Published on: 2015-08-21T03:01:40+00:00
Bitcoin XT, a proposed implementation of the BIP 101 protocol, has faced criticism for being an attack on the Bitcoin network. The implementation was submitted to Bitcoin Core as a pull request, but no further review was done due to identified issues that were not fixed. Bitcoin XT aims to address scaling issues with Bitcoin, but consensus is still being sought on alternative solutions.A developer in the bitcoin community, Mike Hearn, responded to comments about Gavin Andresen bypassing the review process for his BIP 101 proposal. Hearn argued that the proposal went through months of public discussion and was submitted via the normal process with minor changes suggested by other developers. However, Peter Todd pointed out issues with the proposal, including lack of testing details and non-deterministic expiration dates.There is a notion that no one else would bypass the review process, which the author seeks to dispel. They explain that there were months of public discussion leading up to the proposal and it was submitted for review via the normal process. While some minor code layout suggestions were incorporated, Todd stated that there was no chance of the proposal being accepted. The bugs in the implementation were only found when it was reviewed by the XT community, which Bitcoin Core had ignored.In August 2015, a member of the bitcoin-dev mailing list requested the removal of an anecdote from the list, suggesting it may be more suitable for a subreddit. The original poster acknowledged their mistake and apologized for posting it on the wrong platform.A member of the libbitcoin mailing list shared an encounter with Amir Taaki during a Spanish hack meeting. Concerns about Bitcoin Core were discussed, specifically mentioning Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen. Hearn had proposed a blacklisting scheme for Bitcoin, while Andresen's conservatism regarding changes in Bitcoin was mentioned. The writer initially trusted Andresen but later realized that Taaki's concerns were valid. The conversation also touched on the payment protocol, with disagreements between the two parties.A post on Reddit claimed that an employee of Blockstream requested the removal of Gavin Andresen from his position as chief scientist at the Bitcoin Foundation. Peter Todd supported this request, arguing that it misleads the public about Bitcoin's decision-making processes and harms its reputation. The question arises whether the request was made individually or on behalf of the company, indicating the need for planning for a potential hard fork.In an email exchange, developers discussed the separation of consensus code from commit policies in Bitcoin Core. There were differing views on whether libconsensus should be built directly out of the bitcoind repository or moved to a separate repository. Concerns were raised about maintaining consensus when individual intent diverges, and forking the libconsensus project was suggested as a solution.Eric Lombrozo expressed concern about confusion between source code forks and blockchain forks and argued for clear communication to laypeople. He highlighted the progress made towards separating consensus code through libconsensus.Concerns have been raised about Gavin Andresen's commit access for the Bitcoin Core repository, with some noting that he censored posts and deleted comments on his pull requests. The controversy surrounding his actions has led to debates about removing his privileges.The Bitcoin Core developer community is in turmoil over the release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, a fork of the cryptocurrency created by Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn. The release was made in response to concerns about the 1MB block limit that could prevent Bitcoin from supporting increased traffic and users. However, many claim that Andresen did not follow the correct channels in releasing this version of Bitcoin, bypassing the review process and risking a controversial hard fork deployment war.Adam Back, who is on the Bitcoin-Dev mailing list, expressed his disappointment at this move, stating that the Bitcoin XT project did not even pretend to work through the proper process involved with Bitcoin development. Additionally, Back claims that no one else was reckless enough to try to start a deployment in such a way, and warns that the damage to community reputation and collaborative environment that this all causes is optimally bad.There were discussions on the bitcoin-dev mailing list regarding warnings about the proposed hard fork of Bitcoin. Btc Drak and Adam Back claimed to have warned Gavin and Mike about the proposed 75% activation threshold for the hard fork being "optimally bad", but their warnings were ignored. Btc Drak also suggested a timeout for the deployment of the hard fork, but Gavin removed it from his proposal.The discussion on the bitcoin-dev mailing list also revolved around improving the quality and relevance of discussions, creating a separate email list for non-technical discussions, and whether or not to manually approve new subscribers to prevent potential abuses. There were debates over Satoshi's return and the impact of his opinion on the community.In August 2015, an email was sent to the bitcoin-dev mailing list from someone claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T15:23:53.730552+00:00