{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1r3san9v5njl6798hvauyu9ntm6r9c7u8s0t65wls58gpfdcvqp5sa48d0u","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1r3san9v5njl6798hvauyu9ntm6r9c7u8s0t65wls58gpfdcvqp5sa48d0u","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-15\n📝 Original message:I would like very much to know how it is that we're supposed to be making\nmoney off of lightning, and therefore how it represents a conflict of\ninterest. Apparently there is tons of money to be made in releasing\nopen-source protocols! I would hate to miss out on that.\n\nWe are working on lightning because Mike of all people said, essentially, \"\nif you're so fond of micro payment channels, why aren't you working on\nthem?\" And he was right! So we looked around and found the best proposal\nand funded it.\nOn Aug 15, 2015 3:28 PM, \"Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev\" \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e I know full well who works for Blockstream and I know you're not one of\n\u003e those folks. The Blockstream core devs are very vocal against a reasonable\n\u003e blocksize increase (17% growth per year in Pieter's BIP is not what I\n\u003e consider reasonable because it doesn't come close to keeping with\n\u003e technological increases). I think we can both agree that more on-chain\n\u003e space means less demand for lightning, and vice versa, which is a blatant\n\u003e conflict of interest.\n\u003e\n\u003e I'm also trying to figure out how things like lightning are not competing\n\u003e directly with miners for fees. More off-chain transactions means less\n\u003e blockchain demand, which would lower on-chain fees. I'm not sure what is\n\u003e controversial about that statement.\n\u003e\n\u003e The lightning network concept is actually a brilliant way to take fees\n\u003e away from miners without having to make any investment at all in SSH-256\n\u003e ASIC mining hardware.\n\u003e\n\u003e On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Eric Lombrozo \u003celombrozo at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Aug 15, 2015, at 3:01 PM, Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e What are you so afraid of, Eric? If Mike's fork is successful, consensus\n\u003e\u003e is reached around larger blocks. If it is rejected, the status quo will\n\u003e\u003e remain for now. Network consensus, NOT CORE DEVELOPER CONSENSUS, is the\n\u003e\u003e only thing that matters, and those that go against network consensus will\n\u003e\u003e be severely punished with complete loss of income.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I fully agree that core developers are not the only people who should\n\u003e\u003e have a say in this. But again, we’re not talking about merely forking some\n\u003e\u003e open source project - we’re talking about forking a ledger representing\n\u003e\u003e real assets that real people are holding…and I think it’s fair to say that\n\u003e\u003e the risk of permanent ledger forks far outweighs whatever benefits any\n\u003e\u003e change in the protocol might bring. And this would be true even if there\n\u003e\u003e were unanimous agreement that the change is good (which there clearly IS\n\u003e\u003e NOT in this case) but the deployment mechanism could still break things.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e If anything we should attempt a hard fork with a less contentious change\n\u003e\u003e first, just to test deployability.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I'm not sure who appointed the core devs some sort of Bitcoin Gods that\n\u003e\u003e can hold up any change that they happen to disagree with. It seems like the\n\u003e\u003e core devs are scared to death that the bitcoin network may change without\n\u003e\u003e their blessing, so they go on and on about how terrible hard forks are.\n\u003e\u003e Hard forks are the only way to keep core devs in check.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Again, let’s figure out a hard fork mechanism and test it with a far less\n\u003e\u003e contentious change first\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Despite significant past technical bitcoin achievements, two of the most\n\u003e\u003e vocal opponents to a reasonable blocksize increase work for a company\n\u003e\u003e (Blockstream) that stands to profit directly from artificially limiting the\n\u003e\u003e blocksize. The whole situation reeks. Because of such a blatant conflict of\n\u003e\u003e interest, the ethical thing to do would be for them to either resign from\n\u003e\u003e Blockstream or immediately withdraw themselves from the blocksize debate.\n\u003e\u003e This is the type of stuff that I hoped would end with Bitcoin, but alas, I\n\u003e\u003e guess human nature never changes.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e For the record, I do not work for Blockstream. Neither do a bunch of\n\u003e\u003e other people who have published a number of concerns. Very few of the\n\u003e\u003e concerns I’ve seen from the technical community seem to be motivated\n\u003e\u003e primarily by profit motives.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e It should also be pointed out that *not* making drastic changes is the\n\u003e\u003e default consensus policy…and the burden of justifying a change falls on\n\u003e\u003e those who want to make the change. Again, the risk of permanent ledger\n\u003e\u003e forks far outweighs whatever benefits protocol changes might bring.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Personally, I think miners should give Bitcoin XT a serious look. Miners\n\u003e\u003e need to realize that they are in direct competition with the lightning\n\u003e\u003e network and sidechains for fees. Miners, ask yourselves if you think you'll\n\u003e\u003e earn more fees with 1 MB blocks and more off-chain transactions or with 8\n\u003e\u003e MB blocks and more on-chain transactions…\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Miners are NOT in direct competition with the lightning network and\n\u003e\u003e sidechains - these claims are patently false. I recommend you take a look\n\u003e\u003e at these ideas and understand them a little better before trying to make\n\u003e\u003e any such claims. Again, I do not work for Blockstream…and my agenda in this\n\u003e\u003e post is not to promote either of these ideas…but with all due respect, I do\n\u003e\u003e not think you properly understand them at all.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e The longer this debate drags on, the more I agree with BIP 100 and Jeff\n\u003e\u003e Garzik because the core devs are already being influenced by outside forces\n\u003e\u003e and should not have complete control of the blocksize. It's also\n\u003e\u003e interesting to note that most of the mining hashpower is already voting for\n\u003e\u003e 8MB blocks BIP100 style.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I don’t think the concern here is so much that some people want to\n\u003e\u003e increase block size. It’s the *way* in which this change is being pushed\n\u003e\u003e that is deeply problematic.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e You deeply disappoint me, Mike.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Not only do you misrepresent many cogent, well thought out positions\n\u003e\u003e\u003e from a great number of people who have published and posted a number of\n\u003e\u003e\u003e articles detailing an explaining in-depth technical concerns…you also seem\n\u003e\u003e\u003e to fancy yourself more capable of reading into the intentions of someone\n\u003e\u003e\u003e who disappeared from the scene years ago, before we even were fully aware\n\u003e\u003e\u003e of many things we now know that bring the original “plan” into question.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e I ask of you, as a civilized human being, to stop doing this divisive\n\u003e\u003e\u003e crap. Despite your protestations to the contrary, YOU are the one who is\n\u003e\u003e\u003e proposing a radical departure from the direction of the project. Also, as\n\u003e\u003e\u003e several of us have clearly stated before, equating the fork of an open\n\u003e\u003e\u003e source project with a fork of a cryptoledger is completely bogus - there’s\n\u003e\u003e\u003e a lot of other people’s money at stake. This isn’t a democracy - consensus\n\u003e\u003e\u003e is all or nothing. The fact that a good number of the people most\n\u003e\u003e\u003e intimately familiar with the inner workings of Satoshi’s invention do not\n\u003e\u003e\u003e believe doing this is a good idea should give you pause.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Please stop using Bitcoin as your own political football…for the sake of\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Bitcoin…and for your own sake. Despite your obvious technical abilities\n\u003e\u003e\u003e (and I sincerely do believe you have them) you are discrediting yourself\n\u003e\u003e\u003e and hurting your own reputation.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e - Eric\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e On Aug 15, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Hello,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e As promised, we have released Bitcoin XT 0.11A which includes the bigger\n\u003e\u003e\u003e blocks patch set. You can get it from\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e      https://bitcoinxt.software/\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e I feel sad that it's come to this, but there is no other way. The\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Bitcoin Core project has drifted so far from the principles myself and many\n\u003e\u003e\u003e others feel are important, that a fork is the only way to fix things.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Forking is a natural thing in the open source community, Bitcoin is not\n\u003e\u003e\u003e the first and won't be the last project to go through this. Often in forks,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e people say there was insufficient communication. So to ensure everything is\n\u003e\u003e\u003e crystal clear I've written a blog post and a kind of \"manifesto\" to\n\u003e\u003e\u003e describe why this is happening and how XT plans to be different from Core\n\u003e\u003e\u003e (assuming adoption, of course).\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e The article is here:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e     https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e It makes no attempt to be neutral: this explains things from our point\n\u003e\u003e\u003e of view.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e The manifesto is on the website.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e I say to all developers on this list: if you also feel that Core is no\n\u003e\u003e\u003e longer serving the interests of Bitcoin users, come join us. We don't bite.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\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/fe6932ed/attachment-0001.html\u003e"}