📅 Original date posted:2015-08-19
📝 Original message:On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:14 PM, odinn <odinn.cyberguerrilla at riseup.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Firstly, XT is controversial, not uncontroversial;
XT it's just a software fork.
BIP101 (as currently implemented in Bitcoin XT) is a Schism hardfork
(or an altcoin), but BIP101 could be modified to be deployed like an
uncontroversial hardfork (in current bip99's draft, a given height
plus 95% mining upgrade confirmation after that).
> Third, it poses major risks as a non-peer reviewed alt with a number
> of problematic features (with the privacy problems recently mentioned
> on this list being just one of them)
>
> Fourth, it has not followed any semblance of process in terms of the
> development funnel or BIPS process, with XT developers instead
> choosing instead a dangerous path of hard forking bitcoin while being
> well aware of miner voting on viable solutions which have followed
> process.
I'm not defending the Schism hardfork being proposed. I am very
worried about it and I have publicly said so several times.
If Bitcoin XT didn't contained the Schism bip101 hardfork I wouldn't
be so worried: users are free to use software that is less reviewed at
their own risk.
> The following proposals
> http://bipsxdevs.azurewebsites.net/
> regardless of what you think of any one of them, are deserving of
> attention (BIP 100 / BIP 101) and are being voted on as you read this
> by miners. (BIP sipa is not yet numbered, and BIP 102 is a backup
> /fallback option.) BIP 100 is probably the best of these (note, in
> part, it schedules a hardfork on testnet in September).
It's users and not miners who decide the consensus rules.
> Contentious hard forks are bad for Bitcoin.
> https://bitcoin.org/en/posts/hard-fork-policy
> You may want to read this again if you haven't recently.
You may want to read BIP99 to understand that I know this, but still
think that Schism hardforks may be necessary in some situations (I
don't think this one is reasonable though).
> There is no basis for further promoting XT by suggesting that it
> should even be tested.
All I'm saying is that Bitcoin XT the software fork is totally fine
(like other alternative Bitcoin implementations). The big problem is
BIP101 being deployed as a Schism hardfork.
Jorge Timón [ARCHIVE] /
npub1fx…cl2d8
2023-06-07 19:36:42
in reply to nevent1q…n3ds
Author Public Key
npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8Published at
2023-06-07 19:36:42Event JSON
{
"id": "06b2c31664e27c6549ebef322ef1fdfc49fe5b97d7449a7079a3e8e4c3e0735f",
"pubkey": "498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84",
"created_at": 1686159402,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"015c5ac0a5b1780b314fc0de46b00e614fb9247d46dfb61637d3d94fa76f544c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"c000f786b32069c4701fe8e62273aca6ab521c88325ebeb6b044ccf9f9de37cf",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"33228a8ed797b24e872fc0257c1515fc9bca74c0b230dcbb7d3d2bd38fd97ed7"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-19\n📝 Original message:On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:14 PM, odinn \u003codinn.cyberguerrilla at riseup.net\u003e wrote:\n\u003e -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\n\u003e Hash: SHA1\n\u003e\n\u003e Firstly, XT is controversial, not uncontroversial;\n\nXT it's just a software fork.\nBIP101 (as currently implemented in Bitcoin XT) is a Schism hardfork\n(or an altcoin), but BIP101 could be modified to be deployed like an\nuncontroversial hardfork (in current bip99's draft, a given height\nplus 95% mining upgrade confirmation after that).\n\n\u003e Third, it poses major risks as a non-peer reviewed alt with a number\n\u003e of problematic features (with the privacy problems recently mentioned\n\u003e on this list being just one of them)\n\u003e\n\u003e Fourth, it has not followed any semblance of process in terms of the\n\u003e development funnel or BIPS process, with XT developers instead\n\u003e choosing instead a dangerous path of hard forking bitcoin while being\n\u003e well aware of miner voting on viable solutions which have followed\n\u003e process.\n\nI'm not defending the Schism hardfork being proposed. I am very\nworried about it and I have publicly said so several times.\nIf Bitcoin XT didn't contained the Schism bip101 hardfork I wouldn't\nbe so worried: users are free to use software that is less reviewed at\ntheir own risk.\n\n\u003e The following proposals\n\u003e http://bipsxdevs.azurewebsites.net/\n\u003e regardless of what you think of any one of them, are deserving of\n\u003e attention (BIP 100 / BIP 101) and are being voted on as you read this\n\u003e by miners. (BIP sipa is not yet numbered, and BIP 102 is a backup\n\u003e /fallback option.) BIP 100 is probably the best of these (note, in\n\u003e part, it schedules a hardfork on testnet in September).\n\nIt's users and not miners who decide the consensus rules.\n\n\u003e Contentious hard forks are bad for Bitcoin.\n\u003e https://bitcoin.org/en/posts/hard-fork-policy\n\u003e You may want to read this again if you haven't recently.\n\nYou may want to read BIP99 to understand that I know this, but still\nthink that Schism hardforks may be necessary in some situations (I\ndon't think this one is reasonable though).\n\n\u003e There is no basis for further promoting XT by suggesting that it\n\u003e should even be tested.\n\nAll I'm saying is that Bitcoin XT the software fork is totally fine\n(like other alternative Bitcoin implementations). The big problem is\nBIP101 being deployed as a Schism hardfork.",
"sig": "13425535d6dde3a98a86c5d665f807df6078a49b458cdca44cd4978288c8afc2665e9123d1b734b6f7f6a86dcb1ff75e1efcabe4743b26338dc154fcd13ac3e5"
}