Mike Hearn <mike@...> wrote: > Which is why there will soon be a fork that does it. I understand why you would be keen to scale bitcoin, everyone here is. But as you seem to be saying that you will do a unilateral hard-fork, and fork the code-base simultaneously, probably a number of people have questions, so I'll start with some: ( I noticed some of your initial thoughts are online here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0 or the full podcast https://epicenterbitcoin.com/podcast/082/ ) - Are you releasing a BIP for that proposal for review? - If the reviewers all say NACK will you take on board their suggestions? - On the idea of a non-consensus hard-fork at all, I think we can assume you will get a row of NACKs. Can you explain your rationale for going ahead anyway? The risks are well understood and enormous. - How do you propose to deal with the extra risks that come from non-consensus hard-forks? Hard-forks themselves are quite risky, but non-consensus ones are extremely dangerous for consensus. - If you're going it alone as it were, are you proposing that you will personally maintain bitcoin-XT? Or do you have a plan to later hand over maintenance to the bitcoin developers? - Do you have contingency plans for what to do if the non-consensus hard-fork goes wrong and $3B is lost as a result? As you can probably tell I think a unilateral fork without wide-scale consensus from the technical and business communities is a deeply inadvisable. While apparently some companies have expressed interest in increased scale, I can only assume they do no yet understand the risks. I suggest before they would actually go ahead that they seek independent advice. Of the overall process, I think you can agree we should not be making technical decisions with this level of complexity and consensus risk with financial implications of this magnitude under duress of haste? This seems otherwise a little like the moral hazard of the 2008 financial collapse that Satoshi put the quote in the genesis block about. I think its best that we progress as Jeff Garzik has done to have engineering discussions centre around BIPs, running code for review, simulation and careful analysis. I understand this has been going on for a long time, and some people are frustrated with the rate of progress, but making hasty, contentious or unilateral actions in this space is courting disaster. Please use your considerable skills to, along with the rest of the community, work on this problem collaboratively. I can sincerely assure you everyone does want to scale bitcoin and shares your long term objective on that. Adam