{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1rslmeackq2vlwkzte3g5rc23960qkxnc3rfd7hvgne4plz5udfysayxqf2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1rslmeackq2vlwkzte3g5rc23960qkxnc3rfd7hvgne4plz5udfysayxqf2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-15\n📝 Original message:What are you so afraid of, Eric? If Mike's fork is successful, consensus is\nreached around larger blocks. If it is rejected, the status quo will remain\nfor now. Network consensus, NOT CORE DEVELOPER CONSENSUS, is the only thing\nthat matters, and those that go against network consensus will be severely\npunished with complete loss of income.\n\nI'm not sure who appointed the core devs some sort of Bitcoin Gods that can\nhold up any change that they happen to disagree with. It seems like the\ncore devs are scared to death that the bitcoin network may change without\ntheir blessing, so they go on and on about how terrible hard forks are.\nHard forks are the only way to keep core devs in check.\n\nDespite significant past technical bitcoin achievements, two of the most\nvocal opponents to a reasonable blocksize increase work for a company\n(Blockstream) that stands to profit directly from artificially limiting the\nblocksize. The whole situation reeks. Because of such a blatant conflict of\ninterest, the ethical thing to do would be for them to either resign from\nBlockstream or immediately withdraw themselves from the blocksize debate.\nThis is the type of stuff that I hoped would end with Bitcoin, but alas, I\nguess human nature never changes.\n\nPersonally, I think miners should give Bitcoin XT a serious look. Miners\nneed to realize that they are in direct competition with the lightning\nnetwork and sidechains for fees. Miners, ask yourselves if you think you'll\nearn more fees with 1 MB blocks and more off-chain transactions or with 8\nMB blocks and more on-chain transactions...\n\nThe longer this debate drags on, the more I agree with BIP 100 and Jeff\nGarzik because the core devs are already being influenced by outside forces\nand should not have complete control of the blocksize. It's also\ninteresting to note that most of the mining hashpower is already voting for\n8MB blocks BIP100 style.\n\nOn Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e You deeply disappoint me, Mike.\n\u003e\n\u003e Not only do you misrepresent many cogent, well thought out positions from\n\u003e a great number of people who have published and posted a number of articles\n\u003e detailing an explaining in-depth technical concerns…you also seem to fancy\n\u003e yourself more capable of reading into the intentions of someone who\n\u003e disappeared from the scene years ago, before we even were fully aware of\n\u003e many things we now know that bring the original “plan” into question.\n\u003e\n\u003e I ask of you, as a civilized human being, to stop doing this divisive\n\u003e crap. Despite your protestations to the contrary, YOU are the one who is\n\u003e proposing a radical departure from the direction of the project. Also, as\n\u003e several of us have clearly stated before, equating the fork of an open\n\u003e source project with a fork of a cryptoledger is completely bogus - there’s\n\u003e a lot of other people’s money at stake. This isn’t a democracy - consensus\n\u003e is all or nothing. The fact that a good number of the people most\n\u003e intimately familiar with the inner workings of Satoshi’s invention do not\n\u003e believe doing this is a good idea should give you pause.\n\u003e\n\u003e Please stop using Bitcoin as your own political football…for the sake of\n\u003e Bitcoin…and for your own sake. Despite your obvious technical abilities\n\u003e (and I sincerely do believe you have them) you are discrediting yourself\n\u003e and hurting your own reputation.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e - Eric\n\u003e\n\u003e On Aug 15, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e Hello,\n\u003e\n\u003e As promised, we have released Bitcoin XT 0.11A which includes the bigger\n\u003e blocks patch set. You can get it from\n\u003e\n\u003e      https://bitcoinxt.software/\n\u003e\n\u003e I feel sad that it's come to this, but there is no other way. The Bitcoin\n\u003e Core project has drifted so far from the principles myself and many others\n\u003e feel are important, that a fork is the only way to fix things.\n\u003e\n\u003e Forking is a natural thing in the open source community, Bitcoin is not\n\u003e the first and won't be the last project to go through this. Often in forks,\n\u003e people say there was insufficient communication. So to ensure everything is\n\u003e crystal clear I've written a blog post and a kind of \"manifesto\" to\n\u003e describe why this is happening and how XT plans to be different from Core\n\u003e (assuming adoption, of course).\n\u003e\n\u003e The article is here:\n\u003e\n\u003e     https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1\n\u003e\n\u003e It makes no attempt to be neutral: this explains things from our point of\n\u003e view.\n\u003e\n\u003e The manifesto is on the website.\n\u003e\n\u003e I say to all developers on this list: if you also feel that Core is no\n\u003e longer serving the interests of Bitcoin users, come join us. We don't bite.\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150815/43e010e3/attachment-0001.html\u003e"}