[bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds

[Troy Benjegerdes]

On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 08:06:33AM +0000, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 3:50 AM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > I've already opened a PR almost 2 weeks ago to do this and fix the other
> > issues BIP 9 has. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/550
> >
> > It just needs your ACK to merge.
> 
> These proposals for gratuitous orphaning are reckless and coersive.
> We have a professional obligation to first do no harm, and amplifying
> orphaning which can otherwise easily be avoided violates it.
> 
> It is not anyones position to decide who does and doesn't need to be
> "woken up" with avoidable finical harm, nor is it any of our right to
> do so at the risk of monetary losses by any and all users users from
> the resulting network instability.
> 
> It's one thing to argue that some disruption is strictly needed for
> the sake of advancement, it's another to see yourself fit as judge,
> jury, and executioner to any that does not jump at your command.
> (which is exactly the tone I and at least some others extract from
> your advocacy of these changes and similar activity around BIP148).
> 
> I for one oppose those changes strongly.
> 
> > Not having a mandatory signal turned out to be a serious bug in BIP 9,
> 
> I have seen no evidence or case for this.

There are a lot of claims floating around right now that appear to
only be testable when there is real money on the table. In general
I completely agree with the sentiment we have a professional obligation
to first do no harm.

This also means we need to acknowledge that there are professional
traders who's obligation is to take as much money as possible from
everyone else, and these traders have a vested interest in pushing
reckless and coercive (to the unsophisticated user) propaganda, as
well as code which they can exploit to trigger market volatility.

Fortunately the market appears to have reacted to this by producing
at least one other implementation (BTC1) that increases the capacity
for legacy (non-segwit) transactions.

I would say the bigger danger we face is that the market may react
to sophisticated market manipulation that fleeces the sheeple with
government regulation.

If you happen to believe in the value of an algorithmically fixed
money supply, and hold a lot of bitcoin, then check your propaganda,
or you might find a bigger wolf with guns knocking at your door 
holding a "save the sheeple" banner.

Stop trashing the competition, and let the people with money at
risk make their own decisions. If I want big blocks, I should have
that choice. If I want small blocks, I should have that choice. If
I want bitcoinclassic with no segwit, I should have that choice.

Just because you think you know what's best doesn't mean it is.

It might just mean you hold bitcoin and I don't, and I don't really
care to hand you any wealth because of your religious beliefs in 
21 million coins.

What I do care about is testing and validating this code that anyone
in the world can download and create their own new money, with a
new algorithm for the money supply.