Published on: 2015-08-19T09:47:22+00:00
The email exchanges discussed various concerns and debates within the Bitcoin community, particularly regarding governance, block size increase, hostility, censorship, and the risks associated with hard forking. One topic of concern was the issue of governance and decision-making within the community. Some argued that decentralized currencies like Bitcoin should not be governed by centralized entities. Suggestions were made to separate libconsensus from Bitcoin Core to ensure decentralization. However, there were concerns about the potential consequences of hard forks and the fear of schism.The controversy surrounding the block size increase proposal for Bitcoin-XT was also discussed among developers. While some believed that a larger block size was necessary to accommodate increasing transactions, others warned of the negative impact it could have on the network. The issue was divisive because it required a hard fork, which is more difficult to implement than a soft fork. There were concerns that the debate could devolve into a "fork war" that would harm the network's stability. This highlighted the need for better governance within the Bitcoin community.Another topic of discussion was the issue of hostility within the Bitcoin community. There were discussions about the possibility of "enemies" waiting for Bitcoin to collapse and the importance of assuming the best intentions of others to find common ground. The role of psychological warfare agents and their potential impact on decentralization enthusiasts was also mentioned. The email thread emphasized the need for civility and understanding in resolving issues and highlighted the complexities of the Bitcoin community.In another email exchange, the ongoing block size debate was discussed. One developer believed that the core issue was not about block size but rather the perception of core developers being obstructionist. The PR battle surrounding the block size debate was seen as playing into the hands of one side. The complexity of the block size issue and the risk associated with attempting a hard fork in a politically divisive environment were highlighted. Cooperation and understanding different priorities and preferences were emphasized.The issue of hard forking in Bitcoin was also addressed in an email conversation. Different viewpoints were presented, with some advocating for total decentralization and others supporting guided decentralization. Concerns about the risks associated with a hard fork and the potential for a "fork war" were raised. The importance of well-argued thoughts rather than fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) or flaming was emphasized.Overall, these email exchanges provided insights into the various viewpoints, concerns, and debates within the Bitcoin community. The issues of governance, block size increase, hostility, censorship, and the risks associated with hard forking were discussed. The conversations highlighted the complexities and challenges faced by the community and emphasized the need for civility, understanding, and reliable processes for decision-making and hard forks to occur.There was also a caution expressed by Eric Lombrozo, a Bitcoin developer, regarding proposed changes to the Bitcoin protocol. Lombrozo believed that attempting a hard fork in such a politically divisive environment could lead to serious problems and cause a rift within the Bitcoin community. He suggested testing any changes on a less controversial issue before risking billions of dollars' worth of assets. Others argued that competition is healthy and that Bitcoin's stability should not depend on the good will of anyone.The author of the context advocated for constructive actions instead of anger and disrespect between Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin XT supporters. They criticized developers and their supporters for trying to stay in power and stifling alternative opinions. The fear displayed by developers was seen as indicative of their real intentions.A version called Not-BitcoinXT was announced on GitHub, aiming to maintain the current block size until a "real technical consensus" is reached. There were concerns about individuals attempting to control the use of Bitcoin and resorting to name-calling, censorship, and sabotage of the XT switch. Despite these tactics, the author believed that history would eventually overcome those who try to control Bitcoin.The message also discussed the creation of Not-BitcoinXT and issues with interference between miners running XT and those running Not-BitcoinXT. Additionally, an advertisement for VFEmail's Metadata Mitigator service was included, which offers privacy features for emails, including protection against the NSA. VFEmail offered lifetime accounts for a one-time fee of $24.95, as well as commercial and bulk mail options.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T15:25:26.394190+00:00