Add "Capacity increases" page with initial signatures

[harding]

Link: Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system

If you're a known contributor and want to add your signature, please make a comment saying "ACK statement" and I will add your name as provided on your GitHub profile.

[maaku]

ACK statement

[TheBlueMatt]

ACK Statement.

[adam3us]

ACK statement

[CodeShark]

ACK statement

[btcdrak]

ACK statement

[maaku]

Note if you want your name added to the list, use "ACK statement"

[jonasschnelli]

ACK statement

[laanwj]

ACK statement, this is duly needed.

[kanzure]

ACK statement

[greenaddress]

ACK statement

disclaimer: we intend to use/support SW; not sure if the ACK is only valid for 'core' contributors or for any contributor in the space but there you have it.

[harding]

Statement has been revised by request to remind readers that work on scalability has been on going. I have not moved any signatures from the old version to the new version, so @maaku will need to post again if they want to add his signature. Sorry for the inconvenience.

[greenaddress]

ACK statement

[instagibbs]

ACK statement

[laanwj]

re-ACK statemenet

[kanzure]

re-ACK statement

[jonasschnelli]

re-ACK statement

[btcdrak]

re-ACK statement

[sipa]

re-ACK

[morcos]

ACK statement

[CodeShark]

re-ACK statement

[coblee]

ACK statement

[paveljanik]

ACK statement

[theymos]

ACK statement

[afk11]

ACK statement.

[nvk]

ACK on Coinkite's behalf

[jl2012]

ACK statement

[domob1812]

ACK statement

[jmcorgan]

ACK statement

[cdecker]

ACK statement

[theuni]

ACK statement

[jrmithdobbs]

ACK statement

But barely a recognizable ... ;p

[TheBlueMatt]

ACK new statement.

On December 21, 2015 6:46:33 AM PST, "David A. Harding" notifications@github.com wrote:

Statement has been revised by request to remind readers that work on
scalability has been on going. I have not moved any signatures from
the old version to the new version, so @greenaddress, @kanzure,
@laanwj, @jonasschnelli, @maaku, @CodeShark, and @TheBlueMatt will need
to post again if they want to add their signatures. Sorry for the
inconvenience.

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#1165 (comment)

[wtogami]

ACK statement

[jameshilliard]

ACK statement

[sdaftuar]

ACK statement

[gmaxwell]

ACK statement

[bpdavenport]

ACK statement.

[crwatkins]

ACK statement

[randy-waterhouse]

ACK statement

[btchip]

ACK statement (on my behalf and for Ledger)

disclaimer : not a core developer, but apparently this moved to a wider audience. Definitely willing to support that plan in Ledger products (wallet & security devices)

[Aquentus]

NACK.

There is no actual timeline for SW. I am not sure there is even a BIP for it. It seems to be more medium to long term planing suggestions, rather than anything short term.

With the blocksize limit currently hit, there is a desperate need for a short term kick the can solution so as to allow breathing space for medium-longer term progression. SW is far too complex to in any way be a short term breather for, as we all know, it will take years for the entire ecosystem to upgrade.

Moreover, it is not for bitcoin.org to engage in press releases. That makes the website sound far too official and appears to create official communication channels, thus appearing to create a governance system, which is antithetical to bitcoin's core concepts of decentralisation.

[DavidVorick]

ACK statement

[morcos]

@Aquentus This is not meant to be a definitive statement on the evolution of the bitcoin protocol. It is meant to be an expression of the direction of development that the Bitcoin Core software project is going to take at this time. Almost all of the developers on the project share the same viewpoint on how to proceed, so this PR is meant to clarify that to a larger audience so we can move away from continued discussions of short term block size increase hard forks. We have a lot of work to do and we want to share what it is.

[pstratem]

ACK statement

2a9d7e8

[harding]

Note: this PR has been merged, but known community members may still add their signatures here by saying "ACK statement". I'll add the signatures to the live page in batches every few hours for the next few days.

[Aquentus]

@morcos I am not sure how any developer can sign up to a complex change of some of the most security sensitive parameters of bitcoin - sig validation - without even a BIP setting out the details. Moreover, as I stated, any such proposed changes are likely to take many months to be implemented by core, and then probably years to be implemented by the ecosystem. Therefore it does not in any way address the very real and pressing current issue of full transaction capacity.

Even more than that there is a fundamental decentralisation issue here in that bitcoin.org is seen to speak on behalf of core developers who in turn are seen to "control" bitcoin. This creates the appearance of a governance system which is utterly dangerous for bitcoin.org, for the core developers, and for bitcoin itself.

We have already read the above "roadmap". Nothing whatever is gained by re-iterating it again.

[eragmus]

ACK statement

(disclaimer: not a Core contributor of code, so not sure if I count -feel free to ignore-, but strong supporter of: decentralization-first approach that respects Bitcoin's properties as cryptocurrency & the careful, wise, thoughtful, longterm-health decision-making of Pieter, Wladimir, Greg, Adam, et al. -- Support: Capacity Increase plan, and specifically for short-term: SW soft-fork, soon after followed by: 102/202/248 as based on holistic/feasibility considerations.)

[DimmestBummer]

Bitcoin needs plans created by experts not by coders.

According to Dr. Peter Rizun, managing editor of the academic journal Ledger, it is "clear that [Greg Maxwell] actually has a fairly superficial understanding of large swaths of computer science, information theory, physics and mathematics." In other words: Maxwell is not an expert.

Why would anyone follow plans set by Maxwell and ignore the advice of actual experts in mathematics and economics (like Rizun and Andresen)? This is a mutiny and a reversal of leadership. Coders like Maxwell should not have any more authority than tab and semicolon placement. Economic decisions like scalability should be left to the experts.

[harding]

Welcome to GitHub, @Aquentus and @DimmestBummer.

If you want to sign the statement, please say "ACK statement". If you oppose the ideas in the statement, please make your argument in an appropriate forum. The Bitcoin Core pages on bitcoin.org/bitcoin-core/ are for Bitcoin Core developers.

Further comments will be deleted. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly.

[bramcohen]

ACK statement

[BashCo]

ACK statement

[fanquake]

ACK statement

[shangzhou]

ACK statement

PS.not a contributor,just an Bitcoin user.

[midnightmagic]

ACK statement

[EtherTyper]

ACK statement

[martindale]

ACK statement

[maaku]

re-ACK updated statement.

[OmniEdge]

ACK statement

Disclaimer: not a Core contributor. I am more interested in strategy and agree with this roadmap.

[NicolasDorier]

ACK statement do not contribute a lot though, only on bip68, I let you decide if you want to add my name. :)

[devrandom]

ACK statement

[wangchun]

ACK statement

[flound1129]

NACK. Gregory's email is not a roadmap, it's barely a statement of intent. SW cost/benefit and risk appears very high compared to a flat block size increase.

[luke-jr]

ACK statement

[Joukehofman]

ACK statement on behalf of Bitonic

[anderspatriksvensson]

(ACK statement)

In brackets as I'm not a contributor.

[bgorlick]

ACK statement

[FinalHash]

UnACK statement -- Marshall Long of FinalHash
Now i think this is a bad idea. Edited: jan.5 2015

[MarcoFalke]

ACK statement

[obi]

ACK statement - As a UK based bitcoin exchange, Coinfloor feels that the direction outlined in the original statement is in the best interests of Bitcoin and the Bitcoin community in the short, medium and long run.

Although not core contributors, we think it is important to show that there are bitcoin exchanges that are happy to use and support Segregated Witness, Lightning Network, etc.

[dexX7]

ACK statement

(Infrequent contributor to Bitcoin Core, contributor to Mastercoin/Omni -- this ACK is on behalf of myself.)

[ghtdak]

ACK statement

[harding]

Note: if you speak for an organization or product (such as a miner or wallet), you may add that into your ACK (or edit your existing ACK). We will assume by default that you are ACKing only on behalf of yourself.

[Kixunil]

Not contributor but I like segwit and other ideas seem reasonable to me too. Keep up good work and thank you!

[arowser]

ACK statement

[flix1]

ACK statement

[maraoz]

ACK statement

[ghost]

ACK statement on behalf of Bitcoinpaygate

[voisine]

ACK statement on behalf of breadwallet

(We intend to implement segwit to launch simultaneously with the roll out. I'd also like to put emphasis on "but they [hard-fork max block size increases] will be critically important long term", from the statement. We must be extremely conservative and keep the network functioning as it has been, with fees incentivized through prevailing relay policy and miner tx selection policy, not hard blocksize limits.)

[rubensayshi]

ACK statement on behalf of Blocktrail

[NicolasDorier]

NBitcoin will be updated as soon as segwit is merged, so .NET bitcoin software will be able to enjoy it very quickly.

[raulyaoyuan]

ACK statement

[bip32JP]

ACK statement on behalf bitbank Inc.
https://bitcoinbank.co.jp/
(Wallet, exchange, and crypto-news outlet based in Tokyo, JP)

Writing up Japanese translation right now.

[SuperHanZi]

ACK Statement， by ZhangLian.info

[gabridome]

ACK statement

[raulyaoyuan]

ACK statement on behalf bw.com.

[aawilliams]

ACK statement

[ABISprotocol]

I'm keeping an open mind so have declined to sign on to statements as much could occur in the near future.

[petertodd]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

ACK statement re: Gregory Maxwell's "Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system"
post on bitcoin-dev, Dec 7th 2015

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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==
=CoCP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[AvatarX001]

ACK statement

[evoskuil]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

ACK statement

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWkYSyAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFOWXMH+waxYK2U/teWOMOH4dPrh2ED
hoSMqBZYb9jTfENsAJSc9s7bLySg9Fd43d/s1WrtDGoNgT4n/Y0vj1V082TqrA5O
lbihE4XPNs3XQ13THR8sqsmSbfDaPUSar3TgwT36BMRUHEhDTti0n1hjAJD2XNbH
OuizhXcZDpjyfmJbh0ZjK4evjc8fFsGjmIznTO4whqJfvPmF1PoU9bRLCtheht2r
45FDLSbk7u2dGJb5edK+EaW2z9bI6ghciMzoLmGq0g8dg4zX10HTiWhyjitDjWi+
weSWpg7SpM2AJLiRCjpojcp7l+2GrfxBc56p+TPy3T2yb8lTZ7ob5douWDUUE7g=
=ii4a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[vxst]

ACK statement

PS. not a contributor, just a Bitcoin user. Developing some product related to Bitcoin.

[rebroad]

NACK statement while it focuses on "increases"... if it said "capacity adjustments" then I'd ACK it, as at points in the future it may be that to scale capacity needs to be decreased, and I'd rather the roadmap was open-minded enough to that possibility also.

NACK, also for these reasons: https://chrispacia.wordpress.com/2016/01/11/against-softforks/

[harding]

New signatures should be added here: bitcoin-core/website#53

I'm going to lock this issue now so nobody accidentally posts here.