📅 Original date posted:2015-08-19
📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Firstly, XT is controversial, not uncontroversial;
Second, this issue has been beat to death quite a while ago
https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/899#issuecomment-117
815987
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.
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).
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.
There is no basis for further promoting XT by suggesting that it
should even be tested.
#GAVEL
On 08/19/2015 02:29 AM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Danny Thorpe via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> Ya, so? All that means is that the experiment might reach the
>> hard fork tipping point faster than mainnet would. Verifying that
>> the network can handle such transitions, and how larger blocks
>> affect the network, is the point of testing.
>>
>> And when I refer to testnet, I mean the public global testnet
>> blockchain, not in-house isolated networks like
>> testnet-in-a-box.
>
> I would expect any uncontroversial hardfork to be deployed in
> testnet3 before it is deployed in bitcoin's main chain.
>
> In any case, you can already do these tests using
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6382 Note that even if the
> new testchains are regtest-like (ie cheap proof of work) you don't
> need to test them "in-a-box": you can run them from many different
> places. Rusty's test ( http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=509 ) could have
> been perfectly made using #6382, it just didn't existed at the
> time. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev
> mailing list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
- --
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJV1FcVAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CAd8H/R9khvHJJaNKrq7tjzksyc6V
jNN8ApaYUOE/i+goKd7XaeW0LM0aUC5vdqOCud632zb9XGo6awlk0fML4FV+wsE0
e5EfVDKZJxQ7zbaNCXXKTUfC+XRpJlhJgfF9jDgTsKv2l8fALbz+U6tn65Ke8F4+
9A4jJCe8yjttjBkX+8wLsSeDkDsPxo7f29rPfI6YMtN4MYbdxGiLjrTuRWrVje8q
l+3IFxrqGwKQl3LygRQHmLosvcW8UZzGYIM7hCleE9NUpc9TdpyTXPB3+9O9h4ty
5vY9jZ6t2Ww9CeljzD8S+1Nycz7sHqeoBCie+WexY7aT/QV2WQxFp4qnpO7PMSs=
=UNYA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
odinn [ARCHIVE] /
npub1xv…5j2ga
2023-06-07 19:36:42
in reply to nevent1q…05v4
Author Public Key
npub1xv3g4rkhj7eyape0cqjhc9g4ljdu5axqkgcdewma854a8r7e0mtsl5j2gaPublished at
2023-06-07 19:36:42Event JSON
{
"id": "c000f786b32069c4701fe8e62273aca6ab521c88325ebeb6b044ccf9f9de37cf",
"pubkey": "33228a8ed797b24e872fc0257c1515fc9bca74c0b230dcbb7d3d2bd38fd97ed7",
"created_at": 1686159402,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"015c5ac0a5b1780b314fc0de46b00e614fb9247d46dfb61637d3d94fa76f544c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"53b11144bb2fd76907280062426b59913f5b5359a55910cbe0fbf6754a162072",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-19\n📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA1\n\nFirstly, XT is controversial, not uncontroversial;\nSecond, this issue has been beat to death quite a while ago\nhttps://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/899#issuecomment-117\n815987\nThird, it poses major risks as a non-peer reviewed alt with a number\nof problematic features (with the privacy problems recently mentioned\non this list being just one of them)\nFourth, it has not followed any semblance of process in terms of the\ndevelopment funnel or BIPS process, with XT developers instead\nchoosing instead a dangerous path of hard forking bitcoin while being\nwell aware of miner voting on viable solutions which have followed\nprocess.\n\nThe following proposals\nhttp://bipsxdevs.azurewebsites.net/\nregardless of what you think of any one of them, are deserving of\nattention (BIP 100 / BIP 101) and are being voted on as you read this\nby miners. (BIP sipa is not yet numbered, and BIP 102 is a backup\n/fallback option.) BIP 100 is probably the best of these (note, in\npart, it schedules a hardfork on testnet in September).\n\nContentious hard forks are bad for Bitcoin.\nhttps://bitcoin.org/en/posts/hard-fork-policy\nYou may want to read this again if you haven't recently.\n\nThere is no basis for further promoting XT by suggesting that it\nshould even be tested.\n\n#GAVEL\n\nOn 08/19/2015 02:29 AM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Danny Thorpe via bitcoin-dev \n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e Ya, so? All that means is that the experiment might reach the\n\u003e\u003e hard fork tipping point faster than mainnet would. Verifying that\n\u003e\u003e the network can handle such transitions, and how larger blocks\n\u003e\u003e affect the network, is the point of testing.\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e And when I refer to testnet, I mean the public global testnet\n\u003e\u003e blockchain, not in-house isolated networks like\n\u003e\u003e testnet-in-a-box.\n\u003e \n\u003e I would expect any uncontroversial hardfork to be deployed in\n\u003e testnet3 before it is deployed in bitcoin's main chain.\n\u003e \n\u003e In any case, you can already do these tests using \n\u003e https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6382 Note that even if the\n\u003e new testchains are regtest-like (ie cheap proof of work) you don't\n\u003e need to test them \"in-a-box\": you can run them from many different\n\u003e places. Rusty's test ( http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=509 ) could have\n\u003e been perfectly made using #6382, it just didn't existed at the\n\u003e time. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev\n\u003e mailing list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org \n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \n\n- -- \nhttp://abis.io ~\n\"a protocol concept to enable decentralization\nand expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good\"\nhttps://keybase.io/odinn\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v1\n\niQEcBAEBAgAGBQJV1FcVAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CAd8H/R9khvHJJaNKrq7tjzksyc6V\njNN8ApaYUOE/i+goKd7XaeW0LM0aUC5vdqOCud632zb9XGo6awlk0fML4FV+wsE0\ne5EfVDKZJxQ7zbaNCXXKTUfC+XRpJlhJgfF9jDgTsKv2l8fALbz+U6tn65Ke8F4+\n9A4jJCe8yjttjBkX+8wLsSeDkDsPxo7f29rPfI6YMtN4MYbdxGiLjrTuRWrVje8q\nl+3IFxrqGwKQl3LygRQHmLosvcW8UZzGYIM7hCleE9NUpc9TdpyTXPB3+9O9h4ty\n5vY9jZ6t2Ww9CeljzD8S+1Nycz7sHqeoBCie+WexY7aT/QV2WQxFp4qnpO7PMSs=\n=UNYA\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----",
"sig": "b053a907585fde705c946b9b19ef1a9d26a89997a585bf20d1ad6e85ab3d7d795181e6f24164b1f77de6662f6788215eec54cedc17a05fdef0cc95d039292481"
}