odinn [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-08-21 📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-08-21
📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Bitcoin XT isn't technically an implementation of BIP 101.
It's really just an attack on the bitcoin network, not a whole
different than any of a variety of attacks one could perform on the
network.
Facts are as follows.
The published implementation of BIP 101 is shown on the BIP 101 page:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki
at:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki#Implement
ation
The only text in the Implementation section is the following link:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6341
Which is closed by Gavin.
I am wondering why this drama continues, sort of stunned (but not
surprised) by Hearn's XT-hyping, bitcoin-attacking behavior and
crazed, delusional attitude, and hoping that consensus will be reached
on something - by something, I mean one of the following as shown at
http://bipsxdevs.azurewebsites.net/ -
well before XT achieves its goals.
By the way, since http://bipsxdevs.azurewebsites.net/ doesn't yet
appear to have any developers' signatures on it (except for luke-jr),
I'd like to take a moment to ask the developers if you could please
visit that site and put your signatures to it. (Thanks to luke-jr for
being the first one.)
- - O
On 08/20/2015 02:13 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:00:14AM +0200, Mike Hearn via
> bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>>
>>> It is just that no one else is reckless enough to bypass the
>>> review process
>>
>>
>> I keep seeing this notion crop up.
>>
>> I want to kill this idea right now:
>>
>> - There were months of public discussion leading to up the
>> authoring of BIP 101, both on this mailing list and elsewhere.
>>
>> - BIP 101 was submitted for review via the normal process. Jeff
>> Garzik specifically called Gavin out on Twitter and thanked him
>> for following the process:
>>
>> https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/614412097359708160
>>
>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/163
>>
>> As you can see, other than a few minor typo fixes and a comment
>> by sipa, there was no other review offered.
>>
>> - The implementation for BIP 101 was submitted to Bitcoin Core as
>> a pull request, to invoke the code review process:
>>
>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6341
>>
>> Some minor code layout suggestions were made by Cory and
>> incorporated. Peter popped up to say there was no chance it'd
>> ever be accepted ..... and no further review was done.
>
> No, I said there was no chance it'd be accepted "due to a number
> of BIP-level issues in addition to debate about the patch itself.
> For instance, Gavin has never given any details about testing; at
> minimum we'd need a BIP16 style quality assurance document. We also
> frown on writing software with building expiration dates, let alone
> expiration dates that trigger non-deterministically. (Note how my
> recently merged CLTV considered the year 2038 problem to avoid
> needing a hard fork at that date)"
>
> Of course no further review was done - issues were identified and
> they didn't get fixed. Why would we do further review on something
> that was broken whose author wasn't interested in fixing even
> non-controversial and obvious problems?
>
> The process is to do review, fix issues identified, and repeat
> until all issues are fixed.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ 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
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJV1pSTAAoJEGxwq/inSG8Css4IAMDPeUGm0hmScg1a2vDh+Vob
oeMGzwNfJngzFYpjvc+Wg+BnSTJBTWuc/lAm1Y4Rrdra6/o8CmYx9HERKFzaMszm
gZ0JQGsB7F7FPBwcLpXW+GI2mZz+orQoDXYB38ICF5arBIL95EyjNxEIcWR7Yb3+
XHsEFSlcxSKtF2UzkZHH10VALD7exveXAfdCNFSh/C1lcS+MqrhNjQ7Cal2BdJt3
Rnz7snTOYYb7hlTphEzHMA/9ftLIaQoNJZcVKg//5xgouc+C1S29St0pnTW6dsOD
p+VAfTnXb+PCSVl3mK8twEx2YqINK8IbK3DsnjXk/+zNZPyEa5wqnntZTI/0eSg=
=nakV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Bitcoin XT isn't technically an implementation of BIP 101.
It's really just an attack on the bitcoin network, not a whole
different than any of a variety of attacks one could perform on the
network.
Facts are as follows.
The published implementation of BIP 101 is shown on the BIP 101 page:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki
at:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki#Implement
ation
The only text in the Implementation section is the following link:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6341
Which is closed by Gavin.
I am wondering why this drama continues, sort of stunned (but not
surprised) by Hearn's XT-hyping, bitcoin-attacking behavior and
crazed, delusional attitude, and hoping that consensus will be reached
on something - by something, I mean one of the following as shown at
http://bipsxdevs.azurewebsites.net/ -
well before XT achieves its goals.
By the way, since http://bipsxdevs.azurewebsites.net/ doesn't yet
appear to have any developers' signatures on it (except for luke-jr),
I'd like to take a moment to ask the developers if you could please
visit that site and put your signatures to it. (Thanks to luke-jr for
being the first one.)
- - O
On 08/20/2015 02:13 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:00:14AM +0200, Mike Hearn via
> bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>>
>>> It is just that no one else is reckless enough to bypass the
>>> review process
>>
>>
>> I keep seeing this notion crop up.
>>
>> I want to kill this idea right now:
>>
>> - There were months of public discussion leading to up the
>> authoring of BIP 101, both on this mailing list and elsewhere.
>>
>> - BIP 101 was submitted for review via the normal process. Jeff
>> Garzik specifically called Gavin out on Twitter and thanked him
>> for following the process:
>>
>> https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/614412097359708160
>>
>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/163
>>
>> As you can see, other than a few minor typo fixes and a comment
>> by sipa, there was no other review offered.
>>
>> - The implementation for BIP 101 was submitted to Bitcoin Core as
>> a pull request, to invoke the code review process:
>>
>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6341
>>
>> Some minor code layout suggestions were made by Cory and
>> incorporated. Peter popped up to say there was no chance it'd
>> ever be accepted ..... and no further review was done.
>
> No, I said there was no chance it'd be accepted "due to a number
> of BIP-level issues in addition to debate about the patch itself.
> For instance, Gavin has never given any details about testing; at
> minimum we'd need a BIP16 style quality assurance document. We also
> frown on writing software with building expiration dates, let alone
> expiration dates that trigger non-deterministically. (Note how my
> recently merged CLTV considered the year 2038 problem to avoid
> needing a hard fork at that date)"
>
> Of course no further review was done - issues were identified and
> they didn't get fixed. Why would we do further review on something
> that was broken whose author wasn't interested in fixing even
> non-controversial and obvious problems?
>
> The process is to do review, fix issues identified, and repeat
> until all issues are fixed.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ 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
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJV1pSTAAoJEGxwq/inSG8Css4IAMDPeUGm0hmScg1a2vDh+Vob
oeMGzwNfJngzFYpjvc+Wg+BnSTJBTWuc/lAm1Y4Rrdra6/o8CmYx9HERKFzaMszm
gZ0JQGsB7F7FPBwcLpXW+GI2mZz+orQoDXYB38ICF5arBIL95EyjNxEIcWR7Yb3+
XHsEFSlcxSKtF2UzkZHH10VALD7exveXAfdCNFSh/C1lcS+MqrhNjQ7Cal2BdJt3
Rnz7snTOYYb7hlTphEzHMA/9ftLIaQoNJZcVKg//5xgouc+C1S29St0pnTW6dsOD
p+VAfTnXb+PCSVl3mK8twEx2YqINK8IbK3DsnjXk/+zNZPyEa5wqnntZTI/0eSg=
=nakV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----