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
Let's start with the definition of a conflict of interest before we go any
further:
A *conflict of interest* (COI) is a situation in which a person or
organization is involved in multiple interests (financial, emotional, or
otherwise), one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the
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
If someone is surprised with Mike Hearn's antics, I recommend taking a few
minutes to watch this video from 2 months ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0
Mike Hearn's Worst Case XT Fork Scenario: Checkpoints, Ignore Longest
Chain.
___
You may be misremembering; nobody has ever disagreed that you can fork a
source code repository. Perhaps you are thinking instead about the
concerns regarding asymmetric rule incompatibilities?
I am not misremembering anything. Some people have claimed for years
that Bitcoin development is
If this proposal has less than half of the total hashpower (or is it even
less than 75%? Haven't quite thought it through completely) supporting it,
I can see the following happening if the sum of supporters and people who
want to screw the supporters out of money is at least 75%:
Non-supporters
I posted this to /r/BitcoinMarkets but I thought I might post it here as
well.
---
Currently 0 mined blocks have voted for XT.
If it ever gets close to even 50%, many things can happen that would
reshape the game completely.
For instance:
- Core could start boycotting XT by not relying to them
Bitcoin has no elections; it has no courts. If not through attempting a
hard-fork, how should we properly resolve irreconcilable disagreements?
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Please take the lightning 101 discussion
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
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
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
Baseless accusations also have no place on this mailing list. They are
unprofessional, and poisonous to the consensus-building process we all
seek to engage in.
I didn't see any baseless accusations in the message. I saw a
discussion of possible conflicts of interest. Your reply seems to
Fair enough, this is what open source is all about. Good things
sometimes come out of controversial actions. I briefly read the
manifesto, saw the migration plan, it is not that greedy and in theory
it is possible to migrate safely with no (big) incidents.
What seams a little bit unfair is that
13 matches
Mail list logo
