due to weak understanding of fork arbitrage. Found the following useful links, please share others if you know of any:

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3t4kbk/forkology_301_the_three_tiers_of_investor_control/?ref=share&ref_source=link

http://fieryspinningsword.com/2015/08/25/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-fork/

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

It seems this just makes people download from a different source, not force a hard fork, so I guess it wouldn't - by itself - induce a fork arbitrage situation. But if you want more thoughts on fork arbitrage, check my history

 

[albin]

If I'm to understand this correctly, instead of producing concrete technical proposals through the proper review channels, consensus in the Core project entails committing prematurely to an entire swath of poorly-defined development landmarks? This has degenerated into some weird bike-shedding death cult.

 

[cypherdoc]

well, we did ask for clarity from core devs. so we got it.

now, we need to act. i still favor 101 or BU as a first step. with maybe SW or LN later, if they work.
[doublepost=1450755781][/doublepost][doublepost=1450756153,1450755387][/doublepost]36/337=10.68% of core devs signed this document.

that doesn't sound like consensus to me.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Though feeding into the idea that it should be a head count of all the devs leads bad places, since I imagine most of them are eager to move up in the ranks so don't want to cause trouble. Even the idea that consensus of Core means anything leads nowhere, since they can just stonewall all the non-agreers until they leave. Even the idea that Core means anything for Bitcoin leads nowhere, because Bitcoin would never outcompete rival systems unburdened by such gridlock if Bitcoin had to only be Core.

However, if they can keep the rabbits coming out of the hat, they may be able to hang on for quite a while longer yet, as anticlimactic as that would be. Unfortunately, I don't see a way for alternative implementations to be adopted until such time when they represent the only software option that can possibly accommodate new user adoption, and if Core wants to they can probably drag that out for quite a long time - of course by making many concessions to big blockers along the way.

 

[solex]

@freetrader mentioned today that it is important to maintain the moral high-ground. While it is easy to get emotional in adversity, because we all want the project to succeed, it is best to plan constructively. The good out of today's events is that we know there is no point wasting energy pressuring Core for a block limit increase in the short-term.

The alternative is to present better solutions and let Mr Market apply the pressure. BU and XT with subchains has got to be the way forward. If @Peter R is too busy then I volunteer to draft BUIP002 to get started.

Maybe Jeff and Gavin can take XT over from Mike? That would help a lot more than disrupting Core at github. There is a non-zero probability that Core will do a fast and efficient job with SW and alleviate the tx bottleneck. Unlikely they have enough time, but let them try.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

 

[theZerg]

I personally don't think that "retiring" the Bitcoin project is losing the moral high ground. The current devs are demonstrably far from what Satoshi's writings communicate. Its more like levelling the playing field.

Its weird I brought this up a long time ago when XT first came out with "only" 10% adoption. But I asked, how many people adopted the new version of Core that came out pretty much simultaneously? IDK but it sure wasn't 90% -- for example right now only 36% are on 11.2.

Anyway nobody paid any attention which is too bad because I think that that initial spin inre the lack of adoption discouraged the XT project.

Anyway, Blockstream Core has clearly made its decision. Now it seems we have only one avenue and that is a multi exchange and miner alliance. I think that if such an alliance was actually well funded -- if it paid for devs or commits, it doesn't have to put all the $ in a BF-like bag to be looted -- it would find a core group of devs in XT and that lots of the incidental devs over at the old project would be happy to contribute.

But I've got a feeling though that we are still in the cash-starved doldrums of the 2 year bear; yes things have ticked up but not enough -- enough to hope, but not enough to change the bottom line. So in a tragedy of the commons manner, these startups are happy to plug along with Blockstream footing the bill and are going to wait for a SHTF moment (should it ever occur).

Unfortunately like Bryne said WRT T0, we may never get that moment. Instead potential capacity is already being redirected to "permissioned" ledgers for projects in the planning stages. These ledgers will quickly learn how expensive it is to build and maintain these private networks and so the services built on them will not be nearly as inexpensive -- but who cares b/c they'll still be MUCH cheaper than the current solutions.

 

[Windowly]

@theZerg

To level the playing field, would @Gavin Andresen have the ability to at least freeze everyone out of the GitHub repo? I think the best thing now would be to just shut it down completely. This would put us on a more level playing field, as both sides would need to win back users.

That would be wonderful if that happened.

 

[freetrader]

I personally don't think that "retiring" the Bitcoin project is losing the moral high ground.

Even though it would send an extremely clear message to the Core project -- akin to a restraining order preceding a divorce -- it feels too heavy-handed to me and I support solex's call for a more constructive approach, and theZerg's practical suggestions about reinforcing development.

To elaborate, pulling the plug and freezing the current repo would be a very-high risk PR gamble that IMHO would only ever work out well if executed with an element of surprise (which has already been yielded, so there goes that) and an accompanying super-effective communications campaign.

If it were to happen tomorrow, I posit that large parts of the bitcoin community would be sent into a state of shock from which they would have to be coaxed very sensitively, and blame for the resulting uncertainty would be easily and unjustly apportioned to the one who wielded the ultima ratio.

Is there any chance the Lighthouse could be erected to take care of funding?

 

[rocks]

Regarding shutting down core....

I actually like this idea and I think there is a way to do it while holding the moral high ground. (This assumes Gavin or someone else has the authority to freeze the github project and lock it in place.)

I think it is fair to everyone involved if Gavin states there is significant disagreement throughout the Bitcoin community on where to take Bitcoin (no one can disagree with that), and that Satoshi always meant for the market to settle disagreements. So to let the market decide, Bitcoin core is frozen and there will be multiple branched projects for people to choose from. The blockstream dev have their branch, Gavin has another, XT and BU are also forked branched.

From here on all Bitcoin participants, from users through miners, need to choose which client they will use, and in doing so the market will decide on a direction. This might result in a permanent split or it might result in a single winner.

Gavin would not be assuming control, he would simply be saying everyone should get to pick their path. The result of course is there is no "default path" Greg does not win simply because he's manipulated core.

If anyone gets upset by this, well it is absurd and there is no reason. It is simply an acknowledgement that there are fundamental consensus disagreements and the market and user base should decide them. The blockstream team has no legitimate excuse for being upset by this, but now they do have to try to convince people to take their path, and not simply claim authority and force their way.

What will be interesting is most people do not even run a node anymore but use wallet's such as Mycelium, and I suspect would simply follow whatever their preferred wallet did.

 

[Byzantine Lover]

Looks like the "shut down Core" initiative has supporters in the belly of the beast too:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3xsfuq/peter_r_managing_editor_ledgerjrnl_an_academic/

 

[solex]

Who is aimeedonahue? because she might suddenly get a lot richer.
https://github.com/bitcoincore

@rocks "From here on all Bitcoin participants, from users through miners, need to choose which client they will use"
Thermos still has the main forums and bitcoin.org to point people to his preferred repository.

 

[cliff]

Not sure how to take this statement by Peter Todd: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7230#issuecomment-165893542 . In some ways, i appreciate the candor, but in other ways I wonder if I'm just reading it wrong.

I know PT didn't sign on to the Bitcoin.org statement from earlier today, but his github comments a few days back (linked above) + today's offering from bitcoin.org seems to scream that scaling generally doesn't matter to those who think they have the most influence in btc protocol development right now. In fact, Pieter clarified here today that SW doesn't intend to scale bitcoin, its just a side effect (btw, zokoo appears in that thread (but I'd read from the top) and he's once again all over it). Consequently, I can't see how any arguments to the Devs about users (or usability) or mass adoption are going to be persuasive (Hearn said this months ago). The very next comment form Peter Todd in the github thread is the cherry on top: essentially, if users want something for themselves as users, they need to go elsewhere and find a different dev team.

To borrow a naval analogy, there is an ongoing Blockade (its a great name to boot - please make Blockstream jokes at will) . Sticking with the naval analogy, the work-around for those wanting to break a blockade is a technique called "blockade running." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade#Blockade_running. This really is a great analogy because it exposes intent in that the conflict of interest present with several core devs and other influencers is the best explanation for the blockade (i.e., intent). In other words, and continuing w/ the naval analogy, BS devs likely know about blockade running counter-strategies and thus their business model is to own and sell all the initial working models (and know-how about) of the ideal blockade running boats.

From my perspective, an obvious counter-move for the big block folks (and possibly only option) would be to make the small block proponents lay in the bed they have made for themselves by reaching out to the current and future user-bases before the Linux and R3 does.* Rounding out the naval analogy: users need to know that there are planes available now to beat the blockade and to forget waiting on the boats to be built.

TL, DR - Users have to be the tail that wags the dog in this ecosystem, otherwise this whole project makes no sense (or cents); folks are getting tired of watching paint dry in the digital age, they prolly just need some nudging.

*Attempt at levity - The messaging could fun, yet serious: "For Sale: Ticket to the Moon (XT logo w/i a moon shape);" or "Hey, [insert small block figurehead], [you're fired]! Yo, [big block figurehead ], You're Hired" (working in friendly trace gifs along the way)! If I were really gung-ho, I might consider making an automated capacity alert/warning system bot that communicates when capacity cliffs are being approached and the possible consequences of using BTC during said time; offering a faster detour.