Remove Coinbase from the "Choose your Wallet" page #1178
54 participants
and others
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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
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.
@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:
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.
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.
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.
would introduce a single point of failure. The consensus rules should be implementation agnostic.
So if Coinbase added support for Litecoin (an altcoin), you would remove it from bitcoin.org also?
Like others have said, XT will only fork with supermajority of miner votes. If it does get supermajority (and that's a big if), then XT will be Bitcoin. This is how Satoshi designed the system.
It scares me what the Bitcoin community is turning into. Any opinion that's not the party line is being stamped out.
@coblee bitcoin.org promotes bitcoin, not alternative coins, alternative forks or sabotage attempts.
There is no point in promoting a company that wants to sabotage you.
So if Coinbase added support for Litecoin (an altcoin), you would remove it from bitcoin.org also?
If Coinbase stopped supporting Bitcoin and supported Litecoin instead then of course they would be removed from bitcoin.org. Bitcoin.org doesn't list companies who only support altcoins.
If Coinbase stopped supporting Bitcoin and supported Litecoin instead
This is fair. Switching from offering A to offering B is not the same as offering A and B.
However, I do not agree that a BIP 101 fork would be an altcoin.
Coinbase runs multiple versions of Bitcoin Core. So we didn't stop supporting Bitcoin Core.
@coblee You are cynical like the company you work for. It is a sabotage attempt.
I don't care much because Coinbase already has a bad reputation and just make it worse everyday.
You are reading it from someone who is pro big blocks.
I'm not sure, but it seems to me that users with no Github track record or Core contributions should not have much say in this. @gladoscc you are clearly a troll here.
Running XT is an opinion/vote. It's like Luke-jr calling gambling transactions SPAM. In the end, it doesn't matter if they don't get the economic majority.
I would not worry about Coinbase. It seems to me with their carelessness about their users, they'll soon become irrelevant. And this is after being a 3 year customer with them.
I don't agree with BIP101. But Coinbase running XT has no effect because we run non-mining nodes. So it won't have any affect on BIP101 reaching supermajority. XT does have some interesting things like double spend relay that is arguably useful to a merchant processor like Coinbase. So running some XT nodes is not an act of sabotage.
Let it be known to all players in the bitcoin space that the BlockStream Core devs are so insecure and immature that they will disavow anyone who attempts to experiment and improve process, protocol and customer experience, regardless of longevity, capacity and support in the industry. What cowards and fools they must be.
So running some XT nodes is not an act of sabotage.
The CEO believes an upgrade is urgently needed in order for the Bitcoin network to handle a sudden increase of Bitcoin usage. As such, Armstrong emphasized that Coinbase will not wait for consensus to form among the Bitcoin development community.
“We will upgrade regardless of whether Bitcoin Core is updated,” Armstrong said.
In that case, you could argue that Bitcoin Core should be denounced in case it adds a controversial change of its own.
@thofmann I agree that if Bitcoin Core were to ever break consensus compatibility with the rest of the network, with notable dissent from the economy, it should not be promoted (and perhaps even actively advised against, given the absence of a widely-known alternative).
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).
@gladoscc Bitcoin.org has for a long time now had criteria wallets must meet to be promoted, going far beyond (but including, of course) intended consensus compatibility with the network. What you are promoting with code signing, however, is a very dangerous form of Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) that would make open source wallets impossible and seriously harm Bitcoin's decentralisation probably more than BIP 101 likely would.
To other readers: I suspect from his comments that @gladoscc is a troll acting as a straw-man to try to draw criticism to this PR, but am responding to him assuming good faith.
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.
@gladoscc This is up to miners, but should not be hard-coded into the reference software. I suspect it wouldn't be all that hard to do, if someone really wanted to...
So if Coinbase added support for Litecoin (an altcoin), you would remove it from bitcoin.org also?
@coblee Interesting question. I haven't read whatever this PR is reacting to, but can you clarify: when/if Coinbase adds XT support, will it maintain/continue support for the current Bitcoin system also? That is, if a blockchain with a 2 MB block in it is at some point longer than the Bitcoin blockchain, will Coinbase continue to function as it did a month ago with the Bitcoin blockchain?
If it does get supermajority (and that's a big if), then XT will be Bitcoin. This is how Satoshi designed the system.
@coblee This is completely wrong. Miners do not decide on the consensus rules, beyond softforking in new ones (and even that can be overruled by the economy).
Running XT is an opinion/vote. It's like Luke-jr calling gambling transactions SPAM. In the end, it doesn't matter if they don't get the economic majority.
@omarabid XT makes change to the consensus protocol itself that defines Bitcoin. My spam filters (which in fact have nothing to do with gambling) only affect local policies which are by design independent preferences each node must make.
Let it be known to all players in the bitcoin space that the BlockStream Core devs are so insecure and immature that they will disavow anyone who attempts to experiment and improve process, protocol and customer experience, regardless of longevity, capacity and support in the industry.
@Azulan No Blockstream employees are involved in this PR at all so far. (Note that while I am arguably affiliated, I have from the start insisted on remaining independent as a contractor, and as such speak only for myself. And this is my first comment on this matter.)
@luke-jr BlockStream is the source of this small block radicalization within the dev community.
Let it be known to all players in the bitcoin space that the BlockStream Core devs are so insecure and immature that they will disavow anyone who attempts to experiment and improve process, protocol and customer experience, regardless of longevity, capacity and support in the industry. What cowards and fools they must be.
@Azulan Please don't attack characters here. This comment does little, if anything, to move the conversation forward, and is way off the topic of this PR.
I agree that if Bitcoin Core were to ever break consensus compatibility with the rest of the network, with notable dissent from the economy, it should not be promoted (and perhaps even actively advised against, given the absence of a widely-known alternative).
@luke-jr I agree here, but @Cobra-Bitcoin was arguing that XT should not be promoted now, because he suspects that it will implement incompatible strategies.
To other readers: I suspect from his comments that @gladoscc is a troll acting as a straw-man to try to draw criticism to this PR, but am responding to him assuming good faith.
@luke-jr It seems that way to me, also.
@thofmann This PR points to a distinct lack of character. If it were truly based on technical merits, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
@luke-jr Coinbase runs both XT and Core edge nodes. Our main node is still based off of bitcoin-ruby, which is not updated to BIP101. If a 2MB block happens today, both the XT and the Core nodes will reject it as invalid, so that scenario doesn't matter. If/when there is indeed a supermajority miner hashrate supporting BIP101 causing XT nodes to start a 2 week countdown, Coinbase will have to at that time make a decision whether to:
a) Do nothing and stay on the Core chain
b) Add BIP101 support to our main node
c) Support both the Core chain and the XT chain and let people use both coins
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 this sounds suspiciously like centralization.... pretty much the opposite of what anyone is looking for.
Reality check: Coinbase has just as much as, arguably more, authority than you to decide what is bitcoin and what is not.
I agree here, but @Cobra-Bitcoin was arguing that XT should not be promoted now, because he suspects that it will implement incompatible strategies.
@thofmann Yes, it's not the best argument. But in any case, the reality is that XT presently does implement incompatible consensus rules. If the majority of miners decide to, they could use these incompatible rules to force nodes running XT to fork off the Bitcoin blockchain.
If/when there is indeed a supermajority miner hashrate supporting BIP101 causing XT nodes to start a 2 week countdown, Coinbase will have to at that time make a decision whether to:
a) Do nothing and stay on the Core chain
b) Add BIP101 support to our main node
c) Support both the Core chain and the XT chain and let people use both coins
@coblee Ok, as long as the behaviour for now is to remain on the Bitcoin blockchain, I think this PR should be closed (NACK). Unless there is already a policy at Coinbase to go with option (b)... can someone officially confirm that is not the case, to put people at ease?
Reality check: Coinbase has just as much as, arguably more, authority than you to decide what is bitcoin and what is not.
Show all checks
@Grix Coinbase is part of the economy that makes the decision to hardfork, but they do not have authority to unilaterally do so. Bitcoin.org is not hereby asserting an authority: it is merely enforcing the current consensus.
NACK.
This has nothing to do with code, this is pure politics & censorship. Anybody who supports this should be ashamed of himself.
If you do this thing...then you will be essentially starting a process that will guarantee the destruction of that which you sought to save. We rely on you the developers to be unbiased and honest, this has ceased to be the case now for some time. You will do this thing..and you will be wrong. People are watching this with more scrutiny than you imagine. This protocol will be destroyed from within by those who have been charged to maintain it. Ask yourself what code would A.I. choose? Something unwritten and untested or something written tested and working. Stop being stupid.
@luke-jr Coinbase is part of the economy that makes the decision to hardfork, but they do not have authority to unilaterally do so. Bitcoin.org is not hereby asserting an authority: it is merely enforcing the current consensus.
Coinbase have no way of single-handedly causing a hardfork. Coinbase switching to XT is merely a vote. Remember that XT requires a majority of recent blocks to deploy any hardfork, at which point XT is the consensus. If users don't vote for other wallets than Core because they are not allowed, it is not consensus for the status quo, it is tyranny. For a consensus to be at all meaningful, anyone must be allowed to support whatever path for bitcoin they want, without fearing sanctions.
@luke-jr Yes, it's not the best argument. But in any case, the reality is that XT presently does implement incompatible consensus rules. If the majority of miners decide to, they could use these incompatible rules to force nodes running XT to fork off the Bitcoin blockchain.
So? Let it be. If there are two people in bitcoin: pro-big-blocks and pro-small-blocks, let the network bifurcate into two alt-currencies. People holding their private keys will have coins here and here and will decide (based on price dumping) which coin is worth more!
I see no reason that any web wallet should be listed. My two cents.
They're a wallet, just like Litecoin Core. The page doesn't say "Wallets that don't run Litecoin", either, however it is obvious that the page shouldn't include non-Bitcoin wallets.
I'm not a developer amd hell, I don't even know how this github stuff actually works, but I made myself an account here just to comment on this one. I'm a long term holder of bitcoin (2 years >) and this split of the community enforced by people who are in charge of it (theymos, bitcointalk/reddit moderators etc.) is the first major fault in bitcoin which makes me doubt on the long term success of bitcoin.
Using XT is a democratic vote and if you oppose its implementation its absolutely fine, you just vote against it by not running it. But abusing the powers given to you for enforcing your point of view is highly undemocratic and undermines the very heart of bitcoins ideological principals, which is much more dangerous than some maybe-mistakes on the tech level. Trust in bitcoins open democratic nature is whats so convincing about it. If I want a bunch of guys who tell me what is ok and what not I would rather stick with the mixture of government and banking jackasses we already have, at least they present their faces to the public. Power to the the people, thats bitcoins priceless promise and you are compromising it by abusing your power.
In fact, you are much more dangerous to bitcoin than anyone who runs any bitcoin client could ever be.
So no, dont make this change, its desastrous and wrong even if you are right on the tech level.
Running BIP101 code as a node doesn't change any protocol consensus rules, it only signals that they are ready to accept bigger blocks if and when BIP101 activates.
You would need to believe Bitcoin is some fragile animal if promoting BIP101 is somehow dangerous.
Calling BIP101 dangerous really feels like a contradiction by itself. Miners are risk averse and need to follow economic consensus. And the only way we get economic consensus is by some kind of signalling. Signalling is the opposite of dangerous because it creates an opportunity to move forward, but it doesn't (by itself) force anyone to do so. Just imaging how dangerous it would be to create the first >1mb block. Now place yourself in the shoes of a miner.
BIP101 is only dangerous if you forget about incentives. In reality it would only activate when it is not contentious anymore. (admittedly having a random miner be able to give the start signal early is a bit dangerous, but sane orphan limits should prevent that, although that might need some more thought)
And it is very well possible that even without the censorship and demonising of BIP101 that getting consensus organically would still be slower than Core's current capacity increase plan.
The biggest victim of all this might not even be the toxic split in the community, but actually it might be how insanely impossible it has become to do any kind of hard fork now.
"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". And this seems to be more true for software developers who rather deal with software than with "stupid" people. (i'm a software developer myself, so it is something i see myself and colleagues doing). So you might rather search for technical solutions like soft forks. And that's also a good thing and applaudable.
But in reality no one is worse of when the network is ready for bigger blocks. And if everyone is ready then we would probably still wait for an OK from Core. Because don't forget Core dev's are valued tremendously.
Maybe BIP101 should not conflate being ready for bigger blocks, accepting them and voting for activation. I think nodes/miners should be ready for but not necessarily vote for BIP101.
Maybe I shouldn't write so much in a place like this. But I care. Just my POV, not here to discuss really.
Please note that comments from MillyBitcoin are being deleted because that person was previously banned from this repository.
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).
This is a flawed idea on many levels:
- Bitcoin is a protocol, not a software. Anybody who can speak the protocol can (and should be) allowed to offer transaction for entry (you can generate transactions entirely with pen&paper if you want to)
- Unless you want to go full "secure computing"/DRM/centralized wallet distribution there no feasible way to make "code signing" work even halfways
- And even if you go that route, code signing doesn't work because your central authority won't work because you cannot force miners to agree with a central authority approval scheme and refuse wallets/transactions from "undesireables"
- But even if you assume that your central wallet/transaction authority was feasible (which it isn't), that'd just make you the arbiter of who gets to use bitcoin and who may not, and what transactions to refuse and which to approve, I believe governments would like to have word with you in that case (about undesirable transactions like donations to wikileaks etc.)
The idea that you can exercise centralized authority over the bitcoin ecosystem is flawed. It's not dangerous, in that, it's so unfeasible you'll just doom whatever implementation (core in this case) you convince to go along with such a scheme (because the majority of a decentralized network will not chose to subject themselves to a centralized authority scheme of wallet/transaction approval).
What you should do to advance your point of view is offer the best implementation of bitcoin and convince people on the quality of your work based on its merits. If you fail to do that, then there's nothing you can do to begin with and actions such as the one you proposed would only hasten your demise.
@MillyBitcoin Theymos doesn't seem like the person who needs sock puppets. And it is a bit more likely that more than one person shares the same opinion.
And I can say that with full conviction while I don't agree with Theymos.
Could someone please clarify what they are doing that is wrong?
AFAIK XT is no threat to bitcoin as it will only fork the blockchain with >75% of the miners using it. If we ever reach that point then XT is obviously what people want bitcoin to be and there is no stopping the change anyhow.
How is XT in any way a threat to bitcoin?
@ywecur BIP101 (And thereby XT) is dangerous because it could create a contentious hard fork where both forks survive for however long.
I simply don't think BIP101 can ever reach 75% when its contentious and dangerous like that. But clearly not everyone agrees.
@seweso Permanent hardforks are not a threat. Obviously if some portion (big or small) of miners and wallet users chooses to go with one fork rather than the other, it's their choice. Choice is fundamentally a good thing, not a bad one. Trying to exercise central authority over your choices is a bad thing, not a good thing. And the attempt to do so is as likely to introduce a hardfork as the perceived "threat".
@seweso I don't understand your resoning.
BIP101 (And thereby XT) is dangerous because it could create a contentious hard fork where both forks survive for however long.
This isn't true. If we reach a point where >75% want to hard-fork the blockchain then there is consensus to a very high degree.
Maybe there is something I'm missing. Let's say we completely lose 25% of the networks hashing power, this would be the worst case scenario if a hard fork would occor: Could you refer me to some data showing how this would be detrimental to bitcoin?
As I have understood it people can choose to run whichever version of bitcoin that they like, so why shouldn't people be able to fork the blockchain if this majority consensus occurs?
I simply don't think BIP101 can ever reach 75% when its contentious and dangerous like that.
This isn't relevant in any way. If it doesn't reach >75% consensus then no harm will be done.
@harding From a big opponent of XT/BIP101 censorship like myself: you have my blessing to still delete spammy people like MillyBitcoin.
But know that that is also because I don't like appeals to authority or some bandwagon effect. Bitcoin's development should not be susceptible to Sybill attacks.
I said all I wanted to say. This is no place for back and forth.
If Bitcoin.org wants to remove Coinbase then that's their prerogative. It can simply be because it's the straw that broke the camels back. But I would advice against it because it would be a PR nightmare.
I think Bitcoin core (and friends) can ease up on the censorship of BIP101 promotion, and still be firm about their stance against it. Standing firm behind convictions should be enough.
As pointed out by others there is no chance that XT will reach the 75% threshold. Nonetheless, it was a nice experiment to trigger some discussion on the blocksize matter and to show that the core software can be forked and modified by anyone. Also, XT has one or two nice features built into which are not in core right now and come in handy from time to time...
Though, I don't see how all of this is relevant to this specific PR. I don't even get why this PR was created in the first place. Coinbase trying out some software is not a reason to remove the link from the page. If there is other reasons (like removing web based wallets entirely) this should be another PR.
I hope this gets closed considering the amount of unrelated comments getting send out to everyone's inbox.
The 75% mining threshold is red herring. Mike Hearn has already said that he will use checkpoints and ignoring the longest chain to force through the XT hardfork. Mike Hearn still has commit access to bitcoinxt and could merge a patch tomorrow if he liked. So the danger is still very real. This is probably why the bitcoin price dropped by more than 10% at the same time as Coinbase.com's announcement, even the chance of a hardfork strikes fear into holders.
On Bitcoin Core, consensus is very important to development, which works with the ACK / NACK / utACK / etc shorthands. By contrast, bitcoin.org is a privately-owned website that is free to voluntarily do what it likes.
So I say ACK, knowing that it doesn't matter. I hope the maintainers merge this PR for reasons already written about in this thread.
@chris-belcher This is false and you know it. To follow a checkpoint people need to download updated software. If they stay on Bitcoin XT 0.11.0D this can not happen.
"By contrast, bitcoin.org is a privately-owned website that is free to voluntarily do what it likes."
How can bitcoin.org be privately owned when it is an open source project, handed over by satoshi, in trust, to I believe, two or three individuals, with, presumably the choice of more than one so that there is some check and balance to ensure that the trust is not abused.
Bitcoin.org is held on trust and the committers are trustees. Of course they can abuse the trust, but they would have no right to do so and would be acting in an unprincipled and an illegitimate manner.
1 check passed
Are you guys serious? @coblee already stated that Coinbase aren't running XT on their main node powering the wallet. So the only thing that changed is that they are testing a few XT nodes, which they are removed for? This is disgusting behavior and it's making me lose faith in this Bitcoin project we all worked so hard to build.
Why list any bitcoin wallets at all? After all, many of the developers of these wallets could harbor heretic opinions... Purge them all.
This entire thread is disheartening - the only thing you're accomplishing here, @Cobra-Bitcoin, is to drive another wedge into the community.
How did coinbase accomplish that? Did someone give them the ability to merge on this repo?
Oh, you mean they "force your hand". I bet you're the kind of guy who hits his wife and tells her she caused it.
Actions (Censorship) like this is the biggest threat to bitcoin right now!
Based on the discussion above, my view is that a clear majority was against this. Calling this "controversial" would be an understatement.... Consensus...absolutely not!
However, a few key players are controlling the core information infrastructure of bitcoin right now. theymos is one of them (bitcointalk, /r/bitcoin, bitcoin.org) and it's been proven (and also stated) time after time that they have zero interest in what the majority wants, they are just pushing there personal agenda. This is just one sad example of this. :(
Blocksize (either small or large) will not kill bitcoin, but censorship will....
@Cobra-Bitcoin, With regards to Coinbase:
they support forking off the blockchain and switching to a new incompatible currency without broad consensus.
This is misleading, because in Bitcoin XT, BIP101 is only activated if 75% of all miners agree. So Coinbase, solely by running Bitcoin XT nodes, aren't actually voting for anything. They are just preparing for the contingency that BIP101 is eventually activated, so they will be able to support the new network without any hitches in development. I think it goes without saying that Coinbase, as a consumer company, will NOT switch their users to any fork that doesn't end up gaining broad consensus, because cutting their users off from the majority of Bitcoin users would spell the end of their company.
I think there may be merit in discussing the removal from Bitcoin.org of web wallets where the user doesn't control their keys, but I can't support removing Coinbase for the sole reason that they spun up some Bitcoin XT nodes today.
@spjakob This thread was brigaded, linked as it was to /r/btc /r/bitcoinxt and so on. The self-selected commenters here mean nothing towards actual community opinion.
@tedivm They ignored the views of all the technical experts, the entire bitcoin scaling conference in Hong Kong and the miners (just one out of 1000 of the last blocks support XT). They have given their support to a hostile hard-fork attempt on the bitcoin network and a coup that would install Mike Hearn as the benevolent(?) dictator.
@MaxLaumeister For now XT looks for miners, but Mike Hearn has indicated that he would code in checkpoints and not follow the longest chain if required. Coinbase.com's tweets and other public announcements of support for XT most likely show this was more than just a preparation in case of a new network.
My view is these same tactics will be used in the future to raise the 21m money supply limit.
If we step back a bit, it's interesting to see how Amir Takki predicted this whole mess back in July 2014(!)
These people are dangerous because of the influence they wield over Bitcoin that can destroy it as a free and open system. Recently Gavin made a post calling to raise the blocksize limit which is connected to this vision of Bitcoin as a system for payments. There is an agenda behind that kind of talk because raising the blocksize limit morphs Bitcoin as a better payment's system but centralizes more power with miners - which is already at dangerous levels in Bitcoin. We can either have a decentralized, free and uncensored Bitcoin, or a centralized Bitcoin good for payments (same as the banks).
http://cointelegraph.com/news/112183/bitcoins-political-neutrality-is-a-myth-amir-taaki-interview
I hope the community can move past this one day but I don't think it's likely. The two sides seem to have totally different views on what bitcoin should be.
If anyone wants a dialog instead of always staying in our own communities, I am available much of the time at #bitcoin on freenode IRC with the nickname belcher.
Coinbase and its affiliates accusing bitcoin.org of censorship is a joke at best.
Coinbase should have been unlisted before exactly because they practice censorship with the maintenance of black lists.
NACK. Even though it was merged I just wanted to voice that this is one of the stupidest shit sandwich moves I've seen in a while.
NACK. This is a senseless, emotionally political move. XT is nothing if it doesn't activate; and by that point XT is Bitcoin.
I'm sure there should've been plenty of good reasons to stop promoting Coinbase, like quality, security, giving the small guys a shot, better alternative wallets, etc. You know, merit based arguments for "Let's give this spot to some other wallet".
Ah but there I was assuming you actually believe in arguments from merit, silly me.
@hoffmanabc how about arguments for or against including coinbase on the web based wallets list in favor of another web based wallet based on merit?
- Are all the listed wallets better than Coinbase?
- Are there particular reasons to include a not so popular web based wallet for instance to promote diversification?
- Are all the listed wallets above the board on security?
- Are they all user-friendly?
- etc.
I'm confused by the claims of censorship. Is bitcoin.org compelled to promote Coinbase for free? Bitcoin.org is a private website, and we're well within our rights to stop promoting services whose actions we disagree with. Just as Coinbase is free to enforce things like black lists or to not do business with certain people.
You claim censorship whenever you fail in trying to force us to give in to your group think. Some of you say you support free speech, but when we exercise our right to free speech on bitcoin.org, you cry foul and wrongly claim you're being censored.
If you want to promote XT and services that support it, then you should do it on your own websites and subreddits and not try to force bitcoin.org to be your mouth-piece. If there's demand for XT, then users will naturally gravitate to your websites and communities.
I won't deny that there is some network effect. But if you want to fork the blockchain without near unanimous consensus, you better be prepared to overcome that.
There is no reason why one of the few long lasting legitimate businesses in Bitcoin should not be able to due diligence in exploring XT. Why should they be punished for it? Your argument is the equivalent of "it's my ball and I'm taking it home because I don't like you". You are well within your right to do what you like, but if you have a repo on public GitHub I feel well within my rights to call bullshit. You know full well with such a high visibility domain (not to mention a .org) will be held to high esteem for new users and you're abusing that position to punish. I think that's low and unfairly disrespectful.
@btcdrak why try to stop the discussion? I'm not surprised by the proposal, because it goes in line with how one side has been trying to make things go their way for some time now..... if someone writes something we don't agree with, the answer has been the same; censor, censor, censor.
Just as this patch... this company do something that we don't like; let's censor them!
@Cobra-Bitcoin bitcoin.org has a certain visibility. That should give the wardens of this domain a certain responsibility to act with consideration and base their decisions on sound arguments that're objective and rational. "Punishing" one wallet purely because you don't agree with their opinion is childish and inconsiderate and not based on sound arguments much less of any objectivity.
It's a sad state of affairs indeed if those entrusted with wardenship can't be bothered to make rational arguments for or against something.
@pyalot Coinbase has a certain visibility. That should give the wardens of this wallet a certain responsibility to act with consideration and base their decisions on sound technical arguments that're objective and rational. Wallets that don't do this and choose to use an alternative version of the Bitcoin software that is designed to fork the blockchain without overwhelming consensus are a risk to new users, and therefore don't belong on bitcoin.org.
NACK.
Immature/autocratic/despotic.
Not a good showing for the future of money.
@Cobra-Bitcoin I don't know if you've noticed this, but a wallet can't fork the blockchain. Miners can fork a blockchain, but we're not talking about miners. And there's no consensus that a fork would even be undesirable. But regardless.
You base your argument on that Coinbase expressed support for XT (or whatever BIP). Are you now going to remove every wallet that's expressing support for one or another idea? Or one that isn't using bitcoin core? Or one that isn't agreeing with your political leaning in the coming presidential elections? Are that really sound arguments you feel?
Basing your decision to stop promoting Coinbase on whatever insult you perceive at their free speech is a fundamentally not technical, no meritious, non rational and non mature way to do it.
Again you have brought up no merit based arguments for or against inclusion of Coinbase on the wallet list. You haven't shown that the other web based wallets are any better (in fact, you haven't even shown that they are more conform to your political leanings than Coinbase either). You make that decision entirely meritless, argumentless and without any rationality. Because you don't like Coinbase. It's high time you admit to your childish behavior.
XT is nothing if it doesn't activate; and by that point XT is Bitcoin.
Did you not see Mike Hearn saying that if the miners refuse to mine his XT blocks then he will force things using checkpoints?
See here: https://youtu.be/DB9goUDBAR0?t=2m - he is quite explicit about it.
Don't think that XT only activates if it achieves consensus. Its author is quite open about forcing a hard-fork whether it achieves consensus or not.
@dooglus Why would coinbase support something like that? That seems detrimental to the wellbeing of bitcoin as a whole, which means Coinbase as well.
@dooglus If one individual has the power to unilaterally tell all wallets, nodes, businesses and miners to do what he says, then maybe your fear would be valid, but he doesn't so it isn't.
@Azulan given the views and aims of BitcoinXT, its pretty clear that people would update to a new version with checkpoints. Mike Hearn has commit power now, he could merge a patch tomorrow if he wanted.
I am not speaking in the name of anyone.
But that's fairly easy to determine if a wallet should be listed on bitcoin.org
You must ask: Is the wallet fully compliant with bitcoin?
If the answer is no, it can't be listed.
1 - The censorship practiced by Coinbase wallet is not bitcoin compliant. It does not matter if they are under regulations, or preventing legal issues. Black lists are not compliant with bitcoin protocol and nothing of bitcoin's business.
2 - The Bitcoin network is obviously not compliant with independent software like XT , XT is another protocol.
@dooglus That is pure speculation based some comments during one interview... Quite a few people (who consider themself "core") had said quite a few dumb things (we all do!) and we can not use this logic to censor any company that supports "core".
Here is the text presented to users to choose a wallet:
Find your wallet and start making payments with merchants and users.
Notice how it does not say something like:
Here are the wallets we approve of ideologically
Maybe that should be changed...
Why would coinbase support something like that dooglus?
You would have to ask them why they are running XT in production. Maybe they are unaware of Hearn's anti-consensus stance, or maybe they don't care. Either way I don't see why bitcoin.org should assist them..
@louzada1
1 - The censorship practiced by Coinbase wallet is not bitcoin compliant. It does not matter if they are under regulations, or preventing legal issues. Black lists are not compliant with bitcoin protocol and nothing of bitcoin's business.
Thank you that's an excellent argument. So your point being that only wallets that're not under AML, KYC, etc. regulation should be included? I'd wholeheartedly agree. But you'd also have to remove Coinkite, Xapo, Coinapult and Circle then (not quite sure, but should be evaluated)
2 - The Bitcoin network is obviously not compliant with independent software like XT that has a different protocol.
The "bitcoin network" is whatever the majority of miners accept for a transaction and as a previous block. I don't think this has much relevance to what kind of software a wallet uses to speak the protocol. Coinbase is compliant with the bitcoin network, it wouldn't matter what kind of software they use to speak the protocol. They speak whatever the majority of miners support, whatever that may be. It's a wallet, that's what wallets are for fundamentally, translating a users requests into what the majority of the network speaks. I fail to see the logic in your point entirely.
@dooglus it seems like you don't like the "anti-consensus" to alter things from it current state? I can understand that, but I do think the idea is kind of broken (since this really blocks development).
I just wonder why we shouldn't have consensus about things like removing companies from bitcoin.org?
@pyalot those others you mentioned do not have black lists, except maybe Circle. If Coinbase was listed as an exchange it would be alright, but not as a bitcoin wallet.
The "bitcoin network" is whatever the majority of miners accept for a transaction and as a previous block.
As luke-jr said "This is completely wrong. Miners do not decide on the consensus rules, beyond softforking in new ones (and even that can be overruled by the economy)." and " XT makes change to the consensus protocol itself that defines Bitcoin."
@pyalot They not only expressed support, they're running XT in production. Expressing support is fine, and no wallets have ever been removed for expressing support for one BIP over another. 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 you shouldn't expect bitcoin.org to promote such a service. This has been consistent bitcoin.org policy.
@louzada1
except maybe Circle
Great, so where's the pull request to remove Circle?
This is completely wrong. Miners do not decide on the consensus rules, beyond softforking in new ones (and even that can be overruled by the economy).
I hope I don't have to argue here that miner majority decides which chain of blocks is the longest. So I'm going to assume you mean that miners don't make decisions (even though running the software, any software, that mines blocks is making decisions). Perhaps you mean to imply that mining software operators do not make informed decisions about what software and set of configuraiton flags they run. Well, maybe they do, and maybe they don't, I certainly wouldn't like to imply either way as both are presumptions that can't be proven or disproven.
Great, so where's the pull request to remove Circle?
I would totally support it if they do have a black list. You can create the pull request.
I hope I don't have to argue here that miner majority decides which chain of blocks is the longest.
In your scenario it would fork into something else, not bitcoin. It would be a 51% attack.
NACK
Coinbase hasn't even posted their full blog post on if it's just more than one server that's even running XT. Maybe it's just a XT node counter, which none of Coinbase's services are reliant on...
@Cobra-Bitcoin there is no such thing as "breaking away from current consensus". The longest chain determines the state of the ledger. It'd be quite useless to continue to base your blocks on not the longest chain other than as an exercise of some kind or another.
But wallets are also not miners. The transactions that XT produces, are to my knowledge not any different than ordinary bitcoin transactions. They're protocol conformant transactions. The blocks that an XT miner (not wallet) produces, might not agree with what software other miners run, but which chain of blocks turns out the longest has nothing todo whatsoever with what software you use to produce the bytes that make up a transaction. It's utterly irrelevant.
@louzada1
In your scenario it would fork into something else, not bitcoin. It would be a 51% attack.
Basing your blocks not on the longest chain is not a 51% attack. It's just basing your blocks not on the longest chain (and therefore creating a version of the ledger not accepted by anybody else because everybody else looks at the longest chain). Bitcoin is pretty robust when it comes to that. Now if the longest chain isn't bitcoin core compatible, that just makes bitcoin-core not bitcoin. It's not an attack, it'd just be a consensus that your implementation is no longer consensus relevant. It's not something that a wallet has any say in, no matter what software they use. It's like you don't believe that mining actually works...
Why don't we simply warn users that those wallets support a contentious hard fork and could potentially lead to users ending up on the wrong blockchain?
@achow101 I don't think that if XT activates and if it isn't the longest chain, that any wallet would regard the non-longest chain as authoritative. It only makes sense to regard an XT chain as authoritative if it also is in the longest chain. That's also why various fear mongering about XT "activating" their fork without miner consensus is irrelevant.
But since we're at warning users, why don't you warn them that any wallet implementation could lead to users finding themselves on the longest chain that might not agree with the political ideology of whoever provided them the link to the wallet?
@pyalot as others have said earlier and as seen in the video with Hearn, he is not opposed to adding in checkpoints to force XT to be used even if it isn't the longest. That is what makes this dangerous, since it can lead to XT users not being on the longest chain. Because he has explicitly said that he us not opposed to doing this, I think that we should warn users that there is potential for them to end up on a fork that is not the longest chain.
If you want to remove Coinbase from bitcoin.org, go ahead. However, the argument made here is deeply flawed. I'll go over everything you said:
If this ever happens, Coinbase's customers may find that they no longer own any actual Bitcoin.
When the fork happens, costumers will still own actual bitcoin. Only transactions made after the fork will cause the customer to retrieve 'fake' bitcoins. Note that the fork happens only after consensus is reached, what you call fake bitcoins are actually bitcoins on the new main chain.
Bitcoin.org should only promote Bitcoin services.
Coinbase, at present, delivers Bitcoin services. I struggle to see how anyone could claim otherwise. If Coinbase supported litecoin -in addition to- bitcoin core, would you delist them as well?
Almost all of the Bitcoin technical community supports the announced road map.
The amount of NACK's in the thread tells a completely different story. Why are you even creating a pull request if you're not interested in what the users say?
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.
You don't believe? What a convincing argument. The Bitcoin XT code, at present, forks when 75% majority is reached. Perhaps we should wait and see what happens with that rule, and only take action as the consensus rules are changed.
By your argument, i propose to delist bitcoin core. The developers have expressed strong consensus that a hard fork is eventually necessary, this will cause bitcoin core users to not own any actual bitcoin. I know how dumb that sounded, but it is exactly the argument you're making.
If you want to remove coinbase from bitcoin.org, do so for the right reasons. The arguments you gave in this pull request are far from convincing.
- Has Mike actually committed code to the XT repo to that effect?
- If yes, has Coinbase actually started using that code?
- If yes, has a fork actually occured?
- If yes, has the Coinbase wallet actually located users transactions not on the longest chain?
Unless you can at least satisfy some steps in that causal chain, even the first one, the argument about danger has no merit.
@seweso and @achow101 I agree that we should inform the users instead of creating fuel for these kind of conversations. It is absolutely unnecessary and the kind of arguments for pull requests like these also damage the credibility of bitcoin core.
We might not like bitcoinXT but stick with facts and stop the speculative "fear mongering", just keep an eye out for any changes in XT and warn users accordingly.
Acutally, why would you list Coinbase as a "wallet". Isn't it more an exchange for US citizens only?
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?
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.
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 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.
@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.
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 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.
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:
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
@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.
@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.
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.