I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.
[Hearn is a shitstain] The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.
[MP was right] They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.
[Fuck reddit] If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.
As to the MP was rightii part, see for instance
09-09-2014 11:56:30 <mircea_popescu> this has been long said here, the #1 problem with the bitcoin protocol is that it has no specific payment for relays, and it allows separation of mining and relay.
And yes, if you're going to play the "first" game, please, bring forth the documentation. (Should you fail to find anything worthy of mention on the line above, you can always try and find an alternative source for that now-widespread technical criticism, which wasn't nearly all that widespread back in December, back when the shitstains were claiming "consensus" and the support of "economists". Good luck.)
As for redditard inquiries on the lines of "Can't see why SN would write about Gavin in this sort of terse/removed tone."... try and guess. Or try reading moreiii, it can't possibly hurt you. The only new thing in this world is the history you didn't know, after all.
- As to the discussion of authenticity, see btcdrak's analysis :
Here's a quick technical analysis of the email sent to the bitcoin-dev mailing list today at http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html
The email was sent from an anonymous email provider called vistomail.com which gives the appearance of being out of service. However you can see the logins at https://webmail.vistomail.com/
The vistomail servers are authorised to originate email by their IP address via the SPF DNS records . Satoshi used firstname.lastname@example.org when first announcing Bitcoin http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2009-January/014994.html
From this you can safely conclude the email did originate from vistomail.com servers and was not spoofed. It does not prove the account was not hacked of course.
Partial headers from the email:
Received: from mail.vistomail.com (vistomail.com [184.108.40.206])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2175813F
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 19:00:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from DS04 ([220.127.116.11]) by vistomail.com with MailEnable ESMTP;
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:51:14 -0500
DNS RECORDS FOLLOW:
vistomail.com descriptive text "v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com ip4:18.104.22.168 ~all"
vistomail.com has address 22.214.171.124
vistomail.com mail is handled by 10 vistomail.com.
- Yet again. Are you counting ? [↩]
- 2013 : And Gavin moves on to the dark side. The Bitcoin project is officially hijacked ; 2014 : USGavin, the lolcow ; 2015 : Let's address some of the more common pseudo-arguments raised by the very stupid people that like the Gavin scamcoin proposal. And there's plenty more. [↩]