1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:19:32:guy, are you in here?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:19:46:Hi Jonathan

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:19:54:Thanks for logging in

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:20:01:Care to discuss possible governance change ?

1|申屠青春:2016-01-20 06:21:39:@jl2012 那是反社会了，马上被弹劾。

1|申屠青春:2016-01-20 06:22:05:下台

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:22:46:in public?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:22:53:Yes

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:22:55:i'm open to a possible governance change

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:22:58:The only right way to do it :)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:23:06:olivier will probaby get annoyed with me for doing it in public

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:23:08:and marshall

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:23:11:and mike

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:23:14:please do

1|teksongbu:2016-01-20 06:23:19:why?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:23:22:Thay's the correct way to do it, IMHO

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:23:34:Bitcoin world should be open free and clear of intrigues

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:23:40:well, because i didn't ask them or talk to them first?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:23:57:well, what model do you guys like for governance in a bitcoin client?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:24:11:let's go first to the origins of Classic

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:24:12:Ok ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:24:13:i think that the model should have user input as an important feature

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:24:32:i want to make sure that what happened with core doesn't happen again

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:24:38:so Classic

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:24:49:sure...

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:25:00:so i think that bitcoin should have bigger blocks

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:25:11:Who set the line between features selected by technical people to features selected by the user ?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:25:21:But let's get to the origins first.

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:25:29:and i started doing some coding and testing toward that end a while ago, then started asking people how much bigger they wanted their blocks to be

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:25:41:(Later I'll give full discklaimers about my opinions)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:25:56:i did this after HK

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:26:05:Mid December ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:26:07:visited miners in china and pools, and also asked a few others by email

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:26:10:yes, mid december

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:26:22:at the same time, i read about segwit, and commented on the email list, and tried to understand it

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:26:34:i didn't ask the miners about segwit, and i didn't tell them what i thought about it

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:26:43:Ok

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:26:54:it sounded like they wanted a blocksize increase, and had wanted one for a long time

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:26:55:So you discussed Block Size increase vs Transactions Fees market ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:27:06:i did discuss the fee market idea

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:27:13:with both bitmain and btcc

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:27:29:and i think also with bitfury a little, but alex petrov disagreed with me about it

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:27:43:i think that the fee market is not a good business strategy for miners

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:27:49:increasing fee revenue is important

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:28:01:but it's usually easier for a business to increase volume than to increase fees

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:28:20:so i think that scaling the on-chain capacity should be a bigger priority

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:28:42:right now, mining costs about $3000 per block in electricity and other costs

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:28:55:at $0.05/kWh and 350 MW, I think

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:29:11:and fees are around $0.15/kB

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:29:26:so i think that if we got to 20 MB blocks, we could pay for 100% of the current mining network.

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:29:35:we can't do that overnight, but i think we can do it in about 4 years

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:29:40:or maybe a little longer

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:29:50:and that will make it much easier for us to survive the 2020 halving to 6.25 btc

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:30:03:i'm a miner too, of course

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:30:12:anyway, so that's my reasoning and my motivation

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:30:23:understood

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:30:26:What happened later ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:30:41:so i talked with btcc and bitmain, and collected their opinions on the blocksize hard fork

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:30:44:and also everyone else

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:30:58:and published this: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Cg9Qo9Vl5PdJYD4EiHnIGMV3G48pWmcWI3NFoKKfIzU/edit#gid=0

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:31:18:http://imgur.com/3fceWVb for those in china

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:31:51:the next goal was to see what users wanted

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:32:07:if the users wanted the same thing as miners, then it should be pretty straightforward to do the fork, right?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:32:43:my brother and his friend from college had been working on a website for years to collect and visualize opinions from people, so we decided to set that up for this

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:32:45:https://bitcoin.consider.it/

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:33:04:we found that users want much bigger blocks than miners do

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:33:25:most users who participated actually supported BIP101 or Bitcoin Unlimited, which was a big surprise

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:33:46:i mostly advertised on reddit, and most of them came from /r/bitcoin

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:34:00:(Maybe the one that support block size are the more vocal ones, the ones that will go out and actively vote)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:34:05:maybe

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:34:26:but my results are also similar to the voting that we see on reddit/r/bitcoin, in which small block people always get voted down heavily

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:34:26:In any case,

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:34:30:also, there's http://blog.genesis-mining.com/survey-results-increasing-the-blocksize

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:34:32:The poll was few hundreds the most

1|Johnson Lau:2016-01-20 06:34:44:@申屠青春 他下台了但还是有最多算力, 那怎辦?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:35:04:which showed that 87% of people thought that the blocksize increase was a good idea in february 2015

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:35:18:What was the poll size ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:35:28:for consider.it, or for genesis mining?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:35:34:both

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:35:41:143 votes on genesis mining

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:36:15:consider.it has about 135 votes on the BIP101 question right now

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:36:22:ok

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:36:26:different questions have different numbers of answers

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:36:33:I want to summarize up to this point:

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:36:38:give me a moment

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:36:46:You started to do Core development

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:36:58:You decided that you support block size increase by hard fork

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:37:03:You want to a trip to China

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:37:30:In which you discussed block size increase but you didn't discuss SegWit

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:37:49:Your brother did user poll, Genesis Mining did user poll

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:37:57:Less then 200 people each

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:37:59:genesis mining did a user poll 1 year ago

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:38:07:June 2015

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:38:26:And the method to advertize these polls were mostly reddit

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:38:28:oh, right, european date format

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:38:35:Correct up to this point ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:38:46:genesis mining's poll was their customers

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:38:54:ok

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:38:58:my poll was mostly reddit, but i also posted on the bitcoin-dev list

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:39:16:(yes, I saw it. And your google xls)

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:39:23:(great job on both, btw)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:39:29:(ty)

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:39:31:What happened after you went back from China ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:39:44:well, it snowed a lot

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:40:06:(I don't disagree. Will share my views later)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:40:07:and i took a few days to catch up on sleep and take care of business at the mine

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:40:14::)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:40:40:then around the 27th, i started working more on expanding the consider.it polls and trying to organize people

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:40:48:i also started asking miners about segwit around that time

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:41:09:because i was starting to understand what it meant, and thought that miners had enough time to review it

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:41:27:and started planning the next steps

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:41:37:i also got into preparing a BIP for blocktorrent

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:41:41:and spent a couple of days on that

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:41:49:the BIP is about half-done with the first draft now

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:42:06:(I told back in November that I liked blocktorrent)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:42:11:and i was planning on writing code for a blocksize increase hardfork and submitting it to core

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:43:07:all of the miners i talked to said they wanted a blocksize increase, and none of them seemed very excited about segwit during the miner-dev meeting in HK, so i thought that a blocksize increase was probably the way forward

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:43:12:You intend to propose PR to Core ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:43:39:and when i asked them about segwit afterwards, it sounded like they preferred a blocksize increase before segwit, and several preferred segwit as a hardfork not a softfork

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:43:43:(not surprising to me. It's hard topic)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:43:45:yes, that was the plan

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:43:53:PR and BIP to core first

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:43:57:i was expecting rejection

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:44:01:Ok

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:44:08:But you wanted to do it anyhow ?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:44:11:To practice the process ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:44:16:and after that, i was expecting to create an alternate client, and try to get support for it

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:44:16:Or as a statement ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:44:32:no, i thought it was the right thing to do

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:44:35:and i wanted to be sure

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:44:41:Have you made your plans public at that point ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:44:46:and i also promised to bitmain that i would submit a PR to core

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:44:48:regarding making alternat eclient

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:44:50:client

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:44:58:no, not at that time

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:45:11:i had announced that i supported a 3 MB can kick

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:45:11:BitmainTech asked that you will submit the pull request to Core ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:45:20:a few days after the HK conference

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:45:25:(Yes, I read it on the mailing list)

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:45:37:(Which got zero reply)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:45:46:and i'm pretty sure all of the miners know i was a dev for XT

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:45:55:yes, zero reply, just like the consensus census

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:46:00:which was *weird*

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:46:07:a couple of people emailed me backchannel

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:46:15:I would have been furstrated in your shoes

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:46:18:and told me they didn't want to reply on the list because they were afraid of what would happen

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:46:36:Please explain this point

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:46:37:when that happened, i basically said screw it, i'm going to reddit, and talking to the users instead of core

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:47:19:a couple of people saw my post on the email list with the consensus census, and thought it was great, but did not feel comfortable saying so in public

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:47:30:Why ?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:47:33:Fear of what ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:47:43:criticism? ostracism?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:47:51:maybe censorship?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:48:00:Ok

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:48:02:Please continue

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:48:04:i can ask the people if they're willing to come forward and say who they are

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:48:12:but i won't say more right now than that

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:48:12:No need

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:48:17:sure

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:48:18:sec

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:48:29:so no response on bitcoin-dev, so i just pushed it on reddit instead

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:48:35:and asked for people to vote on bitcoin.consider.it

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:48:37:Up to this point, end of December, you didn't reveal your plans to anyone ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:48:47:and tried to get companies and miners to participate in bitcoin.consider.it

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:48:48:regardign separate client ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:49:35:well, in my conversation with btcc, they said that an alternate client was an option without me asking

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:49:40:but that XT was not an option

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:49:48:ok

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:50:06:when i talked with bitmain, they said that they wanted to try to get Core to do it first, and if Core didn't do it, they weren't sure what they would be willing to do

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:50:30:ok

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:50:40:So BitmainTech wanted initially to work through Core

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:50:45:yes

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:50:47:funny

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:50:48:ok

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:50:52:they switched positions

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:50:53:Why ?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:50:57:Indeed

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:51:01:What happened next ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:51:45:let's see... i wanted to get opinions from BW.com

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:51:51:because they were missing from my original census

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:52:04:You travel back to China or via emails / chats ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:52:13:when i posted the census results into this channel, jack liao of lightning asic offered to help, and so did marshall long

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:52:23:ok

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:52:32:and they connected me with yao

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:52:32:when was it ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:52:39:about dec 27th?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:52:45:ok

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:52:54:it was the day after i first published

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:53:03:got it

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:53:04:i got a response through marshall that looked machine translated

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:53:17:and through jack, i got in contact with yao directly

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:53:25:我的中文是不好

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:53:51:但是我们用一点点中文一起了

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:54:06:my chinese is pretty bad, but good enough to make things work a little bit

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:54:10:i got his statement in chinese

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:54:16:Ok

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:54:19:and got a friend to translate it into english properly

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:54:25:and published that

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:54:29:Yao from bw.com ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:54:41:对 correct

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:55:33:oh yes, so the consensus census seemed to show that 2-4-8 was the best option

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:55:36:or maybe 2-4

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:55:44:so that's what i told i would implement to bitmain and btcc

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:55:53:because it hadn't been implemented yet fully

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:55:53:ok

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:56:04:no O(n^2) protection in rusty's attempt, for example

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:56:21:then on friday, i think dec 31st, i got a skype message from marshall

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:56:22:understood

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:56:32:saying that he and olivier janssens wanted to talk with me

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:56:34:Marshall Long ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:56:39:yes, marshall long

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:56:42:ok

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:56:57:the next day, a water pipe froze and burst right above my main switchgear

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:57:01:(I need to give disclaimers regardign both, will do it later)

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:57:08:ouch!

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:57:09:and we had to shut off our mine for 4 hours

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:57:17:minor damage, surprisingly

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:57:35:but maybe 10k liters of water was dumped in the room

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:57:41:oh well

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:57:48:that kept me distracted for a few days

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:57:54:then i talked with marshall and olivier

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:58:02:What did they want / suggested ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:58:16:and they said they wanted to make a client that would be a 2MB hardfork

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:58:26:and they asked me if i was interested

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:58:27:Just that ?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:58:35:"Simple" 2MB Hard Fork ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:58:36:i told them that i already wanted to do that

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:58:38:Nothing else ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:59:01:they told me that they didn't like how core was controlling bitcoin

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:59:09:i agreed, i don't like how core was controlling bitcoin either

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:59:19:Please explain what they said

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:00:13:they thought that it seemed that everybody could get behind 2 MB, so if we got it done and got a good team around the project, we might be able to break the monopoly of core, or something like that

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:00:54:they were in a more us-vs-them mindset than i was, though

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:00:59:which i didn't really like, but i understood

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:01:15:it was already in December 31 call or in the 2nd call ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:01:19:the bitcoin community has been very antagonistic recently, and a lot of people had bad feelings toward the core team

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:01:29:no, i only got a text on skype on dec 31

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:01:36:Oh

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:01:38:jan 1st was the pipe burst

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:01:46:So it was on Jan 2nd ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:01:48:so this conversation was probably jan 2 or 3rd

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:01:52:The actually voice call ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:01:55:yes

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:01:59:ok

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:02:09:And you say that the tone was us-vs-them

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:02:17:And "break core monopoly" on Bitcoin ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:02:36:well, more us-vs-them than i am

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:02:43:i'm a pretty nice and cooperative guy

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:02:49:(yes, I know)

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:02:56:Who lead the call ?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:02:59:Janseens ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:03:00:i don't like dog-eats-dog politics

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:03:01:Marshall ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:03:10:a bit of each

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:03:11:(same here)

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:03:15:ok

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:03:19:Another question

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:03:23:dogs don't taste that good

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:03:31::)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:03:41:but i wanted to write the code anyway

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:03:59:and i thought that an opposition client would make core come to their senses, and agree to what the miners wanted

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:04:02:In retrospect, do you think that it was more important to them to do 2MB increase or "break core monopoly" ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:04:08:and then we could collaborate, and it would be great

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:04:22:(I have followup question later)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:04:33:i'm not sure

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:04:47:i know the 2-4-8 or 2-4 or 2 was more important to me, so that's what i heard

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:05:06:but my brother and i had had ideas for how bitcoin could be governed in a more balanced way for a long time

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:05:10:(Will give my interpretration later)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:05:12:we wanted to bring democracy into bitcoin

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:05:24:sec

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:05:28:At that point,

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:05:34:You said two opposing thing

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:05:43:On one hand you said (your words):

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:06:02:- "i thought that an opposition client would make core come to their senses, and agree to what the miners wanted" and "and then we could collaborate, and it would be great"

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:06:08:And othe other hand you said:

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:06:10:increasing the blocksize was the most important thing for me, but i was also interested in trying to add some democracy to bitcoin

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:06:15:i had both interests

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:06:22:- but my brother and i had had ideas for how bitcoin could be governed in a more balanced way for a long time

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:06:26:I understand

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:06:33:i think that consider.it has a lot of potential to help settle arguments between developers with data

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:06:34:Which one was more important to you ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:06:39:block size

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:06:41:definitely

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:06:44:(let's discuss what if laters)

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:06:48:Ok

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:06:51:so, I repeat

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:07:12:For you, in the beginning of Janurary it was more important to push Core to do 2MB

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:07:23:well, i wanted 2-4-8 at that time

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:07:27:Then to actually force a differnet client via HF

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:07:31:because that seemed to be what the miners wanted

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:07:38:yes

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:07:42:Ok

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:07:52:but i thought that the different client would make core adopt 2 MB

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:08:02:Does Marshall Long and Olivier Janssens gave any technical input ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:08:04:especially if we started to get a lot of support

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:08:13:Did they discuss the different options with you ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:08:34:no, they mostly gave organizational input

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:08:48:they brought a friend of theirs who helped with the code

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:08:55:Who ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:08:57:i was faster than him at coding, though

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:09:10:Ahmed ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:09:12:ahmed bodiwala

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:09:24:From FinalHash ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:09:25:he had exams, i think, so he was busy a lot

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:09:27:yes

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:09:30:technical lead ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:09:32:yes

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:09:45:ok

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:09:51:What about Classic web site ?

1|Jeff Garzik:2016-01-20 07:09:57:Marshall was the main one pinging me, Gavin & other orgs to join </interject>

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:10:01:oh!

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:10:07:right, i forgot something about their original pitch

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:10:18:their pitch was they wanted a client that did 2 things

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:10:21:1. 2 MB hardfork

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:10:27:(Hi Jeff)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:10:30:2. stays true to satoshi's original vision of p2p cash

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:10:47:Thanks for clarifiying

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:11:12:At what point Jeff and Gavin joined ?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:11:20:You said only Ahmed in the beginning

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:11:29:i have misgivings about the vision of the fee market as a way to pay for mining, and i think that fee market + lightning would be terrible for earning fees as a miner

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:11:44:so satoshi's vision had some appeal for me

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:12:01:first talked with gavin and jeff a few days later

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:12:11:Around what date ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:12:16:i think gavin 2 days later, when i asked his guidance on a tricky merge section in txdb.cpp

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:12:40:i was merging BIP101 into 0.12/master at the time

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:12:56:so that i could change the parameters to be 2-4-8 instead of 8MB+++...

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:13:16:and gavin was very helpful, didn't ask too many questions

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:13:25:ok

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:13:34:It was around Jan 6 or so ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:13:39:i talked with jeff i think 1 or 2 days later, around the 7th, because he was planning a trip to china

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:13:46:maybe the 6th, yes

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:13:56:(Jeff, I'll ask about this trip later)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:13:56:maybe earlier than that, i can't remember

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:14:13:yeah, i think it was probably earlier

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:14:13:Ok

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:14:25:By that time, Classic web site was up and running ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:14:34:nope

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:14:43:there was a draft that olivier was working on

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:14:57:Can you remind me ?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:15:00:Did he publish it ?

1|Jeff Garzik:2016-01-20 07:15:04:My Skype says Jan 4 "gonna call you about a project with toomim"

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:15:16:marshall that?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:15:20:(thanks)

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:16:02:(Chandler, I'm sorry for taking temporary posseion of this Channel. Will need about 30-60 minutes more. Thanks)

1|二宝:2016-01-20 07:16:10:

1|二宝:2016-01-20 07:16:31:@Guy Corem go on

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:16:47:ok, so we talked with jeff and gavin around that time, i guess

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:16:57:(will read the announcement translation later. Looks very intereting)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:16:58:and i worked hard on the code, and i got a lot done

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:17:19:but the merge was a little messy in a few places, because Core did a lot of refactors in 2015

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:17:39:At that point, did you still think it will eventually end us a Core PR or you knew for sure it will be different client ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:17:41:and also, Morcos's work on CreateNewBlock made the sigops and bytes hashed protections that gavin wrote need rewriting

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:17:56:i thought it would be both

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:17:59:i still think it will be both

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:18:09:i told them that i intended to write a PR for core eventually

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:18:22:Ok

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:18:32:they didn't like that, but they accepted it

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:18:43:Who didn't like it ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:19:04:well, we talked about it in slack a while later

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:19:08:as well as on skype

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:19:15:nobody i told about it liked it

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:19:26:even the random internet people that came into slack after we launched the website

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:19:34:Do you remmber when was the web site and slack (Classic) up and running ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:19:49:i can probably find out

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:19:57:website launched on a monday night

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:20:08:11 ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:20:10:11th

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:20:16:ok

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:20:20:Who worked on it ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:20:42:olivier, my brother, and i think some web dev guys olivier hired

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:20:55:None of Marshall's guys ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:21:04:i eventually got tired of working on the 0.12 merge, and switched to working on 0.11.2 from bitpay's branch

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:21:12:and got a version of 2-4-8 written in about 2 hours

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:21:17:https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/pull/1

1|Jeff Garzik:2016-01-20 07:21:24:I saw site sketch on Jan 5 plus request to contract

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:21:32:but there was a problem with how the repository's branches were named, so that pull didn't merge properly

1|二宝:2016-01-20 07:21:33:@ProBTC Peter welcome

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:21:46:that was 13 days ago

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:21:49:gavin gave some code review

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:22:01:then a few days later i closed it and opened https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/pull/3

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:22:08:9 days ago

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:22:30:Ok

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:22:38:And who opened Classic Slack ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:22:39:so pull 1 i think was thursday the 7th? or the 8th?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:22:51:probably olivier

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:22:58:Ok

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:23:29:olivier did most of the manager tasks for creating a team and organizing them, marshall did most of the talking to miners and businesses

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:23:31:When did Genesis Mining and BitmainTech joined ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:23:43:i don't know, ask marshall

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:24:05:i know that btcc knew about it pretty early on, because samson talked with me on skype

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:24:19:And said what ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:24:53:oh, i think he just wanted to say that he knew about it

1|二宝:2016-01-20 07:24:59:who have gavin'wechat ID i will let him join in this Conversation

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:25:00:we mostly talked about segwit at the time

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:25:14:i don't know if gavin does wechat

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:26:02:olivier was really excited about having a constitution early on

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:26:11:a document that would specify the unchangeables

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:26:33:i was more interested in voting

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:26:44:i thought that nobody would ever vote to change those things, and that that should be enough

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:26:57:and that we've always been able to vote on those things

1|二宝:2016-01-20 07:27:02:who have Mike wechat？

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:27:12:mike toomim? he doesn't do wechat

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:27:27:gavin is in do-not-disturb mode

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:27:30:he's probably coding

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:27:41:or asleep

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:27:58:so then the website went live

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:28:14:When I saw Classic site first on Thursday 14th

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:28:16:and a bunch of big miners and companies signed in support immediately

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:28:31:I remmber Genesis Mining, BitmainTech and Coinbase

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:28:37:and that was the end of my ability to write code for a while :)

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:28:46::)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:28:51:and haobtc, and i think huobi

1|yifu:2016-01-20 07:28:52:earliest snapshot I have for classic site is the 12th

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:29:01:you can read the acks in order

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:29:04:one sec

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:29:13:https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/website/issues/3

1|申屠青春:2016-01-20 07:29:30:Chinese central bank want to issue digital currency...

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:29:43:(indeed. big news)

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:29:49:(thanks for the update)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:30:02:oh darn, i already sold my bitcoin to pay for electricity a few days ago...

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:30:06:wish i had waited

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:30:12::)

1|申屠青春:2016-01-20 07:30:20:[Grin]

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:30:30:Olivier convinced the businesses and Marshall the miners ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:30:42:i don't know

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:30:46:i like to think i convinced a few too

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:30:52::)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:30:54:i posted a lot on reddit at the time

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:30:57:What about Roger Ver ?

1|Jeff Garzik:2016-01-20 07:30:58:When finished I can supply December background

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:31:01:and bitcoin.consider.it was really taking off and gaining steam

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:31:03:and it was gorgeous

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:31:10:I don't see him

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:31:15:(Jeff, thanks)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:31:34:i think roger ver may have seen my posts in /r/btc

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:31:42:in reddit.com/r/btc

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:31:55:he's the admin of that group

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:31:56:Ok

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:32:01:but maybe not, i don't know

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:32:10:i had talked with roger briefly at the HK conference

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:32:10:Does he have any active role ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:32:14:he seemed supportive

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:32:29:no, roger does not have any active role, he just tweeted and posted in support

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:32:30:Ok

1|yifu:2016-01-20 07:32:35:roger was added to the classic site on 20160115174307

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:32:46:Understood. Thanks

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:33:03:What about Genesis Mining and BitmainTech ?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:33:16:From the beginning ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:33:21:from the beginning

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:33:32:Ok

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:33:43:i got along really well with bitmaintech, especially with pan zhibiao

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:33:54:He is the pool guy ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:34:03:let's see if i can write that in chinese... 潘指标？

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:34:12:he's not supposed to be the pool guy

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:34:21:he's supposed to be the PM of their block explorer

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:34:37:but i recommended that he start taking care of their pool stuff, because the pool needed a lot of help

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:34:39:ok

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:34:43:needs

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:35:06:oh right, i also visited BTCC and bitmain because i wanted to help them design a better pool infrastructure

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:35:27:and i wanted to help them set up a new protocol for doing stratum proxies across the great firewall

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:35:55:Ok. Any other facts before we'll move to free discussion ?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:36:15:(Jeff, I would love to hear Dec background, but please later)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:36:21:so eventually bitfury signed on, and then i saw sysman appear in slack

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:36:26:and then it hit the news

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:36:36:and then everything started to go totally crazy

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:36:48:guy, you remember how the Core slack conversations went

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:36:49:BitFury joine don Friday 15th if I recall correctly

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:36:54:Yes

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:36:57:I fully remmber

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:37:00:I asked you to join

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:37:01:i spent 5 hours in slack with no food...

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:37:09:when i was supposed to be coding

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:37:12:(to Core Slack)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:37:15:gavin warned me about this

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:37:24:About what ?

1|Chris朱砝@蚂蚁矿池:2016-01-20 07:37:24:@Jonathan Toomim [ThumbsUp][ThumbsUp][ThumbsUp]

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:37:28:being the lead developer means that you don't get to actually write code most of the time

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:37:35::)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:37:46:but whatever, better that i can't write code than gavin

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:37:49:So right now Gavin is doing most of the coding ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:37:55:he maybe knows a little more about bitcoin code than i do.

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:38:05:he's doing more than i am, but i'm getting stuff done too

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:38:13:we're actually cooperating pretty well

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:38:26:good opportunity for you.

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:38:33:i've been doing some research on the specs, and talking to miners and other developers to figure out what needs to be done on a high level

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:38:48:and then tell gavin that he wasted half a day, and that what he wrote won't work for f2pool :)

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:39:03:Oh

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:39:11:only half a day though

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:39:12:Care to elaborate on this point ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:39:16:actually, i think only 2 hours

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:39:19:(don't get too technical)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:39:39:gavin wanted to limit the tx size to 100 kB as a consensus rule instead of just a IsStandard rule

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:39:51:this would protect against a lot of the difficult-to-validate transaction vulnerabilities

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:40:03:however, f2pool uses single transactions with a lot of outputs to pay its miners

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:40:17:these are fast to validate, but big, sometimes 500 kB (once a year)

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:40:20:Similiar to Eligius ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:40:25:and over 100 kB once a day

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:40:36:eligius and p2pool do it straight out of the coinbase tx

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:40:41:which is different, but similar

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:40:43:ok

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:40:46:one input, many outputs for f2pool

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:40:53:0 inputs, many outputs for eligius and p2pool

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:40:54:got it

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:41:07:f2pool is just the biggest, so they have the biggest transactions

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:41:32:anyway, gavin thought that nobody was actually using > 100 kB transactions, so he thought it would probably be okay to do the limit

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:41:32:Let's move to discuss the future of Classic and the future of Core

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:41:45:and many security researchers had been recommending doing exactly that for about 3 years now

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:41:52:Ok

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:42:03:anyway, gavin's working on a different way to solve the same problem now

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:42:08:not complicated, almost done

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:42:13:so the future of classic and core?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:42:22:one more question

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:42:25:i want bitcoin to have multiple compatible clients

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:42:26:before

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:42:32:i want both core and classic to continue

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:42:35:ok, go ahead

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:42:36:(never mind drop it)

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:42:38:Please continue

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:42:45:i think that users need to have choice

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:42:47:and miners

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:43:01:bitcoin is supposed to be decentralized p2p cash

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:43:03:But all clients should use the same chain ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:43:14:and if there's only one dev team that has a say, it's not very decentralized

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:43:18:yes, the same chain

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:43:29:the same UTXO set, the same currency

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:43:50:and we would copy code from each other a lot of the time

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:43:53:git cherry-pick

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:44:19:and every now and then, there might be a disagreement about how to fork the chain and how to upgrade

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:44:34:and that would be resolved through either an economic vote, or a hashrate vote, or both

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:44:35:And then ?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:44:47:economic vote ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:44:53:via futures markets

1|Johnson Lau:2016-01-20 07:45:21:@Jonathan Toomin you should count the byte hashed, rather limit the tx size. We will fix the problem in BIP143

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:45:37:jl2012 yes that's what we're doing, exactly

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:45:50:that's what i always wanted to do, actually

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:45:57:gavin was just being a rogue

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:46:14:100 kB txes would work better for blocktorrent, though

1|Johnson Lau:2016-01-20 07:46:25:limiting the size now, we will have another HF to increase the size later

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:46:36:anyway, we're doing a resource tracker for bytes hashed similar to what was in BIP101, but with different (lower) limits

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:47:02:or just use segwit for > 100 kB transactions

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:47:33:Jonathan, anything else regarding your vision of Core & Classic ?

1|Johnson Lau:2016-01-20 07:47:35:theoretically possible but the rules will be very tricky

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:47:56:hmm, yes, i suppose it would be tricky at 100 kB

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:48:11:we were initially talking about 250 kb or 500 kb, which would be easier

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:48:36:we're now looking at 1 MB or unlimited, not sure, but with a bytes hashed limit around maybe 100 MB per tx, maybe lower

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:48:44:haven't bikeshedded that parameter yet

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:49:03:i'm also okay with Core developers joining the Classic project and working under democracy

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:49:14:or Core adjusting their decision making process to be more open to user and miner input

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:49:26:If this will happen

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:49:29:Say,.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:49:50:If Core will adapt 2MB HF, will Classic effort stop ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:50:03:but i like the idea of teaching users and miners that they can make decisions for themselves, and they don't have to blindly follow core

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:50:04:(I don't see it happen. It's just what if)

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:50:30:Can you explain Classic governance model ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:50:34:it depends on if i trusted them to work hard on scaling the blocksize and capacity further, or if i thought they would drag their heels again

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:50:37:What issues are put to the vote ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:51:01:i can't explain the classic governance model, because it might be changing if people don't like it

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:51:12:the basic idea is that we need input from users and miners

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:51:12:What is it now ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:51:24:and that at the top would be one or more people with commit access

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:51:35:and the committers would have the power, but they would be under continual review

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:51:52:so if they merge PRs that were unpopular, and didn't unmerge them afterwards

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:51:54:And if there will be a conflict ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:52:01:or if they refused to merge popular PRs

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:52:02:Popular but what measure ?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:52:05:Reddit ?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:52:08:consider.it ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:52:10:then people would notice, and should then fork the software

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:52:17:mostly consider.it, yet

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:52:20:^yes

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:52:39:consider.it was designed for exactly this task, and took travis years to get to the point it's at now

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:52:41:(full disclosure in order, it's your brother and his friend site)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:52:50:yes, exactly

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:52:54:ok

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:52:55:So,

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:52:58:my brother has wanted to use it for bitcoin for ages

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:52:58:Work continue

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:53:07:If something get unpopular

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:53:13:And you start to see unrest

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:53:18:You put it to the vote ?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:53:27:Or user can initiate voting on something new ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:53:27:no, you vote on pretty much everything

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:53:33:mostly, it's just devs who would be voting

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:53:45:because they would be the only ones who cared about most issues

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:53:53:maybe "voting" isn't the right term

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:53:59:Except some unchangable like 21M, inflation schedule ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:54:02:it's really making their opinions known in visual form

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:54:15:everything can be voted on

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:54:23:Including 21M ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:54:27:yes

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:54:34:Interesting

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:54:35:nobody wants to change 21M coins

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:54:39:nobody ever will

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:54:47:doing so would ruin the currency, and everyone knows that

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:54:56:another question:

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:55:04:What if there is disagreement between miners and users?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:55:09:Miners and devs?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:55:14:both have to agree to a change for it to be merged

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:55:31:devs just write the code. commiters/maintainers decide whether to merge it

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:56:01:And if they don't ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:56:05:committers (like me) review the code, review the support of the people who vote, add their own judgment, and then choose to merge or not

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:56:09:One need to gather support ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:57:04:we're not completely sure about what to do when the committers disagree

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:57:12:one way we can do it is to let things be more like Core

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:57:20:and give the commiters power to do whatever they want

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:57:20:Oh

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:57:32:another way is to give the users the power to remove or replace the committers

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:57:32:So change back to Core model in disagreement ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:57:47:there are a lot of other options

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:57:52:we're still figuring out what works best

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:57:57:Ok

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:58:02:but one thing is clear

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:58:03:Question

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:58:19:When you talked with the miner in Decembers,

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:58:22:if the committers do not follow the wishes of the miners and the users, it will be very obvious

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:58:22:(The Chinese Miners)

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:58:31:Classic wasn't a realiy back then

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:58:36:It happened only later

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:58:38:and the users and miners could easily choose to fork the project at that point to get what they wanted done.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:58:51:When Marshall Long later explained Classic and 2MB increase to the miners,

1|锐火:2016-01-20 07:58:53:http://www.pbc.gov.cn/goutongjiaoliu/113456/113469/3008070/index.html

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:59:07:Classic wasn't a thing in December, no. Just the idea of a hard fork, maybe with Core and maybe without Core.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:59:15:Did he cover the drastic change in governance model ?

1|锐火:2016-01-20 07:59:20:央行要发数字货币了

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:59:32:i don't know

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:59:36:i was trying to code at the time

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:59:48:i know that i posted it on reddit

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:59:48:In your estimation ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:59:55:i have no idea

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:59:56:I understand

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:00:04:hmm, let me check my email

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:00:05:one sec

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:00:10:waiting

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:00:17:(open letter)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:02:06:it looks like the governance structure was not emphasized early on

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:02:14:ok

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:02:18:Only 2M HD

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:02:21:2MB Hard Fork

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:02:21:and when i started talking about it, people said that it was a distraction and it would detract from getting things done

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:02:21:?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:02:28:and it looks like they were right

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:02:29:oops

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:02:43:but you still doing it in Classic ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:03:02:we are right now

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:03:06:it seems to be working so far

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:03:14:Ok

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:03:18:but we can change it

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:03:20:So, in an essence,

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:03:37:Classic is right now more a change of governance then anything else ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:03:51:no, classic is a change in the blocksize

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:03:53:Moving from Core decision making to what you described above ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:04:05:no, classic is a hard fork to increase the blocksize

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:04:05:Granted

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:04:23:But it also change of givernance model ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:04:32:it can be if people want it to be

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:04:32:governance

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:04:43:but i just want bitcoin to grow

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:04:58:if people vote against democracy, i'll laugh and go along

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:05:10:You're demonstrating what you think is a different governance model right now

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:05:20:You're implementing it in Classic now. Correct ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:05:30:we've been trying it out, yes

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:05:43:Ok, so

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:05:49:but everybody on the project agrees that the blocksize hard fork is more important than the governance model

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:06:00:so if you guys want a single guy in charge, we can do that

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:06:13:or if you want us to form a corporation with shareholders, we can do that

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:06:17:who is "you" ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:06:24:you = users and miners

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:06:29:ok

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:06:33:Question

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:06:35:i just want to make a project that people will want to use

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:06:45:and that will work well for the things they want to use it for

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:06:46:You have the consider.it platform

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:06:58:Have you put the change of governance model to a vote ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:07:08:yes

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:07:16:several votes

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:07:19:on several different issues

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:07:37:Simple question:

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:07:43:for example, someone put up this proposal to vote: "Make Gavin the benevolent dictator"

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:07:51:yes, I saw that

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:07:56:that was voted down, because gavin doesn't want the job

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:08:09:(Our own (Israel) Ron Gross is adovcating fot that as well)

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:08:21:But, what about simple question:

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:08:24:there is also "Choose someone as a Benevolent Dictator", which is also opposed right now

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:08:48:"Bitcoin Core governance model is X. We want to change it to Y. Do you agree ?"

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:09:10:Or, more radical:

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:09:28:oh, that would be a bitcoin.consider.it question, not a bitcoinclassic.consider.it question

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:09:46:we haven't had a vote on bitcoin core's governance model, no

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:09:51:"BitcoinClassic will merged back into Core after 2MB HF activation. Do you agree?"

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:10:04:actually, there was a similar vote

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:10:11:Can you show me ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:10:13:but it wasn't very serious, i think

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:10:17:let me find it, one sec

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:11:30:nope, it's not there

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:11:47:Ok

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:12:03:maybe the author removed it

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:12:07:sec

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:12:18:I want to move to a completely theoretical questions.

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:12:29:we could have that vote, though

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:12:37:you're welcome to add the question to consider.it and see how people respond

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:12:43:If I'll state an opinion, it's my own only.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:12:49:(Maybe I'll do)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:12:50:ok

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:12:54:you should

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:12:55:So, what if:

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:13:11:As it seems, Bitcoin Classic Hf will happen

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:13:13:Do you agree ?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:13:25:(I can explain why, but it's obvious to me)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:13:58:probably, yes

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:14:12:ok, i'm going to listen to that

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:14:18:me too

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:15:06:Chandler, thank you for being a kind host. I'm ok with publishing it, if Jonathan is ok with that.

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:15:49:i am not sure people will want to read it. it's pretty long.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:16:06:But do you agree ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:16:09:but in general, i don't believe in censorship or controlling information flow

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:16:21:Thank you Jonathan.

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:16:31:so go ahead

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:16:35:If you want to remove some parts, let Chandler know.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:16:40:Let's continue.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:16:59:So, we both agree that right now, it seems that Classic activation threshold will be met (75%)

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:17:17:What do you think will become of Core chain ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:17:59:i hope they will accept my PR or write code based on my BIP and choose to be compatible, because i like most of the devs on core and i don't want to see them be marginalized

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:18:37:Let me transalate in my own words:

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:18:39:but there's a 4 week grace period after the 75% threshold is hit

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:18:52:it won't be an immediate thing

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:18:58:core will have 4 weeks to respond

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:19:14:You hope that they'll change Core code base and do similiar 2MB hard fork ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:19:17:i think that they will take that time to join the consensus.

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:19:20:but i could be wrong.

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:19:31:luke-jr won't join the consensus, though

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:19:36:well, probably not

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:19:45:peter todd probably won't either

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:19:54:most of the rest i think will

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:19:54:maxwell ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:20:00:maxwell, i can't say

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:20:10:i hope so

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:20:17:And what about non hard fork features ?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:20:27:They may select to change to them or not ?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:20:31:rbf ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:20:55:opt-in RBF seems almost universally hated

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:21:05:so that would probably be removed pretty quickly

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:21:35:Let's investigate each possible sceanrio

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:21:41:First scenario:

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:21:51:i'd like to do a big cleanup of the code base in maybe 12 to 18 months and fix a lot of the outstanding problems in bitcoin

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:22:10:i'd also like to put a lot of work into performance

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:22:31:Which in theory all can be done in Core ?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:22:41:except the 2MB HF, that it

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:22:47:and try to get a version of segwit merged and activated, either hard or soft, but without the 4x adversarial condition and the subsidy for multisig

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:23:03:the major cleanup would be another hardfork

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:23:17:there is a long list of things that people want to fix but can't because doing so would be a hard fork

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:23:32:and because they think that hard forks are somehow not feasible

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:23:57:segwit is largely an attempt to fix as many of those things as possible by using a commitment structure to rewrite the rules of bitcoin

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:24:14:segwit is like a "hidden" hardfork that can be deployed as technically being a softfork

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:24:24:i like it better as a simple hard fork, though

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:24:43:So, under your leaderhsip,

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:24:44:the thing is, Core is deathly afraid of big blocks

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:24:58:You'll hard fork whenever you think it's needed ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:25:04:because they think it will compromise the vision they have of being able to run a full node on everbody's laptop

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:25:29:hard fork infrequently, but as needed to make major improvements, and only if supported by miners and users.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:25:52:I understand

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:25:56:and usually with a lot more advance notice

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:26:13:but usually with bigger changes than just a blocksize increase

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:26:34:So, fix whatever needed to bix, whenever, with notice and HF ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:26:47:and support of the community

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:27:20:we need to ask people what they think of the plan, ask about each major detail, and make changes as needed until we have something that makes the most people the happiest

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:27:40:And you'll vote on the above plan ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:27:43:we need tools to process that information

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:27:47:to visualize those preferences

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:27:52:and to make those debates productive

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:27:55:Who wouldn't choose such path ?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:28:05:(it was a bit of sarcasm. Sorry)

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:28:08:Back to what if:

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:28:10:luke and peter

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:28:16::)

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:28:44:Let's say, Luke, Peter and some others decide to keep running Core as a seperate fork

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:28:56:Can we discuss that scenario ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:29:07:see, that's what i like about hard forks. nobody is forced to do what they don't want to

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:29:24:sure, luke and peter use their branch, and everyone else uses the other branch

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:29:25:sure.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:29:44:Can we change from names to something else ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:29:52:and luke and peter are happy because they can run the full node on luke's slow ADSL line, and peter's happy because it's very censorship resistant

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:29:53:Can we call it Core branch ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:30:09:sure

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:30:20:the people who want a usable currency will join the majority branch

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:30:34:Ok, so some developers keep maintaing the Core branch

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:30:48:and it becomes effectively an altcoin

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:30:50:that's fine

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:30:53:altcoins can be fun

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:30:55:Which isn't compatible with Classic

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:31:16:sure, but it shares a common history with the majority fork

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:31:30:Can we assigned name ?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:31:38:Core fork and Classic fork ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:31:45:so many people will have some coins on both forks

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:31:53:indeed

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:32:00:well, the classic fork would also include XT and Unlimited, but fine

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:32:05:classic it is

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:32:14:But Core fork probably can't mine.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:32:17:Correct ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:32:24:not very well

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:32:30:so they do what doge did

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:32:37:and they make their chain merge mined

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:32:44:or like namecoin

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:32:59:AuxPoW

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:33:02:yes, merge mining is one possability

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:33:24:What is the other possability ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:33:52:well, they could switch PoW functions

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:34:00:which would be a hard fork

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:34:06:just like the AuxPoW thing

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:34:07:Indeed

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:34:14:and then there would be three forks, not two

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:34:22:three branches

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:34:24:please explain

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:34:35:well, each time you hard fork, you leave something behind

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:34:42:true

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:35:07:But if they'll choose PoW change,

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:35:32:Can we assume that the majority of nodes still running Core will switch to it ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:35:35:if they choose a PoW change, it's basically game over for them

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:35:46:Why do you tjink so ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:35:48:they would probably lose compatibility with all SPV wallets

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:36:02:Why ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:36:07:because they would have to reset difficulty

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:36:15:and SPV wallets verify difficulty

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:36:16:Why ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:36:36:because they wouldn't know how much hashrate with the new PoW function they would have

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:37:11:What about using two PoWs in the interim ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:37:14:and whatever funciton they switched to would produce a different number of 0000s at the beginning of the hashes

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:37:18:Or merge mining and new PoW ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:37:34:merge mining breaks PoW validation with SPV too

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:37:40:so does two PoWs

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:37:58:if you want to not break SPV, you have to be able to make headers that meet the same requirements as before

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:38:27:and one of those requirements is that the SHA256 hash of the header must have a value less than whatever is set by the PoW function

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:38:56:so you have to tell mycelium, multibit, electrum, etc to merge in the new PoW function so they can verify the new headers

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:39:09:and they might all do that

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:39:10:indeed

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:39:18:or... they might just use classic, with which they're already compatible

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:39:24:because SPV wallets do not verify block size.

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:39:47:and classic only changes the block size and one other thing that SPV wallets don't verify

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:39:52:(the bytes hashed per block)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:40:01:so...

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:40:06:For now you mean

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:40:08:core would be better off just sticking with SHA256

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:40:16:well, yes, for the next year

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:40:24:I don't think it's a valid option for Core

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:40:26:later on we can plan something else

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:40:39:So,

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:40:40:it is if they join the fork

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:40:46:If I summarize you:

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:40:58:The developers left behind in Core,

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:41:05:If they want to do PoW change,

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:41:39:They need to accept SPV wallet break or convince SPV wallet providers to upgrade

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:41:40:Correct ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:41:59:yes, i'm pretty sure that's correct

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:42:20:Ok

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:42:29:Let's discuss user base support.

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:42:33:jl2012, if i'm wrong on that please let us know

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:42:37:Not miners.

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:42:48:yes, that is what matters the most

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:42:49:Indeed, you did some polls

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:42:53:And other did as well.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:42:57:And there is reddit

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:43:03:with or without censorship

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:43:11:you can't censor the vote counts on reddit

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:43:19:And there is classic consider.it

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:43:37:the blockstream developers kept complaining of "vote brigading", which just meant that they kept saying stuff that most people disagreed with strongly

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:43:48:bitcoin.consider.it is actually the user census

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:44:18:bitcoin.consider.it is for all bitcoin users, but just for blocksize and segwit stuff (scaling stuff)

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:44:27:How do you know what users will ultimately choose ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:44:32:bitcoinclassic.consider.it is just for bitcoin classic decision making

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:44:52:I mean, vocal users who strongly disagree with current policy, will actively seek out to vote

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:45:02:yes, on both sides

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:45:37:https://bitcoin.consider.it/status-quo-keep-capacity-at-1-mb

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:46:03:I don't agree on "on both sides"

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:46:22:luke-jr was one of our first users on the site, actually

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:46:34:Users content with current status might not want to bother themselves to find out how to vote

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:46:40:Users,

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:46:45:Not developers

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:46:50:he's both

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:47:09:sure, but I think you understood my meaning.

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:47:36:it's possible that there is anti-status-quo bias, yes

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:47:56:Ok

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:48:08:Let's get back to what if.

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:48:11:on our site, only 6% of users thought that keeping the 1 MB blocksize limit was a good idea

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:48:15:6%!

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:48:42:SegWit status was fully explained ?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:48:50:In the poll question ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:48:54:segwit was presented in several different forms

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:48:58:as a hard fork, as a soft fork

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:49:05:before a blocksize hardfork, after a hard fork

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:49:19:Can you show me the question ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:49:21:and also there was the "Bitcoin Core: Roadmap" option

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:49:36:there were about 5 different questions for different options

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:49:41:here, let me take screenshots for you

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:50:14:go ahead

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:50:31:these will be in order of most support to least support

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:50:37:circles on the right means support

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:50:43:circles on the left means opposition

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:52:03:Can you agree on the fact that people seek out to vote at Classic consider.it have higher chance of being biased ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:52:20:yes, it's possible

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:52:41:i can't rule out the probability of bias

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:52:46:^possiblity

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:52:47:I want to go back to Core Fork and PoW

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:53:10:Let's assume Core developers are doing PoW via Hard Fork

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:53:26:Because else, they can't mine

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:54:35:Jonathan ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:54:40:yes?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:54:56:i was waiting for a question

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:55:00:(If it's too late for you, let me know, we can continue on some other time)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:55:02:is there a question?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:55:07:sec

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:55:16:it's getting too early... 5:55am

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:55:24::)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:55:28:but we can go on

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:55:35:Thanks

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:55:42:i sleep at funny times

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:56:13:You don't have a real way to measure how many users will actually be behind Core and how many will support Classic Hard Fork. Correct ?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:56:19:I mean, not in advance

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:56:30:not right now, no

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:56:42:people are working on setting up futures contracts to estimate that

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:56:51:You see hashing power, you see businesses and you see reddit posts

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:57:02:(interesting)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:57:05:and you see independent surveys, like genesis mining

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:57:19:from their customers after their vocal support for it

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:57:26:Again, we can assume it's biased

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:57:27:no, this was a year ago

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:57:43:(full disclosure, we're friends. Good friends)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:57:44:you can also look at full node counts

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:57:56:Indeed.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:58:08:So,

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:58:20:i hope that the miners wait until full node counts climb a lot for classic

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:58:22:Fast forward after the Classic Fork activation

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:58:30:trigger, or activation?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:58:32:Please explain

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:58:34:remember, there's a grace period

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:58:37:They're supporting it now

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:58:56:miners have promised to run Classic, but they're not running it yet

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 08:58:56:before submitting 2MB blocks ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:59:15:then we release it in a testnet-only version, and we test it there to make sure it all works properly

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 08:59:46:then we release the full version, and people start running full nodes on it, and miners can use it

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:00:08:eventually, miners reach 75% of the last 2016 blocks (I think i'm going to change it from 1000, btw)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:00:14:and that is the trigger date

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:00:28:Ok

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:00:30:the activation date will be 4 weeks later (unless I change that parameter too)

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:00:43:Please expand on your advice to the miners

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:00:44:and no > 1 MB blocks will be allowed until after those 4 weeks

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:01:29:after those 4 weeks are done, 2 MB blocks will be allowed

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:01:42:but the chain won't fork until someone mines a > 1.0 MB block

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:03:02:so the node counts are complicated

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:03:11:you can't actually rely on them, because it's really easy to fake a full node.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:03:26:indeed

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:03:27:but if people are upgrading, you should see a lot of full nodes reporting that they're using classic

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:03:39:or someone can fake it as well ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:03:50:you will probably also see a spike in total full nodes, as the last few adamant Core supporters fake a bunch of nodes with a Sybil attack

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:03:50:Someone with an interest to gather support for Classic ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:04:00:Classic could fake it too, it's true

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:04:07:so the full node counts don't really matter either way

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:04:12::(

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:04:12:ok

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:04:17:So,

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:04:42:Miners won't have real knowledge of what the real user base thinks or choose.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:04:44:Correct ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:05:24:not perfect knowledge, no

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:05:29:just hints

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:05:35:ok

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:05:39:but miners can do their own surveys

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:05:42:like genesis mining did

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:05:50:btcc is an exchange, they have a lot of customers

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:05:55:they could ask their customer list what they wanted

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:06:12:Indeed

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:06:14:pools will see their miners leave them if the owners don't support the fork

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:06:32:I'm less interested here in Miners vote

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:06:38:wallet developers will get emails from their users asking about whether their software supports the fork or if they need to upgrade

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:06:38:I'll explain why

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:06:53:well, i mean end-user miners, like most of my customers

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:06:58:not industrial miners

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:07:02:ok

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:07:11:so everyone ask everyone

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:07:24:If they feel Classic has major support

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:07:26:bitpay can ask its merchants, blockchain.info can ask its wallet users, etc

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:07:35:yes

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:07:58:Ok

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:08:18:Do you agree that there is good chance the remaing core developers will initiate PoW change ?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:08:29:Via Hard Fork

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:08:55:i personally think it might just be a threat to miners

1|ProBTC:2016-01-20 09:09:00:Christ, aren't you guys finished yet?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:09:04:the first thing luke-jr did was he posted that as a patch on our github

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:09:08:Soon. sorry.

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:09:19:i think it was an attempt to try to get miners to run away from classic

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:09:29:Sure, there is a "game of chickens" asspect.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:09:31:But,

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:09:45:We did agree that it seems that Classic will be activated.

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:10:06:i think that most of the developers of Core want to be part of the majority

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:10:21:And you did agree that some Core developers will remain maintaining the pre 2MB HF Core code base. Correct?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:10:28:i think a few diehards will probably fork off and create their own altcoin

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:10:38:or forkcoin, or whatever

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:10:47:but i don't think many developers will stay behind with that

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:10:48:Nice strategy.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:11:00:So,

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:11:15:With you permission, I want to call it Core + PoW change fork

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:11:21:And not altcoin

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:11:23:Ok ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:11:25:ok

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:11:35:i think branch is a better term than fork

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:11:40:ok

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:11:43:a fork is the separation, a branch is one side after the fork

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:11:49:branch it is

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:11:52:so with one fork you have two branches

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:12:07:So, each BTC will become two ?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:12:14:ClassicBTC and CoreBTC ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:12:22:oh great, they're both CBTC

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:12:25:(I want to keep symmetric terms)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:12:44:each person will have coins on both branches at first

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:12:48:I'm assuming no OldCoreBTC

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:12:59:and a transaction published on one branch will be valid on the other branch most of the time

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:13:15:there will be ways of separating them, to make them invalid on one branch

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:13:22:PoW change ...

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:13:24:mostly, by mixing in recent miner revenue

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:13:31:PoW change doesn't change the transaction format

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:13:37:indeed, sorry

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:13:41:it doesn't change the script sigs

1|ProBTC:2016-01-20 09:13:55:Lol. I just love the all-embracing attitude in here. To let you guys rant non-stop like this.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:14:19:Let's say,

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:14:35:I want to use my coins , each in it's own branch

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:14:49:So I install Classic Wallet and new Core Wallet

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:15:05:and you import the same private key into both

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:15:09:yes

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:15:33:So, I'll be able to send ClassicCoins to an exchange accpeting them

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:15:35:if you do nothing else, and you make a payment on core wallet, it will almost always go through on classic wallet

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:15:54:I don't want that

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:16:01:it will go through on core wallet too

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:16:09:I want to keep and have two seperate coins

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:16:14:then you have to try

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:16:25:you have to find a transaction that is only valid on one branch

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:16:35:and you have to build a transaction that depends on that single-branch transaction

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:16:43:+

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:16:46:(sorry)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:17:35:if there was a time in which blocks were not being mined on the CoreBTC side, then some transactions might not have gotten included in the blockchain due to congestion

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:17:54:you could also split them up by trying to double-spend a transaction that you send to yourself

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:18:11:you can also incorporate recently mined coins

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:18:23:What can the remaining Core developers do in order to completely seperate the chains ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:18:31:once you've done something that makes the coins invalid on one branch, then you can send on one branch and not the other

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:18:41:To have clear seperation between Classic and Core

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:18:45:They can change the transaction format

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:18:58:I understand

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:18:59:they can increment the Transaction version number

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:19:12:So they'll need to do that as well in the POW HF

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:19:19:the patch that luke-jr submitted to me for the PoW change did not do that

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:19:26:so they'll have to add it

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:19:47:I understand

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:20:02:Without it, some transaction will work, some not

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:20:06:otherwise, people will want to use the more usable version, and that will be classic, because classic will have better mining and a better blocksize limit

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:20:09:And there is ways to do double spend

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:20:26:yes

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:20:28:(we'll get to better mining in a bit)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:20:40:and it will be more work for businesses to support CoreBTC than to support ClassicBTC

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:21:00:Seems like a minor change to me.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:21:02:I mean,

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:21:09:because they'll have to support the differnent hash function, and the different transaction version number

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:21:11:If you intend to support both versions of BTC

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:21:22:you will want full seperation

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:21:35:But I agree that it will be a bit more of an hassle.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:21:45:So,

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:21:49:it's not a huge change

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:21:57:although the PoW patch that i saw is over 4000 lines of code

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:21:59:Indeed. Seems so.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:22:09:Hashing function...

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:22:12:yes

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:22:16:Let's assume Core is implementin

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:22:18:most of it is just for the hashing function

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:22:33:Let's assume Core is implementing both changes

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:22:38:And we have different PoW

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:22:45:they :)

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:22:54:sure

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:23:02:(It's bad translation from Hebrew)

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:23:08:We as a community

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:23:12:So,

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:23:27:Core has different PoW and different transaction number

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:23:36:users can install Classic and Core new wallets

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:23:51:Every coin is splitted to ClassicBTC and CoreBTC

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:24:06:And I can start to transact separatly with each

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:24:07:Correct ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:24:14:yes

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:24:31:How likely do you find the above scenario ?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:24:42:I mean, we agreed that Classic Activation will probably happen.

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:25:04:are we making any statements about both branches having significant real value?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:25:10:or just the technical outcome?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:25:21:for the moment, technical outcome

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:25:31:Economical outcome - later

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:26:03:i'm not sure about the name Core being used for the alt PoW client

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:26:13:but other than that, maybe 75%

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:26:22:leave names aside

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:26:31:We defined the names above

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:26:37:And it might change, I agree.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:27:26:So, there is 75% chance, in your estimation that we'll have ClassicBTC wallet and CoreBTC wallet, each with it's own coins, splittd from the original BTC coins, and we can transact with each seperately ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:27:41:that's how the technology works, yes

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:27:51:in other hard forks, it hasn't been done that way

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:27:52:ok

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:28:04:but in this case, it seems there are people who want to make that heppen

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:28:07:^happen

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:28:09:ok

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:28:17:So it's not only a game of chicken

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:28:18:Correct ?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:28:21:75% estimation.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:28:24:Your estimation

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:28:43:well, anyone can create any coin they want to

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:28:49:the hard part is convincing people to use it

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:29:07:I'm getting to that

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:29:11:how many altcoins are there on the market now?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:29:24:you can keep calling it altcoins

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:29:33:no, i mean real altcoins, like doge or dash

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:29:40:But it's a matter of convincing people

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:29:42:as you said it

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:29:45:you can create a coin whenever you want

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:29:47:right

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:29:49:I can say, on the other hand

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:30:12:That both ClassicCoin and CoreCoin are alt coins and the OldCoreCoins are the real one

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:30:22:I know that there are some people still using old clients

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:30:28:And call those coins BTC

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:30:34:right, the original bitcoin has a 32 MB blocksize limit

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:30:39:we stopped using Bitcoin years ago

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:30:41:indeed

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:30:53:Satoshi's you mena

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:30:55:mean

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:31:17:yes, before he added the 1 MB limit

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:31:26:ok

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:31:32:Back to my question

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:31:37:Currently,

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:31:43:As you estimate,

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:32:13:There is 75% chance that all of my coins (I have about 5 BTC :) ) will be splitted into CoreBTC and ClassicBTC

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:32:23:And that I'll have two functioning wallet

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:32:30:i think the premise that you're getting to is 1 coin = 1 unit of value, and so this fork will split the value

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:32:32:Which will allow me to transact each

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:32:41:not

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:32:43:no

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:32:49:I didn't get to value yet.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:33:10:I want to fully agree on what will happen first

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:33:16:Before economic value.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:33:38:Can I have your agreement to the above statement ? Two wallets, both are fully functional - 75% chance ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:33:55:maybe something like that

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:34:02:can we move on?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:34:02:75% maybe

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:34:05:Your words

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:34:05::)

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:34:12:Yes, now we're moving on

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:34:18:Let's discuss value

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:34:22:sec

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:34:42:(I know and recognize it's painfull for you. You didn't want it)

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:34:52:Value:

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:35:07:My estimation, is that due to the major mainstream media drama,

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:35:13:"Bitcoin Split"

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:35:15:bla bla bla

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:35:21:You can picture it yourself,

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:35:40:The value of ClassicBitcoin will be decreased dramatically.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:35:46:At least in the short term

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:35:52:that's why we need to call it an upgrade

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:35:54:Do you agree on this estimation ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:36:10:but there will likely be some fluctuation, with an initial dip

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:36:10:I'm sure Classic will call it upgrade

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:36:16:which is a great time to buy

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:36:17:But the remaning Core may have other agenda

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:36:29:we'll get to buy in a moment

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:36:36:My estimation is over 50% dip.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:36:37:My.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:36:43:Care to guess ?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:36:53:(75% chance it will happen, so why not guess ?)

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:36:56:i think 10%

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:37:01:ok

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:37:07:maybe 20%

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:37:10:maybe -10%

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:37:14:Ok

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:37:19:people might want to get coins before the fork so they can have both branches

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:37:33:smart thinking :)

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:37:35:I like it

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:37:51:Now, let's discuss CoreBTC value

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:37:56:and a lot of people will say, "Finally! bitcoin's getting fixed! last chance to get coins while they're cheap!"

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:38:09:A good one.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:38:19:Do you agree that CoreBTC has some value as well ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:38:28:it will have nonzero value for a while

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:38:44:it will have low liquidity

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:38:44:good answer.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:38:52:Are you sure?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:38:59:pretty sure, yes

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:39:03:it will be harder to use it

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:39:03:I for example, intends to buy as many as possible CoreBTC

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:39:16:While their value is low

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:39:19:Well, i

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:39:23:I want to be accurate

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:39:26:and you will lose money, like the people who bought feathercoin

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:39:36:It depends on how many Core developers will remain

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:39:46:nope, not really

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:39:54:But if I'll see a good healthy team still working on Core, I intend to buy

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:39:56:Really.

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:39:57:it depends on whether the initial userbase has a preference for one or the other

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:40:11:Also true.

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:40:16:people want to be able to transact effectively with other people

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:40:19:But I don't know how to poll it.

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:40:29:a currency has value in proportion to the number of users and recipient

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:40:31:ss

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:40:39:agree on that

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:40:46:But at least initially,

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:40:47:it's an unstable situation to have two currencies with equal value used in the same market

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:41:03:I don't think that there will be equal value

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:41:07:if your neighbor trades in gold, and your cousin trades in silver, you have trouble

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:41:07:Not at all

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:41:23:But I have very easy way to exhange

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:41:28:so you convince one of them to accept the currency of the other

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:41:32:just so you can transact

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:41:38:I can guess that ShapeShift and other exchanges will supprot both

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:41:39:bitcoin is the currency that everybody uses

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:41:45:that's what makes it what it is

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:41:52:that's what defines it as not just another altcoin

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:41:55:it is the default coin

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:41:56:But who defined what Bitcoin is ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:42:13:we did

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:42:13:What was Bitcoin governance model when Satoshi was around ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:42:14:by using it

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:42:31:satoshi just wrote a program and then talked about it

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:42:35:the users made bitcoin a thing

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:42:48:agree on that

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:43:02:and bitcoin has stood the test of many altcoins, over and over, because bitcoin is what people accept

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:43:16:there can only be one

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:43:27:"to rule them and bind them:

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:43:31:anyway,

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:43:42:except for a few diehards who want to stay true to something or other that they think is more important than actually being able to use the currency.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:43:43:I don't agree that there can only be one

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:44:09:ok, not only one, but if there are going to be more with similar values, they have to have very different properties that make them usable in different ways

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:44:15:Calling people you have disagrement with "dirhards" is not fair.

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:44:24:in the world, we have many different currencies, because each one is usable in a different region

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:44:37:in cryptocurrencies, everyone is connected by the internet

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:44:50:so you have to have software with a big advantage for certain use cases

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:45:12:litecoin and doge have faster blocks, and that's why 0.5% of the crypto users use them

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:45:15:Can I give you my estimations ?

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:45:24:dash has some interesting security features, so it gets a nonzero percentage too

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:45:33:sure, go ahead

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:45:52:- I estimate that most of the core developers will remain to work on Core

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:46:14:- I also estimate that Core will have non zero value initially, and it will rise sharply

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:46:17:In addition,

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:46:31:I estimate that there will be PoW and transaction number change

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:46:42:And that it will attract a lot of miners from the GPU era

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:47:06:Instead of two companies (BitFury, BitmainTech) that has the ability to easily control more then 90% of the hash-rate

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:47:19:The mining playing field will be leveled

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:47:30:for a few months...

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:47:36:Everyone will be able to setup industrial mining

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:47:48:Not for a few months.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:48:02:If you're going to fix the mining problem, you're going to do it right

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:48:07:There are ways to do it.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:48:25:You can totally prevent ASICiszation if you already doing Hard Forks

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:48:27:So,

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:48:35:Again, my estimations:

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:48:40:And only my estimations:

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:48:42:how, by hard forking again?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:48:49:yes

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:48:54:for example

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:48:57:Or

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:49:04:so CoreBTC would be the coin that hard forks every 6 months?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:49:08:Setting the stage to a more elaborate schema

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:49:11:For example

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:49:15:Or 3 months

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:49:25:With one mont of both PoWs working together

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:49:26:So,

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:49:27:like Scrypt mining? That was supposed to be asic resistant...

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:49:28:Suddenly,

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:49:39:That was a failed experiment

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:49:44:People learn and adapt

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:49:46:So,

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:50:01:Let's assume Core find a way to fix mining centralization

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:50:04:Once and for all

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:50:09:No way to do ASIC

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:50:22:As a CEO of ASIC company, I can tell you that it's possible

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:50:29:Now they have the incentive to do it.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:50:44:After what they preceived as total war from the miners.

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:50:46:is keccak ASIC-hard?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:50:59:I didn't look at it closely.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:51:07:I'm talking ASIC-less

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:51:09:not ASIC-hard

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:51:14:So,

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:51:25:Core suddenly seems a much more interesting coin

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:51:27:NIST says no

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:51:32:No more BitFury

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:51:39:No More BitmainTech

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:51:45:Everyone can setup GPUs farms

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:51:50:There are levels of no

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:52:00:And you can decide always to HF every few months

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:52:11