Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap

Paul, There is a difference between replying to an email, and addressing the issues that were brought up in it. I did read your reply, and I chose not to respond to it because it did not address anything I said. Here's an example: > It would not be accurate to say that miners have "total"

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 1:40 AM, Paul Sztorc wrote: > Separately, and very important to me, is that you feel that there are > unresolved objections to drivechain's security model, which you decline > to share with me and/or the list. So I would hope that you instead > choose

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev wrote: > it, etc. But I am not willing to press the issue. Some of your other > comments I also find confusing but there is little to be gained in > clarifying them. ) To me it looked as if I was

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap

Greg, I would summarize your email as stating that: you regret writing the first email, and regret the fact that it became a roadmap that everyone signed. And that therefore it is obviously a concept NACK from you. ( That's pretty surprising to me, and I would expect others to find it surprising

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Segwit2x BIP

On Monday 10 July 2017 11:50:33 AM Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Regarding the timeline, its certainly rather short, but also is the UASF > BIP 148 ultimatum. BIP148 began with 8 months lead time, reduced to 5 months from popular request and technical considerations. There is

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 6:11 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote: > IMO the way to do "roadmaps" in Bitcoin is to roadmap the finalization > and release process once the basic technology is done; because it's > only past that point that guarantees can

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap

On 7/11/2017 5:31 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev > wrote: >> I wrote the roadmap to try to be representative of a Core / developer >> position. > A fine intention, but I've checked with many of the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Paul Sztorc wrote: > I don't understand this at all. This document attempts to do exactly > what its predecessor did -- nothing more or less. That might be your impression, then you've misunderstood what I intended-- What I wrote was

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:50:21PM -0400, Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev wrote: > We should revise [the roadmap]: remove what has been accomplished, > introduce new innovations and approaches, and update deadlines > and projections. Timelines have good and bad points (in this context, I'd

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap

I can't help but notice that I have read Greg's email before-- all the way back in 2016. It would have been impossible for him to write a reply to Paul's current email back then... but I also notice that Greg did not indicate that he was copy-pasting until the very end (and even then his aside at

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap

On 7/11/2017 6:41 PM, Tao Effect wrote: > Dear Paul, > > Drivechain has several issues that you've acknowledged but have not, > IMO, adequately (at all really) addressed [1]. I replied to your email at length, at [2]. You should read that email, and then reply to it with your outstanding

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap

On 7/11/2017 5:40 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Paul Sztorc wrote: >> Pieter, >> >> I think that you have misrepresented Chris' view by taking it out of >> context. His complete quote reads "If drivechains are successful they should >> be viewed

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap

Dear Paul, Drivechain has several issues that you've acknowledged but have not, IMO, adequately (at all really) addressed [1]. I think there are far safer solutions for scaling Bitcoin and integrating it with other chains than DC, which is again, a serious security risk to the whole network,

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap

Hi Greg, On 7/11/2017 5:11 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > I think it's great that people want to experiment with things like > drivechains/sidechains and what not, but their security model is very > distinct from Bitcoin's and, given the current highly centralized > mining ecosystem, arguably not

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap

> I think it's great that people want to experiment with things like > drivechains/sidechains and what not, but their security model is very > distinct from Bitcoin’s Agree that experimentation is great and that it is usually the case that the security model differs. Isn’t it also true also

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Paul Sztorc wrote: > Pieter, > > I think that you have misrepresented Chris' view by taking it out of > context. His complete quote reads "If drivechains are successful they should > be viewed as the way we scale -- not hard forking the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:11 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > which I have included here a private email > thread on the subject To make it clear, since I munged the English on this: Most of my post is just copied straight out of a private thread where I explained my perspective on

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap

I think it's great that people want to experiment with things like drivechains/sidechains and what not, but their security model is very distinct from Bitcoin's and, given the current highly centralized mining ecosystem, arguably not very good. So positioning them as a major solution for the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap

Separate from scale, there is utility to a hard-fork to fix wish-list bugs that cant be reasonably fixed via soft-fork. The spoonnet proposal fixes a good number of interesting bugs. Spoonnet and several other HF research proposals can be found here https://bitcoinhardforkresearch.github.io/

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap

Pieter, I think that you have misrepresented Chris' view by taking it out of context. His complete quote reads "If drivechains are successful they should be viewed as the way we scale -- not hard forking the protocol." Chris is comparing Drivechains/sidechains to a hard fork. You went on to

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap

Hi Chris, On 7/11/2017 12:03 PM, Chris Stewart wrote: > Concept ACK. > > I think you are overstating the readiness of drivechains though. I > think the optimistic estimate for drivechains to be ready for bitcoin > core is a year out from today. More likely the date should be early > 2018. Still a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap

On Jul 11, 2017 09:18, "Chris Stewart via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: Concept ACK. If drivechains are successful they should be viewed as the way we scale I strongly disagree with that statement. Drivechains, and several earlier sidechains ideas, are not a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap

Concept ACK. I think you are overstating the readiness of drivechains though. I think the optimistic estimate for drivechains to be ready for bitcoin core is a year out from today. More likely the date should be early 2018. Still a lot of work to be done! :-) Also I don't know if I would put a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Segwit2x BIP

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Regarding the timeline, its certainly rather short, but also is the UASF BIP > 148 ultimatum. This is correct. If you are trying to imply that makes the short timeline here