New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove Coinbase from the "Choose your Wallet" page #1178

Merged
merged 5 commits into from Dec 27, 2015

Conversation

Projects
None yet
@Cobra-Bitcoin
Contributor

Cobra-Bitcoin commented Dec 27, 2015

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.

@jlopp

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jlopp

jlopp Dec 27, 2015

Contributor

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.

Contributor

jlopp commented Dec 27, 2015

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.

@BitpopCoin

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@BitpopCoin

BitpopCoin Dec 27, 2015

They're a wallet, that's what the page says. Not wallets who don't run xt.

BitpopCoin commented Dec 27, 2015

They're a wallet, that's what the page says. Not wallets who don't run xt.

@thofmann

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@thofmann

thofmann Dec 27, 2015

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.

Bitcoin Core has already announced a road map to address scalability concerns.

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.

thofmann commented Dec 27, 2015

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.

Bitcoin Core has already announced a road map to address scalability concerns.

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.

@gladoscc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gladoscc

gladoscc Dec 27, 2015

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.

gladoscc commented Dec 27, 2015

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.

@jlopp

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jlopp

jlopp Dec 27, 2015

Contributor

@gladys123 @gladoscc Bitcoin was built upon the principle of voluntary interaction; it's disgraceful to promote coercion.

Contributor

jlopp commented Dec 27, 2015

@gladys123 @gladoscc Bitcoin was built upon the principle of voluntary interaction; it's disgraceful to promote coercion.

@thofmann

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@thofmann

thofmann Dec 27, 2015

We definitely need to coerce Coinbase into switching back to Bitcoin Core.

Poor word choice?

coerce (verb): persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.

to break apart from the consensus

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.

thofmann commented Dec 27, 2015

We definitely need to coerce Coinbase into switching back to Bitcoin Core.

Poor word choice?

coerce (verb): persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.

to break apart from the consensus

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.

@Cobra-Bitcoin

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Cobra-Bitcoin

Cobra-Bitcoin Dec 27, 2015

Contributor

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.

Contributor

Cobra-Bitcoin commented Dec 27, 2015

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.

@HostFat

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@HostFat

HostFat Dec 27, 2015

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.

HostFat commented Dec 27, 2015

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.

@thofmann

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@thofmann

thofmann Dec 27, 2015

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.

thofmann commented Dec 27, 2015

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.

@amacneil

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@amacneil

amacneil Dec 27, 2015

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.

amacneil commented Dec 27, 2015

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.

@dabura667

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dabura667

dabura667 commented Dec 27, 2015

NACK

@gladoscc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gladoscc

gladoscc Dec 27, 2015

@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.

gladoscc commented Dec 27, 2015

@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.

@amacneil

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@amacneil

amacneil Dec 27, 2015

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.

amacneil commented Dec 27, 2015

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.

@BitpopCoin

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@BitpopCoin

BitpopCoin Dec 27, 2015

Blockstreams mailing list is exactly how conspiracy theories start and get proven

BitpopCoin commented Dec 27, 2015

Blockstreams mailing list is exactly how conspiracy theories start and get proven

@christophebiocca

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@christophebiocca

christophebiocca Dec 27, 2015

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.

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.

christophebiocca commented Dec 27, 2015

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.

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.

@harding

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@harding

harding Dec 27, 2015

Contributor

Untested ACK.

Contributor

harding commented Dec 27, 2015

Untested ACK.

@gladoscc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gladoscc

gladoscc Dec 27, 2015

@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.

gladoscc commented Dec 27, 2015

@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.

@ghost

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ghost

ghost Dec 27, 2015

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.

ghost commented Dec 27, 2015

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.

@gladoscc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gladoscc

gladoscc Dec 27, 2015

@louzada1:
I'm not sure how we can reliably identify transactions as from Coinbase, but even if we could, we should not reject Coinbase transactions as it removes fungibility of bitcoin.

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.

gladoscc commented Dec 27, 2015

@louzada1:
I'm not sure how we can reliably identify transactions as from Coinbase, but even if we could, we should not reject Coinbase transactions as it removes fungibility of bitcoin.

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.

@dabura667

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dabura667

dabura667 Dec 27, 2015

@harding: Untested ACK.

This will get merged.

dabura667 commented Dec 27, 2015

@harding: Untested ACK.

This will get merged.

@Azulan

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Azulan

Azulan Dec 27, 2015

NACK this childish nonsense. As if bitcoin would be where it is today without Coinbase's collaboration. What a dickish ignorant move.

Azulan commented Dec 27, 2015

NACK this childish nonsense. As if bitcoin would be where it is today without Coinbase's collaboration. What a dickish ignorant move.

@Aquentus

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Aquentus

Aquentus Dec 27, 2015

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

Aquentus commented Dec 27, 2015

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

@Azulan

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Azulan

Azulan Dec 27, 2015

@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.

Azulan commented Dec 27, 2015

@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.

@priestc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@priestc

priestc Dec 27, 2015

I have a feeling this post will get deleted, but I am also strongly against this change.

priestc commented Dec 27, 2015

I have a feeling this post will get deleted, but I am also strongly against this change.

@ghost

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ghost

ghost Dec 27, 2015

XT is definitely an altcoin.

ghost commented Dec 27, 2015

XT is definitely an altcoin.

@JustinAiken

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@JustinAiken

JustinAiken commented Dec 27, 2015

NACK

@pyalot

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pyalot

pyalot Dec 27, 2015

Acutally, why would you list Coinbase as a "wallet". Isn't it more an exchange for US citizens only?

pyalot commented Dec 27, 2015

Acutally, why would you list Coinbase as a "wallet". Isn't it more an exchange for US citizens only?

@JustinAiken

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@JustinAiken

JustinAiken Dec 27, 2015

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.

JustinAiken commented Dec 27, 2015

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.

@achow101

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@achow101

achow101 Dec 27, 2015

Contributor

@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.

Contributor

achow101 commented Dec 27, 2015

@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.

@ghost

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ghost

ghost Dec 27, 2015

This is the stupidest thing I've seen to date. Update Bitcoin core, I will not update... Along with many many others.

ghost commented Dec 27, 2015

This is the stupidest thing I've seen to date. Update Bitcoin core, I will not update... Along with many many others.

@achow101

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@achow101

achow101 Dec 27, 2015

Contributor

@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?

Contributor

achow101 commented Dec 27, 2015

@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?

@JustinAiken

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@JustinAiken

JustinAiken Dec 27, 2015

What if Hearn adds code into XT that forks the blockchain and Coinbase chooses to update to that version?

...then the blockchain will work and scale as it should in 2015/2016, instead of being constrained by a temporary hack introduced years ago.

JustinAiken commented Dec 27, 2015

What if Hearn adds code into XT that forks the blockchain and Coinbase chooses to update to that version?

...then the blockchain will work and scale as it should in 2015/2016, instead of being constrained by a temporary hack introduced years ago.

@pyalot

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pyalot

pyalot Dec 27, 2015

@JustinAiken, @achow101

They have a web wallet

Coinbase does have a wallet function

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.

and a lot of people use it as a wallet.

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.

They are also marketing it as a wallet, so it should be considered as a wallet.

I don't think you should evaluate the merits of an offer based on what the provider says about it.

pyalot commented Dec 27, 2015

@JustinAiken, @achow101

They have a web wallet

Coinbase does have a wallet function

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.

and a lot of people use it as a wallet.

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.

They are also marketing it as a wallet, so it should be considered as a wallet.

I don't think you should evaluate the merits of an offer based on what the provider says about it.

@achow101

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@achow101

achow101 Dec 27, 2015

Contributor

@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.

Contributor

achow101 commented Dec 27, 2015

@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.

@ghost

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ghost

ghost Dec 28, 2015

Why are webwallets listed anyway?

ghost commented Dec 28, 2015

Why are webwallets listed anyway?

@ghost

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ghost

ghost Dec 28, 2015

@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.

ghost commented Dec 28, 2015

@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.

@ghost

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ghost

ghost Dec 28, 2015

@TGEJesse With webwallets you don't store your coins, you give them away. The only wallets listed should be client side wallets.

ghost commented Dec 28, 2015

@TGEJesse With webwallets you don't store your coins, you give them away. The only wallets listed should be client side wallets.

@jlopp

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jlopp

jlopp Dec 28, 2015

Contributor

@findftp This discussion is way off-topic, but that's not always true. Not all web-based wallets are custodial.

Contributor

jlopp commented Dec 28, 2015

@findftp This discussion is way off-topic, but that's not always true. Not all web-based wallets are custodial.

@justusranvier

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@justusranvier

justusranvier Dec 28, 2015

@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.

justusranvier commented Dec 28, 2015

@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.

@mbevand

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mbevand

mbevand Dec 28, 2015

@Cobra-Bitcoin:

I don't believe the XT developers claims about only activating when 75% of the miners support it [...]

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

But when you run code that is designed to break away from the current consensus, and this code doesn't have overwhelming consensus or support, then [...]

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 commented Dec 28, 2015

@Cobra-Bitcoin:

I don't believe the XT developers claims about only activating when 75% of the miners support it [...]

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

But when you run code that is designed to break away from the current consensus, and this code doesn't have overwhelming consensus or support, then [...]

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...

@achow101

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@achow101

achow101 Dec 28, 2015

Contributor

@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.

Contributor

achow101 commented Dec 28, 2015

@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.

@Azulan

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Azulan

Azulan Dec 28, 2015

@Cobra-Bitcoin doesn't understand how open source software works.

Azulan commented Dec 28, 2015

@Cobra-Bitcoin doesn't understand how open source software works.

@nomnombtc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nomnombtc

nomnombtc Dec 28, 2015

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.

nomnombtc commented Dec 28, 2015

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.

@HostFat

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@HostFat

HostFat Dec 28, 2015

Good to know, I'll stop advising bitcoin.org as a good website where finding general and complete informations about Bitcoin :)

HostFat commented Dec 28, 2015

Good to know, I'll stop advising bitcoin.org as a good website where finding general and complete informations about Bitcoin :)

@hoffmabc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@hoffmabc

hoffmabc Dec 28, 2015

Contributor

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.

Contributor

hoffmabc commented Dec 28, 2015

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.

@ibrightly

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ibrightly

ibrightly Dec 28, 2015

NACK. Stop using bitcoin.org to steer policy - it should be a neutral source of information where the visitor can make an informed decision.

ibrightly commented Dec 28, 2015

NACK. Stop using bitcoin.org to steer policy - it should be a neutral source of information where the visitor can make an informed decision.

@robustus

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@robustus

robustus Dec 28, 2015

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.

robustus commented Dec 28, 2015

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.

@achow101

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@achow101

achow101 Dec 28, 2015

Contributor

@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.

Contributor

achow101 commented Dec 28, 2015

@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.

@nomnombtc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nomnombtc

nomnombtc Dec 28, 2015

@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:
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

Bitpay has a branch which has bitcoin-core 0.11.2 + bip101:
https://github.com/bitpay/bitcoin/tree/v0.11.2-big-blocks

And btcd is planning to add bip101 support, probably as optional commandline option:
btcsuite/btcd#541

nomnombtc commented Dec 28, 2015

@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:
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

Bitpay has a branch which has bitcoin-core 0.11.2 + bip101:
https://github.com/bitpay/bitcoin/tree/v0.11.2-big-blocks

And btcd is planning to add bip101 support, probably as optional commandline option:
btcsuite/btcd#541

@mbevand

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mbevand

mbevand Dec 28, 2015

@achow101 I know. But your fears are based on a large number of "ifs":
If XT happens to be adopted by many users but too few miners (the "worst case scenario" Hearn referred to),
and if Hearn decides to add checkpoints to ignore the longest chain to address this scenario (which he said isn't an ideal solution),
and if Gavin also accept this change (Hearn is not the only XT core dev),
and if Coinbase puts this change in prod (which they might not since XT is merely an "experiment" for them so far),
then yeah at this point it would be reasonable to remove the reference to Coinbase.com.

But until then, I think proponents of removing Coinbase today are just using fear mongering tactics.

mbevand commented Dec 28, 2015

@achow101 I know. But your fears are based on a large number of "ifs":
If XT happens to be adopted by many users but too few miners (the "worst case scenario" Hearn referred to),
and if Hearn decides to add checkpoints to ignore the longest chain to address this scenario (which he said isn't an ideal solution),
and if Gavin also accept this change (Hearn is not the only XT core dev),
and if Coinbase puts this change in prod (which they might not since XT is merely an "experiment" for them so far),
then yeah at this point it would be reasonable to remove the reference to Coinbase.com.

But until then, I think proponents of removing Coinbase today are just using fear mongering tactics.

@achow101

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@achow101

achow101 Dec 28, 2015

Contributor

@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.

Contributor

achow101 commented Dec 28, 2015

@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.

@SergioDemianLerner

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@SergioDemianLerner

SergioDemianLerner commented Dec 28, 2015

NACK

@jrmithdobbs

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jrmithdobbs

jrmithdobbs Dec 28, 2015

Belated ACK and um just wow at the abusive nature of this thread.

jrmithdobbs commented Dec 28, 2015

Belated ACK and um just wow at the abusive nature of this thread.

@mpatc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mpatc

mpatc Dec 28, 2015

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.

mpatc commented Dec 28, 2015

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.

@bitcoin-dot-org bitcoin-dot-org locked and limited conversation to collaborators Dec 28, 2015

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.