Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[rocks]

This is a bit of a special case because the importance of 0-conf transactions is explicitly stated in our Articles. So on that basis we could have an exception to our usual behavior of configurability. But I'll go with whatever the community decides here -- its just as easy to add a configurable as it is to comment out the code.

This is what I was trying to get at. There is a difference between features that are aligned with Bitcoin's vision and features that actively work against that vision.

If core included a new feature that enabled double spending previously confirmed transactions for a higher fee, should BU offer that as a user configurable option? I think most would agree not.

Somewhere there is a line between features that are OK to add as user configurable options and features that are not OK. There are some things (such as the above example) that just are incompatible with what Bitcoin is.

I don't know where that line should be, but it does exist. RBF is close (and I'd say over it IMHO).

I think there needs to be a very simple and clear vision statement on where BU wants to take bitcoin. From there decisions on which features to enable or make a user configurable option should take into consideration that vision statement, and features that actively go against that vision statement should be rejected. For me the vision statement is to fulfill Satoshi's original vision of a global P2P cash system that enables instant transactions between users and is directly usable by as many participants as possible.

 

[VeritasSapere]

I have to agree with Zangelbert Bingledack here. Even though I also really do not like RBF, it does make sense to just give people the choice, since it is not consensus critical and can be just patched in anyway. Leaving it off on default could express our preferences.

I was thinking maybe the GUI could throw up warning signs when an RBF transaction is sent to the wallet, something along the lines of "warning this transaction can be double spent" or "warning this transaction is unreliable". This certainly would be a strong message since we can not stop other wallets sending RBF transactions to us, maybe even have the option to reject RBF transactions if that is possible. Fundementally I do agree with Zanglelbert Bingledack BU is about giving people freedom of choice wherever we can. I recognize that there is somewhat a contradiction within the articles, as there should be with such thought, this needs to be addressed through balance. Giving people the choice, while reflecting our ideology and preferences through the default settings maybe?
[doublepost=1451513767][/doublepost]Thinking about this some more however and considering rocks statement. This is a difficult issue, RBF allows for double spends? One of the problems Bitcoin is meant to solve, does this break Bitcoin? Or undermine it somehow? This might be a unique case where this indeed should not be an option, since it is fundamentally opposed to the original vision. The ability to recognize a RBF transaction and having the option to either reject or accept them might be worth considering however.

I think for me, since I do not have a deep technical understanding of how RBF works I find it hard to know how much of a threat RBF really is. I will stand by the principles I have expressed here however. They still apply depending on the technical facts of RBF.

 

[theZerg]

The vision statement is the intro and Article 1 of the Articles. Please read if you haven't already: http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/articlesOfFederation

I think that we can only refine that based on our decisions WRT different BUIPs. Rather than a benevolent dictator that's how this roller coaster is designed to work! Hopefully we'll still talk to each other after RBF vote!

And feel free to ignore me and flood this thread for the next 48 hrs with postings but you'll probably just have to repeat yourselves when the RBF BUIP is issued.

 

[VeritasSapere]

This is a difficult issue, a edge case. With contradiction and dilemma, this will be interesting, will be giving it some more thought till then. Probably will be best to discuss this in the BUIP thread, otherwise arguments will get lost and be more disorganized as well.

Both sides of the argument are compelling, will try to understand RBF a bit better before then as well.

[doublepost=1451514665][/doublepost]In regards to the previous discussion, I am still catching up, but I am happy with the theZerg as lead developer. You are doing a great job and I really admire what you have done there, thank you.

At the same time however I will say this. Please join us Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzick! That would be truly great, we can never have enough great developers in Bitcoin Unlimited, the sky is the limit.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Is it impossible to have two versions? Just like XT has a "big blocks only" version. Maybe even by a different developer in a different repo, maybe even with a different name...

In other words, I see BU as more of a concept, with this as the first implementation. The genie is out of the bottle, so to speak, so if "we" here don't include RBF I'm guessing someone will. The customization ideas of BU are popping up all over the place, even with Olivier Janssen's BIP.

To me keeping it out is self-defeating since if it is rejected by the market we don't have to include it, and if it is somehow popular it would be pointless not to include it (it would only hamper adoption of BU at that point, possibly losing the war in an effort to win a smaller battle).

 

[rocks]

but you'll probably just have to repeat yourselves when the RBF BUIP is issued.

For RBF I think that makes the most sense. Put it's inclusion to a vote instead of just following core by default.

 

[cypherdoc]

here's an interesting comment by Matonis:


so is Bitcoin a unit of account yet? answer: no. that's b/c it's being crippled so it doesn't have a chance. so it's not money; yet. and certainly not a settlement layer.

but if Bitcoin is allowed to spread worldwide and be used cheaply, then yes, a unit of account it will be and the definition of money will be complete.

 

[theZerg]

Clearly we seem to be dividing along lines of those who are strongly philosophically motivated and the compromisers . Personally, I fall more in the camp of "the only thing we should be intolerant of is intolerance itself" -- in other words, there are always exceptions.

For you non-programmers its very important that you remember to weigh every feature against features that could be implemented in the same developer hours. It takes a LOT less time to comment code out than it takes to create 3 configuration mechanisms (GUI, cmd line, RPC) to optionally include it, and to test all cfg mechanisms and both states. I would not be enthused to do that for a feature we do not want turned on. Let someone else do it if they want.

Also, its important to remember that voting is not binding on my or any other developer's time (unless a developer volunteers his time in the BUIP). So in this case if the BUIP states "must be configurable" and is voted YES, in the release it would either be "untouched" or "configurable", it couldn't be "commented out".

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

I completely agree that it shouldn't be a coding priority, but if we are trying to win over Core adherents AND it somehow turns out to be popular, I think it should be a design goal to include the option.

 

[JVWVU]

The twitter debates right now are insane, we need to get people first out of supporting XT (which I think we all hate) to an unlimited basis debate with Core. Everyone heads right to Hearn discussion which is hurting us imo.

I choose to use Coinbase's Swift Card for daily trasactions, but I should not be mandated to use it and until I can walk into a bar and buy a beer that way (sorry i dont do lattes) Bitcoin as cypher says its not money.

I really believe Satoshi is sitting on sidelines thinking putting Theymos in charge of a few main options may have been his worse decision ever, and probably thinking he might need to intervene

Also a noncoder thanks for all you guys do.

 

[Windowly]

One of the things that attracted me to Bitcoin Unlimited was the support for 0 confirmation transactions.

 

[VeritasSapere]

I am conflicted between these two sides of the argument for RBF, I am leaning towards not including it, I need to further understand the ramifications of this, I will be giving it more thought. Looking forward to the discussion in the BUIP. This might the first controversial decision that needs to be made within Bitcoin Unlimited, lets show Core how it is done.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

I say we wait until it's actually adopted and doesn't flop (ha!) before getting into a big debate about it. In fact, my statements above about it are pointless unless people are actively asking for it, which they aren't yet.

In short, my position is to include as a design goal an option for everything that's halfway popular or included in popular clients. Coding priorities can be totally different..

 

[Peter R]

Seems Adam is Back in public. Continuing to engage in self-harm on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/adam3us/with_replies

 

[Erdogan]

ublicly supported a blocksiz

AFAIK RBF is a behavior of the mempool, and doesn't have anything to do with the blockchain.

Which also means that it can be removed later, if the market turns and does not want them any more.

 

[albin]

Maybe Luke-jr is actually a genius performance artist?

Not aware of any opposition to the plan??

 

[Richy_T]

Another thought:

Did anyone actually ever calculate today's computational cost for storing, verifying and transmitting a single transaction in the network?

[snip]

So a total of 9.4+1.25+1.4 == 12.05 Microdollars per Transaction

And that is with today's technology.

Still catching up with the thread. I was just thinking a couple of days ago that someone needed to do this and now I saw this. Nice job.

 

[cypherdoc]

wow guys, great job on the BitcoinUnlimited website. looks much more professional.

 

[rocks]

I say we wait until it's actually adopted and doesn't flop (ha!) before getting into a big debate about it. In fact, my statements above about it are pointless unless people are actively asking for it, which they aren't yet.

Other than blockstream, I haven't seen anyone ask for it. In fact it has been the opposite, when Peter Todd put RBF out there, there was almost universal disgust as far as I could tell.

If someone was looking to take a stand against the core devs by rejecting a feature of theirs, RBF is the one to choose.

 

[Bloomie]

@cypherdoc

Here is a great analysis by Adriano Celentano about the situation. He totally agrees with you, and not just since yesterday. Listen carefully:

La situazione dei piccoli cani non è buona