Remove Coinbase from the "Choose your Wallet" page #1178
Conversation
Remove Coinbase from the choose your wallet page.
|
NACK; the potential for forking does not an altcoin make. Until such time as a BIP101 fork occurs, companies running XT are definitely running Bitcoin. If a hard fork does occur, said companies may still be running Bitcoin - it would have to be judged which fork is the winner post-fork. Removing companies as "not running Bitcoin" when no fork has occurred is jumping the gun. |
|
They're a wallet, that's what the page says. Not wallets who don't run xt. |
|
BIP 101, your issue with XT, does not come into effect without 75% of hash rate support. In that case, BIP 101's fork would be Bitcoin. If you disagree, I might refer you to Satoshi Nakamoto's white paper.
The Bitcoin Core development team develops to the needs of the community. It does not get to dictate. Running another implementation is a clear statement that the Bitcoin Core team is not developing to the needs of Coinbase. |
|
ACK. We definitely need to coerce Coinbase into switching back to Bitcoin Core. If we do not take any action, we're setting a dangerous precedent where other wallets and services are allowed to break apart from the consensus. |
|
@gladys123 @gladoscc Bitcoin was built upon the principle of voluntary interaction; it's disgraceful to promote coercion. |
Poor word choice? coerce (verb): persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.
Everyone does not magically arrive at a new consensus at once. BIP 101 does not trigger a fork until it has three times as much support as the alternative. Coinbase is stating its support. |
|
I don't believe the XT developers claims about only activating when 75% of the miners support it. I doubt that's how XT will actually fork, because they'll never get the support from the Chinese miners, and they know it, and they've always known that. What they're probably going to do is to keep trying to get big companies on board to try to eventually make some "economic majority" argument and force it through with checkpoints and ignoring the longest chain. |
|
No one is forced to install an updated XT version with new checkpoints (or what ever forks), as no one is forced to use the current version of Bitcoin Core. |
|
You recommend denouncing a company for running an implementation because of something you suspect might be added to that implementation later, which would require the company's approval by updating? In that case, you could argue that Bitcoin Core should be denounced in case it adds a controversial change of its own. |
|
This seems pretty childish. They haven't even confirmed that their primary wallet servers are running XT yet, and yet you are here with your pitchforks ready. |
|
NACK |
|
@amacneil: It is about sending a strong message. I think we may need to start an accreditation scheme for Bitcoin-consensus compliant wallets and services. Through code signing and use of multisig, we can even distinguish transactions made by compliant wallets and non-compliant wallets, and have pools not mine them (or wallets refuse to send to known-non-compliant wallets). I think I'm getting too off topic for this thread now, but I'll flesh out this idea and post it on Blockstream's mailing list. @thofmann: Well, how can we trust Gavin or Hearn? It could be in the pre-built binaries already. I think Satoshi was wrong to pass the torch to Gavin. |
|
What message are you sending? Conform to our group-think or be banished? That doesn't seem like a healthy open source project to me. |
|
Blockstreams mailing list is exactly how conspiracy theories start and get proven |
If you actually believe that you should take out all signatories of the BIP101 support letter now, and kill the movement early, rather than wait for them to build a following. Targeting Coinbase because they're publicly stating their discontent and testing alternatives seems to draw a weird distinction. |
|
Untested ACK. |
|
@amacneil: That's not true at all. Removing Coinbase from Bitcoin.org is not 'banishment', we're just expressing our opposition. @harding: Thank you. I have been calling for Coinbase, Blockchain.info, Xapo, Circle, BitGo, etc to be removed from bitcoin.org a long time ago. I still think we should preemptively remove all the above services until they sign a letter renouncing their support for Bitcoin Xt, and anything Gavin or Hearn makes. |
|
Coinbase has proven several times to be a bad actor. They behave like an arrogant child with grandeur delusions, not even their customers like them. |
|
@Louzada1: Instead, if we can reliably identify their transactions, we could set a fee multiplier for Coinbase/Blockchain.info/Xapo/Circle/BitGo transactions, like 4x. Bitcoin Core already intends to do this in inverse with the 0.25x multiplier for SegWit, the preferred Bitcoin scaling solution. A better long term solution may be provable computing, plus multisig, with miners verifying that transactions have been signed by Blockstream or another entity in that the node/wallet they are running is compliant with Bitcoin consensus rules. |
This will get merged. |
|
NACK this childish nonsense. As if bitcoin would be where it is today without Coinbase's collaboration. What a dickish ignorant move. |
|
Very fitting to have a person named Cobra propose such snake like suggestion. You ought to be ashamed of yourself because I'm sure the whole community is ashamed of your poisonous behaviour. Needles to say: NACK |
|
@gladoscc Your comments and suggestions are antithetical to the purpose and function of bitcoin. If you are representative of the people at BlockStream, it is understandable why that company is contemptible. |
|
I have a feeling this post will get deleted, but I am also strongly against this change. |
|
XT is definitely an altcoin. |
|
NACK |
|
Acutally, why would you list Coinbase as a "wallet". Isn't it more an exchange for US citizens only? |
They have a web wallet and an exchange. |
|
@pyalot Mike has not committed any code of that sort, but he has explicitly stated that he is not opposed to and may add those checkpoints in. That means that he is explicitly stating that taking the authoritative step and forcing XT users to use the shorter chain is not out of the question. That means there is the threat and possibility that XT could fork the blockchain without consensus. Even though he has not done so yet, we should take those statements as a threat and a risk. The same should be applied if anyone else were to say the same. Coinbase does have a wallet function and a lot of people use it as a wallet. They are also marketing it as a wallet, so it should be considered as a wallet. |
|
This is the stupidest thing I've seen to date. Update Bitcoin core, I will not update... Along with many many others. |
|
@TGEJesse even if you don't update, what if Coinbase does? What if Hearn adds code into XT that forks the blockchain and Coinbase chooses to update to that version? The users had no say, what happens to them then? |
...then the blockchain will work and scale as it should in 2015/2016, instead of being constrained by a temporary hack introduced years ago. |
Sure, but is it a good wallet compared with the other web alternatives? If it isn't, then Coinbases wallet has little merit and I wouldn't see a reason to promote it.
A lot of people use exchanges as wallets, and technically each exchange has a wallet, but that doesn't make them good choices for wallets.
I don't think you should evaluate the merits of an offer based on what the provider says about it. |
|
@pyalot True, true. The wallet is ok, not as bad as blockchain.info (which isn't on the site because their service sucks among other issues). I think there were problems with Coinbase shutting down people's accounts for no reason and just bad(ish) customer support. If we review the criteria for having wallets listed, then Coinbase may not actually meet them, and that would justify removal. Edit: after briefly reviewing the requirements, I think Coinbase actually meets them all. Edit2: There is also this: https://bitcoin.org/en/posts/hard-fork-policy, which indicates that anything that is supporting something that could lead to a hard fork without consensus (e.g. XT) will not be promoted on Bitcoin.org. This would include Coinbase (since they are now using at least 1 XT node) and circle, xapo, and bitgo since they also explicitly stated support for XT in their letter. Those wallets should be removed as well. |
|
Why are webwallets listed anyway? |
|
@findftp I agree. Every wallet has its perks and its draw backs. It should be up to every user to decide where they want to store their coins. So, I propose we remove all wallets or remove none. |
|
@TGEJesse With webwallets you don't store your coins, you give them away. The only wallets listed should be client side wallets. |
|
@findftp This discussion is way off-topic, but that's not always true. Not all web-based wallets are custodial. |
|
@Cobra-Bitcoin Is correct that bitcoin.org is a private website that can link or not link to any website they choose. Since the owner of the domain has made his policy very clear, it's not very productive to continue arguing. Instead, everyone who does not support the management policy of bitcoin.org should suggest that the wallets and other services they use create their own PRs to remove themselves from this site, whether or not they agree with BIP-101 or ever plan to implement it. Bitcoin.org is offering a service in terms of link traffic, at the price of being completely subject to the unilateral judgement of @Cobra-Bitcoin. If they do not believe this arrangement is in their long term best interests, they should decline the service. |
Your beliefs are wrong. Both BIP 101, and the XT FAQ clearly explain it: "Activation is achieved when 750 of 1,000 consecutive blocks in the best chain have a version number with the first, second, third, and thirtieth bits set (0x20000007 in hex)." — https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki#Deployment "If 75% of blocks are indicating support a flag is set in all supporting nodes and a two week grace period begins." —https://bitcoinxt.software/faq.html#bigger-blocks-hard-fork
No, no, no. Coinbase is NOT breaking away from consensus. Instead they are literally saying "we are ready to support increasing the block size limit, but only if a consensus of 75% emerges". That's what BIP 101 does. That's what XT implements. Therefore, Cobra-Bitcoin, none of the criticism you raise is valid. It seems you are simply misunderstanding BIP 101... |
|
@mbevand If you have read the above posts, you would know that Mike Hearn (maintainer of Bitcoin XT) has explicitly stated that he is willing to add checkpoints to force Bitcoin XT nodes onto a forked blockchain even if it isn't the longest one. Because of this statement, it is not reliable to trust that Bitcoin XT will not in the future honor the 75% rule. Since Coinbase (as well as other companies) have explicitly stated support for big blocks, it is possible that they would also upgrade their XT nodes to use that forked blockchain even if it wasn't forked with consensus. |
|
@Cobra-Bitcoin doesn't understand how open source software works. |
|
This checkpoint discussion is useless. If Mike Hearn would do that, most people would simply not upgrade to this software with checkpoints. Also there are other bip101 implementations without bitcoinxt. |
|
Good to know, I'll stop advising bitcoin.org as a good website where finding general and complete informations about Bitcoin :) |
|
This is a god damn experiment on their part. Not compliant with the Bitcoin network? Any service allowing registrations and financial software is subject to their locales regulations and guidelines or they go to jail. Why the fuck does that preclude them from being on a list of wallets? This is why you can't give children big boy responsibilities. |
|
NACK. Stop using bitcoin.org to steer policy - it should be a neutral source of information where the visitor can make an informed decision. |
|
NACK. In a free market, the company/product that best meets user demands wins. Properly functioning free-markets, though, are dependent on good dissemination of information. Outright censorship clearly distorts a free-market. We should be creating an environment where complete information is easily available to all, and the best ideas and products rise to the top by market forces, not administrative forces. |
|
@nomnombtc yes, while most people would not upgrade to that software, what if coinbase does? Do we know that coinbase wouldn't do that? What other BIP101 implementations are there? Can you point me to them? Also, this is because Coinbase is specifically supporting XT, not that they are supporting BIP101. |
|
@achow101 If coinbase would do that ( force fork with checkpoints ) then that is obviously not ok, but you can't just assume they would do this. There is the only-bigblocks branch in bitcoinxt, which is bitcoin-core 0.11 + bip101: Bitpay has a branch which has bitcoin-core 0.11.2 + bip101: And btcd is planning to add bip101 support, probably as optional commandline option: |
|
@achow101 I know. But your fears are based on a large number of "ifs": But until then, I think proponents of removing Coinbase today are just using fear mongering tactics. |
|
@nomnombtc I think it would be fine if they used a client which supported BIP101 but wasn't maintained by a guy who said he would force a fork with checkpoints. So using Bitpay's version would work, even their own written version would be fine, but supporting Hearn who has said he would force a fork is not. @mbevand I agree that Coinbase shouldn't have been removed, but at least a warning stating that there is potential for a fork since it has been stated by Hearn that he would do it. |
|
NACK |
|
Belated ACK and um just wow at the abusive nature of this thread. |
|
I believe this is the wrong forum for this discussion. While the owners of bitcoin.org have the right to harbor this paternalistic, "I disagree, so I'm taking the ball home with me" mentality, anyone (regardless of their opinion on blocksize), should not continue to support a domain that is so blatantly partisan. To say that Hearn is trying to fork the blockchain because of some hypothetical thrown at him in a youtube video is so obtuse it strains credulity to say that that are arguing in good faith. To go further, and say, because Coinbase is experimenting with XT and sees a problem with scaling (that so many others do too), so therefore is trying to destroy bitcoin..... It is unbelievable that a person could seriously believe that. Just doesn't make any sense. 3.5 transaction per second is a huge problem, that needs to be addressed soon, as we have reached that limit. We need to find a solution. Subsiding miners in places with cheap electric, low-bandwidth, high-latency environments with an artificially low MAX_BLOCK_SIZE is unnatural, unsustainable, and is holding back wider use of bitcoin. XT might not be perfect, I disagree with the fixed growth horizon, and think 2-4-8 is a more reasonable mid-term solution, but XT needs to be part of the discussion. |
Coinbase is now running Bitcoin XT in their production servers. XT is an contentious hard fork attempt that will create a new altcoin and split the community and blockchain should it ever go into effect. If this ever happens, Coinbase's customers may find that they no longer own any actual Bitcoin.
This pull request removes Coinbase from the "Choose your Wallet" page to protect new users from being on the wrong end of a blockchain fork. Bitcoin.org should only promote Bitcoin services. Companies that use XT don't meet this criteria because they support forking off the blockchain and switching to a new incompatible currency without broad consensus.
Bitcoin Core has already announced a road map to address scalability concerns. I don't see why @barmstrong feels the need to try to promote XT in this way. Almost all of the Bitcoin technical community supports the announced road map. It's not like things aren't moving forward.
I'll merge this soon. Feedback is always appreciated though.