Please take the lightning 101 discussion to another thread. The main point I was trying to make was that Mike is clearly misrepresenting the views of a great number of people who have deep, intimate knowledge of how things work and are almost certainly not primarily motivated by their own potential for profits.
> On Aug 15, 2015, at 4:04 PM, Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Being an early hub provider would be an obvious place to start capitalizing > on lightning. Early lightning adopters would be in the best position to do > this. > > Long term, Bitcoin needs to scale the blockchain in a reasonable manner and > implement things like lightning. > > Limiting the blocksize is a blatant conflict of interest because it creates > artificial demand for lightning that would not otherwise exist if the > blockchain scaled in a reasonable manner. > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Mark Friedenbach <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > I would like very much to know how it is that we're supposed to be making > money off of lightning, and therefore how it represents a conflict of > interest. Apparently there is tons of money to be made in releasing > open-source protocols! I would hate to miss out on that. > > We are working on lightning because Mike of all people said, essentially, " > if you're so fond of micro payment channels, why aren't you working on them?" > And he was right! So we looked around and found the best proposal and funded > it. > > On Aug 15, 2015 3:28 PM, "Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev" > <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > I know full well who works for Blockstream and I know you're not one of those > folks. The Blockstream core devs are very vocal against a reasonable > blocksize increase (17% growth per year in Pieter's BIP is not what I > consider reasonable because it doesn't come close to keeping with > technological increases). I think we can both agree that more on-chain space > means less demand for lightning, and vice versa, which is a blatant conflict > of interest. > > I'm also trying to figure out how things like lightning are not competing > directly with miners for fees. More off-chain transactions means less > blockchain demand, which would lower on-chain fees. I'm not sure what is > controversial about that statement. > > The lightning network concept is actually a brilliant way to take fees away > from miners without having to make any investment at all in SSH-256 ASIC > mining hardware. > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Eric Lombrozo <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> On Aug 15, 2015, at 3:01 PM, Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev >> <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> What are you so afraid of, Eric? If Mike's fork is successful, consensus is >> reached around larger blocks. If it is rejected, the status quo will remain >> for now. Network consensus, NOT CORE DEVELOPER CONSENSUS, is the only thing >> that matters, and those that go against network consensus will be severely >> punished with complete loss of income. > > I fully agree that core developers are not the only people who should have a > say in this. But again, we’re not talking about merely forking some open > source project - we’re talking about forking a ledger representing real > assets that real people are holding…and I think it’s fair to say that the > risk of permanent ledger forks far outweighs whatever benefits any change in > the protocol might bring. And this would be true even if there were unanimous > agreement that the change is good (which there clearly IS NOT in this case) > but the deployment mechanism could still break things. > > If anything we should attempt a hard fork with a less contentious change > first, just to test deployability. > >> I'm not sure who appointed the core devs some sort of Bitcoin Gods that can >> hold up any change that they happen to disagree with. It seems like the core >> devs are scared to death that the bitcoin network may change without their >> blessing, so they go on and on about how terrible hard forks are. Hard forks >> are the only way to keep core devs in check. > > Again, let’s figure out a hard fork mechanism and test it with a far less > contentious change first > >> Despite significant past technical bitcoin achievements, two of the most >> vocal opponents to a reasonable blocksize increase work for a company >> (Blockstream) that stands to profit directly from artificially limiting the >> blocksize. The whole situation reeks. Because of such a blatant conflict of >> interest, the ethical thing to do would be for them to either resign from >> Blockstream or immediately withdraw themselves from the blocksize debate. >> This is the type of stuff that I hoped would end with Bitcoin, but alas, I >> guess human nature never changes. > > For the record, I do not work for Blockstream. Neither do a bunch of other > people who have published a number of concerns. Very few of the concerns I’ve > seen from the technical community seem to be motivated primarily by profit > motives. > > It should also be pointed out that *not* making drastic changes is the > default consensus policy…and the burden of justifying a change falls on those > who want to make the change. Again, the risk of permanent ledger forks far > outweighs whatever benefits protocol changes might bring. > >> Personally, I think miners should give Bitcoin XT a serious look. Miners >> need to realize that they are in direct competition with the lightning >> network and sidechains for fees. Miners, ask yourselves if you think you'll >> earn more fees with 1 MB blocks and more off-chain transactions or with 8 MB >> blocks and more on-chain transactions… > > Miners are NOT in direct competition with the lightning network and > sidechains - these claims are patently false. I recommend you take a look at > these ideas and understand them a little better before trying to make any > such claims. Again, I do not work for Blockstream…and my agenda in this post > is not to promote either of these ideas…but with all due respect, I do not > think you properly understand them at all. > >> The longer this debate drags on, the more I agree with BIP 100 and Jeff >> Garzik because the core devs are already being influenced by outside forces >> and should not have complete control of the blocksize. It's also interesting >> to note that most of the mining hashpower is already voting for 8MB blocks >> BIP100 style. > > I don’t think the concern here is so much that some people want to increase > block size. It’s the *way* in which this change is being pushed that is > deeply problematic. > >> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev >> <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> You deeply disappoint me, Mike. >> >> Not only do you misrepresent many cogent, well thought out positions from a >> great number of people who have published and posted a number of articles >> detailing an explaining in-depth technical concerns…you also seem to fancy >> yourself more capable of reading into the intentions of someone who >> disappeared from the scene years ago, before we even were fully aware of >> many things we now know that bring the original “plan” into question. >> >> I ask of you, as a civilized human being, to stop doing this divisive crap. >> Despite your protestations to the contrary, YOU are the one who is proposing >> a radical departure from the direction of the project. Also, as several of >> us have clearly stated before, equating the fork of an open source project >> with a fork of a cryptoledger is completely bogus - there’s a lot of other >> people’s money at stake. This isn’t a democracy - consensus is all or >> nothing. The fact that a good number of the people most intimately familiar >> with the inner workings of Satoshi’s invention do not believe doing this is >> a good idea should give you pause. >> >> Please stop using Bitcoin as your own political football…for the sake of >> Bitcoin…and for your own sake. Despite your obvious technical abilities (and >> I sincerely do believe you have them) you are discrediting yourself and >> hurting your own reputation. >> >> >> - Eric >> >>> On Aug 15, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev >>> <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> As promised, we have released Bitcoin XT 0.11A which includes the bigger >>> blocks patch set. You can get it from >>> >>> https://bitcoinxt.software/ <https://bitcoinxt.software/> >>> >>> I feel sad that it's come to this, but there is no other way. The Bitcoin >>> Core project has drifted so far from the principles myself and many others >>> feel are important, that a fork is the only way to fix things. >>> >>> Forking is a natural thing in the open source community, Bitcoin is not the >>> first and won't be the last project to go through this. Often in forks, >>> people say there was insufficient communication. So to ensure everything is >>> crystal clear I've written a blog post and a kind of "manifesto" to >>> describe why this is happening and how XT plans to be different from Core >>> (assuming adoption, of course). >>> >>> The article is here: >>> >>> https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1 >>> <https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1> >>> >>> It makes no attempt to be neutral: this explains things from our point of >>> view. >>> >>> The manifesto is on the website. >>> >>> I say to all developers on this list: if you also feel that Core is no >>> longer serving the interests of Bitcoin users, come join us. We don't bite. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev> > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev> > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
