On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:14 PM, odinn <[email protected]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Firstly, XT is controversial, not uncontroversial;
XT it's just a software fork. BIP101 (as currently implemented in Bitcoin XT) is a Schism hardfork (or an altcoin), but BIP101 could be modified to be deployed like an uncontroversial hardfork (in current bip99's draft, a given height plus 95% mining upgrade confirmation after that). > 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. I'm not defending the Schism hardfork being proposed. I am very worried about it and I have publicly said so several times. If Bitcoin XT didn't contained the Schism bip101 hardfork I wouldn't be so worried: users are free to use software that is less reviewed at their own risk. > 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). It's users and not miners who decide the consensus rules. > 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. You may want to read BIP99 to understand that I know this, but still think that Schism hardforks may be necessary in some situations (I don't think this one is reasonable though). > There is no basis for further promoting XT by suggesting that it > should even be tested. All I'm saying is that Bitcoin XT the software fork is totally fine (like other alternative Bitcoin implementations). The big problem is BIP101 being deployed as a Schism hardfork. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
