Mike Hearn response to "An Open Letter to the Bitcoin Community"

[brg444]

Once again, Mike making more sense than the Blockstream clowns who want to wave a few workshops in your face and make you believe your opinion matters.

What are you suggesting?

Whether or not the consensus process is broken, Gavin and Hearn's code needs to stand on its own two feet and face rigorous testing. Such a reckless approach to scaling will never be supported by those who have a real stake in bitcoin.

I'm suggesting Mikes comments make sense.  Blockstream's don't. 

Didn't Gavin run extensive tests on bigger blocks?  More important,
why is Blockstream stonewalling even bip102?

Yes. Largely broken, half baked bunch of non sense.

What exactly doesn't make sense in Blockstream's comment?

I seen you commenting in another thread spouting about intellectual honesty, boy sometimes it looks to me as if we're not reading the same conversations.

[knight22]

Once again, Mike making more sense than the Blockstream clowns who want to wave a few workshops in your face and make you believe your opinion matters.

What are you suggesting?

Whether or not the consensus process is broken, Gavin and Hearn's code needs to stand on its own two feet and face rigorous testing. Such a reckless approach to scaling will never be supported by those who have a real stake in bitcoin.

I'm suggesting Mikes comments make sense.  Blockstream's don't. 

Didn't Gavin run extensive tests on bigger blocks?  More important,
why is Blockstream stonewalling even bip102?

Yes. Largely broken, half baked bunch of non sense.

What exactly doesn't make sense in Blockstream's comment?

I seen you commenting in another thread spouting about intellectual honesty, boy sometimes it looks to me as if we're not reading the same conversations.

If it wasn't broken, XT would not came out to existence and you and I wouldn't be arguing about it.

[jonald_fyookball]

Already answered what doesnt make sense in my original response to the "An Open Letter to the Bitcoin Community" thread

[Hellot]

If it wasn't broken, XT would not came out to existence and you and I wouldn't be arguing about it.

That's like saying if XYZ wasn't bad it wouldn't be illegal.  If you have nothing to hide, why do you need to hide things.  It's a straw man argument.

[jonald_fyookball]

If it wasn't broken, XT would not came out to existence and you and I wouldn't be arguing about it.

That's like saying if XYZ wasn't bad it wouldn't be illegal.  If you have nothing to hide, why do you need to hide things.  It's a straw man argument.

The reason Gavin did choose XT to implement Bip 101 is that the other developers wouldn't agree in Core. 
Hard to argue with that.

[Hellot]

If it wasn't broken, XT would not came out to existence and you and I wouldn't be arguing about it.

That's like saying if XYZ wasn't bad it wouldn't be illegal.  If you have nothing to hide, why do you need to hide things.  It's a straw man argument.

The reason Gavin did choose XT to implement Bip 101 is that the other developers wouldn't agree in Core. 
Hard to argue with that.

 
That isn't evidence that it is broken. 

[knight22]

If it wasn't broken, XT would not came out to existence and you and I wouldn't be arguing about it.

That's like saying if XYZ wasn't bad it wouldn't be illegal.  If you have nothing to hide, why do you need to hide things.  It's a straw man argument.

The reason Gavin did choose XT to implement Bip 101 is that the other developers wouldn't agree in Core. 
Hard to argue with that.

 
That isn't evidence that it is broken. 

You are in denial then. XT is a direct cause of Core decision process being broken.

[poeEDgar]

You are in denial then. XT is a direct cause of Core decision process being broken.

This is irrelevant to the merits of XT or BIP101. That is the principal concern.

The reason Gavin did choose XT to implement Bip 101 is that the other developers wouldn't agree in Core. 
Hard to argue with that.

That everyone disagrees with someone doesn't logically entail that he is correct, or that his proposal has merit.

[Amph]

None is pushing anyone to run some code on your computer.
You are free to run the code that you prefer.

You are free to run the code from the """consensus model""" of the Bitcon Core, or the benevolent "maintainers" of the Bitcoin XT. (but there should be even other models, why not?)

what happen(very unlikely scenario) if everyone choose XT and i'm the only one remaining with core? i'm fucked right?

i think people should not only choose their solution, but should determinate together what is the best or the, less worst solution, for bitcoin, right now everyone is jumping on what's is better for him/her

[jonald_fyookball]

You are in denial then. XT is a direct cause of Core decision process being broken.

This is irrelevant to the merits of XT or BIP101. That is the principal concern.

The reason Gavin did choose XT to implement Bip 101 is that the other developers wouldn't agree in Core. 
Hard to argue with that.

That everyone disagrees with someone doesn't logically entail that he is correct, or that his proposal has merit.

You're right.  Some people want to scale Bitcoin on the main chain and some people don't.  Pick a side.

[Hellot]

If it wasn't broken, XT would not came out to existence and you and I wouldn't be arguing about it.

That's like saying if XYZ wasn't bad it wouldn't be illegal.  If you have nothing to hide, why do you need to hide things.  It's a straw man argument.

The reason Gavin did choose XT to implement Bip 101 is that the other developers wouldn't agree in Core. 
Hard to argue with that.

 
That isn't evidence that it is broken. 

You are in denial then. XT is a direct cause of Core decision process being broken.

Now you are moving the goal post from bitcoin is broken to the decision making process is broken, which is it?  Let me guess, both are broken!

[knight22]

If it wasn't broken, XT would not came out to existence and you and I wouldn't be arguing about it.

That's like saying if XYZ wasn't bad it wouldn't be illegal.  If you have nothing to hide, why do you need to hide things.  It's a straw man argument.

The reason Gavin did choose XT to implement Bip 101 is that the other developers wouldn't agree in Core. 
Hard to argue with that.

 
That isn't evidence that it is broken. 

You are in denial then. XT is a direct cause of Core decision process being broken.

Now you are moving the goal post from bitcoin is broken to the decision making process is broken, which is it?  Let me guess, both are broken!

Mike's point always has been about Core decision making process and that's why he and Gavin created XT.

[poeEDgar]

You are in denial then. XT is a direct cause of Core decision process being broken.

This is irrelevant to the merits of XT or BIP101. That is the principal concern.

The reason Gavin did choose XT to implement Bip 101 is that the other developers wouldn't agree in Core. 
Hard to argue with that.

That everyone disagrees with someone doesn't logically entail that he is correct, or that his proposal has merit.

You're right.  Some people want to scale Bitcoin on the main chain and some people don't.  Pick a side.

Why are you picking sides, making this a sectarian battle or sorts? That's part of the problem. Some of us are trying to have a constructive discussion about the merits of proposals that have been offered, and about the merits of other potential solutions.

I want to see bitcoin scaled responsibly, incrementally over time to deal with issues of scaling as they arise....rather than hard-coding scheduled capacity increases to a level where we could never contemplate the conditions that will govern network security (1x vs 8000x, 1MB vs 8GB). It's simply irresponsible to assume that what holds true at 1MB holds true at 8GB -- that's insulting to thinking people. And it's insulting that people think we should just accept the course: recklessly increase the block size limit now, and when shit hits the fan, fork it back down. I don't want to wait until a compromise of network security forces us to soft fork the limit back down (presumably after people have lost shit tons of money).

[knight22]

You are in denial then. XT is a direct cause of Core decision process being broken.

This is irrelevant to the merits of XT or BIP101. That is the principal concern.

The reason Gavin did choose XT to implement Bip 101 is that the other developers wouldn't agree in Core.  
Hard to argue with that.

That everyone disagrees with someone doesn't logically entail that he is correct, or that his proposal has merit.

You're right.  Some people want to scale Bitcoin on the main chain and some people don't.  Pick a side.

Why are you picking sides, making this a sectarian battle or sorts? That's part of the problem. Some of us are trying to have a constructive discussion about the merits of proposals that have been offered, and about the merits of other potential solutions.

I want to see bitcoin scaled responsibly, incrementally over time to deal with issues of scaling as they arise....rather than hard-coding scheduled capacity increases to a level where we could never contemplate the conditions that will govern network security (1x vs 8000x, 1MB vs 8GB). It's simply irresponsible to assume that what holds true at 1MB holds true at 8GB -- that's insulting to thinking people. And it's insulting that people think we should just accept the course: recklessly increase the block size limit now, and when shit hits the fan, fork it back down. I don't want to wait until a compromise of network security forces us to soft fork the limit back down (presumably after people have lost shit tons of money).

I think no one would argue with that. The problem is much more on the Core side incapable of making any decision in a timely manner. A decision that will mitigate the risks from every point of views. Waiting or an absolute risk free solution is delusional and outright impossible as no one can 100% accurately predict the future. Of course that attitude will creates some frictions at some point in time and here we are.

[dothebeats]

If it wasn't broken, XT would not came out to existence and you and I wouldn't be arguing about it.

That's like saying if XYZ wasn't bad it wouldn't be illegal.  If you have nothing to hide, why do you need to hide things.  It's a straw man argument.

The reason Gavin did choose XT to implement Bip 101 is that the other developers wouldn't agree in Core. 
Hard to argue with that.

 
That isn't evidence that it is broken. 

You are in denial then. XT is a direct cause of Core decision process being broken.

Now you are moving the goal post from bitcoin is broken to the decision making process is broken, which is it?  Let me guess, both are broken!

Mike's point always has been about Core decision making process and that's why he and Gavin created XT.

They created XT so as to solve only the decision making process that is absent within Core? I see the point of scaling, but this one just got me, also those somewhat unclear intentions of Mike Hearn on wanting a 'dictator' to decide for what's best in the community.

[knight22]

If it wasn't broken, XT would not came out to existence and you and I wouldn't be arguing about it.

That's like saying if XYZ wasn't bad it wouldn't be illegal.  If you have nothing to hide, why do you need to hide things.  It's a straw man argument.

The reason Gavin did choose XT to implement Bip 101 is that the other developers wouldn't agree in Core. 
Hard to argue with that.

 
That isn't evidence that it is broken. 

You are in denial then. XT is a direct cause of Core decision process being broken.

Now you are moving the goal post from bitcoin is broken to the decision making process is broken, which is it?  Let me guess, both are broken!

Mike's point always has been about Core decision making process and that's why he and Gavin created XT.

They created XT so as to solve only the decision making process that is absent within Core? I see the point of scaling, but this one just got me, also those somewhat unclear intentions of Mike Hearn on wanting a 'dictator' to decide for what's best in the community.

His argument being: I can't be a real dictator over bitcoin (only bitcoinXT) as any body can fork the code as we just did. He has a point though.

[Hellot]

If it wasn't broken, XT would not came out to existence and you and I wouldn't be arguing about it.

That's like saying if XYZ wasn't bad it wouldn't be illegal.  If you have nothing to hide, why do you need to hide things.  It's a straw man argument.

The reason Gavin did choose XT to implement Bip 101 is that the other developers wouldn't agree in Core. 
Hard to argue with that.

 
That isn't evidence that it is broken. 

You are in denial then. XT is a direct cause of Core decision process being broken.

Now you are moving the goal post from bitcoin is broken to the decision making process is broken, which is it?  Let me guess, both are broken!

Mike's point always has been about Core decision making process and that's why he and Gavin created XT.

You have said that bitcoin is broken and that's why XT exists, and then you changed it to core decision making is broken and that's why XT exists.  So was XT created to cure bitcoin or to cure core decision making?  Because not everyone agrees that bitcoin is broken, and in fact some very smart people think it is just fine for now and nothing needs to change.  What is working is that no one person has been able to usurp control of the process and that is why it seems chaotic when it really isn't.  When you look at any system and only see one part of it, it is very difficult to see the whole system and come to conclusions about it.  Look at our history of scientific investigation for examples.

What we have now is a healthy system with healthy discussion about a few individuals who want less discussion and are actively working to disable it for the future.  It's up to us if we empower them to do that.  I will not contribute to cutting off my own tongue.

[jonald_fyookball]

Why are you picking sides, making this a sectarian battle or sorts?  

That's just how I see the current reality.

Gavin, Mike, Jeff, some major companies, and most of the miners want to scale Bitcoin on the main chain.
Adam, Greg, and Blockstream don't.  (They've said so in both their words and actions.)

I agree with you that there are technical considerations, but I also think people aren't
cognizant of the reality of the situation.

 

[dothebeats]

If it wasn't broken, XT would not came out to existence and you and I wouldn't be arguing about it.

That's like saying if XYZ wasn't bad it wouldn't be illegal.  If you have nothing to hide, why do you need to hide things.  It's a straw man argument.

The reason Gavin did choose XT to implement Bip 101 is that the other developers wouldn't agree in Core. 
Hard to argue with that.

 
That isn't evidence that it is broken. 

You are in denial then. XT is a direct cause of Core decision process being broken.

Now you are moving the goal post from bitcoin is broken to the decision making process is broken, which is it?  Let me guess, both are broken!

Mike's point always has been about Core decision making process and that's why he and Gavin created XT.

They created XT so as to solve only the decision making process that is absent within Core? I see the point of scaling, but this one just got me, also those somewhat unclear intentions of Mike Hearn on wanting a 'dictator' to decide for what's best in the community.

His argument being: I can't be a real dictator over bitcoin (only bitcoinXT) as any body can fork the code as we just did. He has a point though.

A few posts before this one, you said that bitcoin is broken so that we need to fix things up. Another few more posts, you said that Gavin and Hearn created XT so as to fix the 'consensus making process' that is lacking in Core. I'm not a pro on economy, tech, coding or anything above technical level on bitcoin, but I see that pushing this 8MB max block size limit isn't necessary yet. Scaling? That is too much for a scale! We don't even fill a 1MB block on most cases. .4MB is the largest I've seen even if transaction numbers peaked. And the approach of 'fixing things when the problem is present' doesn't sound appealing to me either (the approach of the Core guys), but come on, 8MB is too high for a limit. I doubt that we will ever see an eighth of that limit being filled within the next years to come.

[knight22]

If it wasn't broken, XT would not came out to existence and you and I wouldn't be arguing about it.

That's like saying if XYZ wasn't bad it wouldn't be illegal.  If you have nothing to hide, why do you need to hide things.  It's a straw man argument.

The reason Gavin did choose XT to implement Bip 101 is that the other developers wouldn't agree in Core.  
Hard to argue with that.

 
That isn't evidence that it is broken.  

You are in denial then. XT is a direct cause of Core decision process being broken.

Now you are moving the goal post from bitcoin is broken to the decision making process is broken, which is it?  Let me guess, both are broken!

Mike's point always has been about Core decision making process and that's why he and Gavin created XT.

They created XT so as to solve only the decision making process that is absent within Core? I see the point of scaling, but this one just got me, also those somewhat unclear intentions of Mike Hearn on wanting a 'dictator' to decide for what's best in the community.

His argument being: I can't be a real dictator over bitcoin (only bitcoinXT) as any body can fork the code as we just did. He has a point though.

A few posts before this one, you said that bitcoin is broken so that we need to fix things up. Another few more posts, you said that Gavin and Hearn created XT so as to fix the 'consensus making process' that is lacking in Core. I'm not a pro on economy, tech, coding or anything above technical level on bitcoin, but I see that pushing this 8MB max block size limit isn't necessary yet. Scaling? That is too much for a scale! We don't even fill a 1MB block on most cases. .4MB is the largest I've seen even if transaction numbers peaked. And the approach of 'fixing things when the problem is present' doesn't sound appealing to me either (the approach of the Core guys), but come on, 8MB is too high for a limit. I doubt that we will ever see an eighth of that limit being filled within the next years to come.

What's the problem then? 8 mb being just a limit.