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

[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.

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

Say that XT is implemented, 8 MB is present, and yet we don't get those previous 1 MB block size limit filled, but you have these 2 fellas making decisions for the whole network. 8 MB is just a limit, but the decisions on the code on the network being made only by those 2 guys? No, just no.

I'm a fan of bigger blocks, but I think 8 MB is just too much atm. If there is an option to make it flexible, that would be great.

[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).

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.

Considering we have never actually threatened the block limit (and on average are at less than 50% capacity even now), I'd say that "incapable of making any decision in a timely manner" is quite inaccurate. These discussions are important, and we should keep moving the debate forward. But it's silly to act like we should have already implemented a block size limit increase that may jeopardize network security.

That is far more important than the hypothetical future situation where blocks are full.

That everyone disagrees doesn't by default make Gavin and Hearn correct; it only means they made the first attempt. While that's laudable (or nefarious, depending on your take), this doesn't mean that BIP101 merits any support. The content of their proposal must merit that support. From where I stand, it doesn't.

[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.

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.

The problem is how we get there.  It looks very much like we are being steered into making a premature decision that makes it harder for us to have a say over future decisions.  We have a few devs who have created what they think is a solution to a future problem and we have coinwallet.eu trying to force the issue now.  So it looks very much like we are being pressured to make a decision when we don't need to and obviously that is creating blowback.

[brg444]

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.)  

Oh so only them signed this letter heh?

intellectual dishonesty

 

[jonald_fyookball]

poeEDgar,

you make some fair points.

Still, I think it is outrageous that the devs refuse
to accept even Bip 102 with its 2 MB limit.
It's clear to me they do not want main chain scaling
and that it is counter to their business interests.

[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.

The problem is how we get there.  It looks very much like we are being steered into making a premature decision that makes it harder for us to have a say over future decisions.  We have a few devs who have created what they think is a solution to a future problem and we have coinwallet.eu trying to force the issue now.  So it looks very much like we are being pressured to make a decision when we don't need to and obviously that is creating blowback.

Well, you can say we don't need to make a decision now as much as you want but those behind Coinwallet clearly disagree and are putting their money where their mouth is. It is this "we can wait forever" attitude that is creating all this mess.

[dothebeats]

poeEDgar,

you make some fair points.

Still, I think it is outrageous that the devs refuse
to accept even Bip 102 with its 2 MB limit.
It's clear to me they do not want main chain scaling
and that it is counter to their business interests.

2 MB seems plausible for the next year or so, and I've been following the stance of Core devs and XT devs. So far, Core devs made some interesting points, also XT especially in increasing the block size limit to scale. But what I cannot comprehend to is why the heck does these Core guys don't want to increase the blocks even with just a single megabyte? Workshops? What are we going to do with that? I'd say find a solution, not delay this problem by months or weeks before you Core guys talk again.

[jonald_fyookball]

poeEDgar,

you make some fair points.

Still, I think it is outrageous that the devs refuse
to accept even Bip 102 with its 2 MB limit.
It's clear to me they do not want main chain scaling
and that it is counter to their business interests.

2 MB seems plausible for the next year or so, and I've been following the stance of Core devs and XT devs. So far, Core devs made some interesting points, also XT especially in increasing the block size limit to scale. But what I cannot comprehend to is why the heck does these Core guys doesn't want to increase the blocks even with just a single megabyte? Workshops? What are we going to do with that? I'd say find a solution, not delay this problem by months or weeks before you Core guys talk again.

You can't comprehend that they are in the business of Bitcoin extensibility and that they took $21M in venture capital and that they really want the main chain to scale as little as possible?

[dothebeats]

poeEDgar,

you make some fair points.

Still, I think it is outrageous that the devs refuse
to accept even Bip 102 with its 2 MB limit.
It's clear to me they do not want main chain scaling
and that it is counter to their business interests.

2 MB seems plausible for the next year or so, and I've been following the stance of Core devs and XT devs. So far, Core devs made some interesting points, also XT especially in increasing the block size limit to scale. But what I cannot comprehend to is why the heck does these Core guys doesn't want to increase the blocks even with just a single megabyte? Workshops? What are we going to do with that? I'd say find a solution, not delay this problem by months or weeks before you Core guys talk again.

You can't comprehend that they are in the business of Bitcoin extensibility and that they took $21M in venture capital and that they really actually do not want the main chain to scale beyond 1mb?

I know that, but don't these guys get paid well in working for bitcoin? I don't like either sides, and I don't judge ad hominem, but these Core guys should do what's right for all and not what's right for their pocket. Same thing with Hearn and Gavin. If they want centralization, just create their own coin and not involve bitcoin or whatsoever. This problem just set drawbacks on bitcoin and are not actually helping in anyway.

[brg444]

poeEDgar,

you make some fair points.

Still, I think it is outrageous that the devs refuse
to accept even Bip 102 with its 2 MB limit.
It's clear to me they do not want main chain scaling
and that it is counter to their business interests.

What's outrageous is you keep spreading the same lies you disingenuous troll.

Devs have not refused any increase, they are actively considering how to best proceed. You're just a goddamn liar.

We've continuously demonstrated the block size has no impact on their business interests how long can you wave it away?

intellectual dishonesty

Seriously, how can you look at yourself in the mirror.

[poeEDgar]

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

This is another irrelevant point I see raised often. This discussion is about scaling. It only bears fruit if we approach this as if increased block capacity will actually be used. If we all agree that 1MB blocks will never be filled, why even bother discussing this at all?

One thing that I think BIP101 supporters don't realize is that there may be future incentives that encourage filling block capacity. And while most people assume that organic adoption will be the cause, that is not necessarily the case.

The first manifestation of this: the blockchain stress test. In this case, economic disincentives be damned, in order to bloat blocks. So here we have a situation where we argue in favor increasing the block size limit due to the argument that organic adoption is happening and is exponential (that is quite a controversial statement, too). But in reality, blocks are being filled with spam transactions that are intended to do nothing but fill capacity. Meanwhile, bigger and bigger blocks --> bigger and bigger block propagation delays --> higher and higher volumes of orphaned blocks. Then there is the possibility of hardware and bandwidth limitations not improving to the extent demanded by BIP101's scaling schedule. More importantly are the problems that have not made themselves apparent yet -- as conditions at 1MB =/= conditions at 8GB. A more reasonable middle ground that is in tune with actual transaction growth will allow us to deal with the issues that come with scaling in real time, rather than on a prescribed schedule determined by Moore's Law, which could easily outrun our abilities to maintain network security. (I have still yet to see a compelling reason why Moore's Law has any relevance here, anyway)

So, we might be inviting blockchain bloat without even achieving the sort of organic adoption implied by BIP101. And we will be jeopardizing network security in the process. This is part of the danger of allowing for potential scaling that bears no relevance to actual growth in transaction volume.

[poeEDgar]

The problem is how we get there.  It looks very much like we are being steered into making a premature decision that makes it harder for us to have a say over future decisions.  We have a few devs who have created what they think is a solution to a future problem and we have coinwallet.eu trying to force the issue now.  So it looks very much like we are being pressured to make a decision when we don't need to and obviously that is creating blowback.

Bingo.

[jonald_fyookball]

poeEDgar,

you make some fair points.

Still, I think it is outrageous that the devs refuse
to accept even Bip 102 with its 2 MB limit.
It's clear to me they do not want main chain scaling
and that it is counter to their business interests.

2 MB seems plausible for the next year or so, and I've been following the stance of Core devs and XT devs. So far, Core devs made some interesting points, also XT especially in increasing the block size limit to scale. But what I cannot comprehend to is why the heck does these Core guys doesn't want to increase the blocks even with just a single megabyte? Workshops? What are we going to do with that? I'd say find a solution, not delay this problem by months or weeks before you Core guys talk again.

You can't comprehend that they are in the business of Bitcoin extensibility and that they took $21M in venture capital and that they really actually do not want the main chain to scale beyond 1mb?

I know that, but don't these guys get paid well in working for bitcoin? I don't like either sides, and I don't judge ad hominem, but these Core guys should do what's right for all and not what's right for their pocket. Same thing with Hearn and Gavin. If they want centralization, just create their own coin and not involve bitcoin or whatsoever. This problem just set drawbacks on bitcoin and are not actually helping in anyway.

Well that's part of the problem.  

No, I don't think they were getting paid in working for Bitcoin.

Gavin and 2 other people were getting paid for working on Bitcoin (formerly by the Bitcoin foundation) now from MIT.

Greg and those guys I don't think were being paid so they formed a company and their
plan was to tackle the scalability challenges and they had a certain plan and mindset about it.

And now that they took VC money, they are even more biased that their way is the way to
scale bitcoin.


 

[brg444]

poeEDgar,

you make some fair points.

Still, I think it is outrageous that the devs refuse
to accept even Bip 102 with its 2 MB limit.
It's clear to me they do not want main chain scaling
and that it is counter to their business interests.

2 MB seems plausible for the next year or so, and I've been following the stance of Core devs and XT devs. So far, Core devs made some interesting points, also XT especially in increasing the block size limit to scale. But what I cannot comprehend to is why the heck does these Core guys doesn't want to increase the blocks even with just a single megabyte? Workshops? What are we going to do with that? I'd say find a solution, not delay this problem by months or weeks before you Core guys talk again.

You can't comprehend that they are in the business of Bitcoin extensibility and that they took $21M in venture capital and that they really actually do not want the main chain to scale beyond 1mb?

I know that, but don't these guys get paid well in working for bitcoin? I don't like either sides, and I don't judge ad hominem, but these Core guys should do what's right for all and not what's right for their pocket. Same thing with Hearn and Gavin. If they want centralization, just create their own coin and not involve bitcoin or whatsoever. This problem just set drawbacks on bitcoin and are not actually helping in anyway.

Well that's part of the problem.  

No, I don't think they were getting paid in working for Bitcoin.

Gavin and 2 other people were getting paid for working on Bitcoin (formerly by the Bitcoin foundation) now from MIT.

Greg and those guys I don't think were being paid so they formed a company and their
plan was to tackle the scalability challenges and they had a certain plan and mindset about it.

And now that they took VC money, they are even more biased that their way is the way to
scale bitcoin.

Blockstream was never meant as a transaction scaling solution. Liar.

[knight22]

The problem is how we get there.  It looks very much like we are being steered into making a premature decision that makes it harder for us to have a say over future decisions.  We have a few devs who have created what they think is a solution to a future problem and we have coinwallet.eu trying to force the issue now.  So it looks very much like we are being pressured to make a decision when we don't need to and obviously that is creating blowback.

Bingo.

There is no bingo. What got us here is Core failing to deliver a solution in a timely manner.

Core is the problem, nothing else. Accusing the market that might be ready to make a move and that is sending clear signals is just immature.

[brg444]

The problem is how we get there.  It looks very much like we are being steered into making a premature decision that makes it harder for us to have a say over future decisions.  We have a few devs who have created what they think is a solution to a future problem and we have coinwallet.eu trying to force the issue now.  So it looks very much like we are being pressured to make a decision when we don't need to and obviously that is creating blowback.

Bingo.

There is no bingo. What got us here is Core failing to deliver a solution in a timely manner.

Core is the problem, nothing else. Accusing the market that might be ready to make a move and that is sending clear signals is just immature.

You were sold the lie that it was a pressing matter and that we should address it with urgency. What do you know anyway about their actions?

Much work has already been done in this area, from substantial improvements in CPU bottlenecks, memory usage, network efficiency, and initial block download times, to algorithmic scaling in general.

These guys have been busy fixing bottlenecks that necessarily meant your 8MB blocks would've been useless. They are the scalability champions of Bitcoin so far in its life and you impressionable noob would rather we side with two irresponsible defectors who themselves stifled technical discussion and consequently derailed the incentive to continue productive work toward resolution of the issue by wasting time doing damage control because of the XT fiasco.

Mike & Gavin's actions are the epitome of dishonesty and incompetence. I am absolutely joyous that they have shown their true face and their exile from the community will be a blessing.

[knight22]

The problem is how we get there.  It looks very much like we are being steered into making a premature decision that makes it harder for us to have a say over future decisions.  We have a few devs who have created what they think is a solution to a future problem and we have coinwallet.eu trying to force the issue now.  So it looks very much like we are being pressured to make a decision when we don't need to and obviously that is creating blowback.

Bingo.

There is no bingo. What got us here is Core failing to deliver a solution in a timely manner.

Core is the problem, nothing else. Accusing the market that might be ready to make a move and that is sending clear signals is just immature.

You were sold the lie that it was a pressing matter and that we should address it with urgency. What do you know anyway about their actions?

Much work has already been done in this area, from substantial improvements in CPU bottlenecks, memory usage, network efficiency, and initial block download times, to algorithmic scaling in general.

These guys have been busy fixing bottlenecks that necessarily meant your 8MB blocks would've been useless. They are the scalability champions of Bitcoin so far in its life and you impressionable noob would rather we side with two irresponsible defectors who themselves stifled technical discussion and consequently derailed the incentive to continue productive work toward resolution of the issue by wasting time doing damage control because of the XT fiasco.

Mike & Gavin's actions are the epitome of dishonesty and incompetence. I am absolutely joyous that they have shown their true face and their exile from the community will be a blessing.

Core should clearly revise their priorities then. Their prioritizations are an obvious failure. No one could argue with that.

[dothebeats]

The problem is how we get there.  It looks very much like we are being steered into making a premature decision that makes it harder for us to have a say over future decisions.  We have a few devs who have created what they think is a solution to a future problem and we have coinwallet.eu trying to force the issue now.  So it looks very much like we are being pressured to make a decision when we don't need to and obviously that is creating blowback.

Bingo.

There is no bingo. What got us here is Core failing to deliver a solution in a timely manner.

Core is the problem, nothing else. Accusing the market that might be ready to make a move and that is sending clear signals is just immature.

And what do you mean here by timely? Are there any deadlines that the devs should meet so as to ensure that there would be no problems in bitcoin? As far as I know, there is none, only a few groups are forcing the issue that we need to 'scale' things and because of that we need bigger blocks. Yes, we do need them in the future, but not anytime soon.

[jonald_fyookball]

In 12 months, average blocksize will be about 1mb on the current trajectory,
never mind spikes, unforseen circumstances, and the many months time
needed for consensus and rollout.

How long do you think we should wait?

[brg444]

Core should clearly revise their priorities then. Their prioritizations are an obvious failure. No one could argue with that.

Failure? How?

I don't see how the Bitcoin network running smoothly as it stands (which it wouldn't if it wasn't for their work) is a failure?