[Pkg-bitcoin-devel] Packaging alternative bitcoin implementation

[micah]

Amaury SECHET <deadalnix at gmail.com> writes:

>> I am aware that multiple implementations exist, and that big players
>> involved - but which sharks I find the good sharks I have not decided.

I am in a similar position as Jonas, I have no idea, and no position,
nor any horse in the race (to use an english idiom that basically means
I don't have any stake in any side. Partly because I dont know the
sides, and partly because I have other things I care about.)

>> Do you know of any good documentation of the issues you raise here, that
>> you can recommend us and others following along to read?
>>
>>
> Long story short: blockstream, a company, hired many of the core
> developers. They started pushing for tech that are controversial (mainly
> RBF and SegWit) ad refused to implement changes such as increasing the
> block size, which many in the community wanted. Other core Developers who
> disagreed (Gavin Andreesen, Jeff Garzik) were slowly weeded out and the
> main discussion channels ( r/bitcoin , bitcointalk, the bitcoin dev mailing
> list, bitcoin.org ) started to be heavily censored, and smearing campaign
> started.

Thanks for the summary.

> As a result, several people decided to fork bitcoin core and create various
> alternative, the 2 biggest ones being bitcoin classic and bitcoin unlimited.
>
> When it comes to community, it is very divided, with the core crowd living
> in a walled garden and everybody else trying to get rid of them.
>
> You can find blockstream's employee list here: https://blockstream.com/team/
> Among them many important core devs: Matt Corallo, Pieter Wuille, Greg
> Maxwell, Greg Sanders, Rusty Russel, Jorge Timon and Luke Dashjr. They also
> contract with Kyle Torpey and Aaron van Wirdum (journalists) + hire at
> least one internet troll ( brg444/bergalex ).

I appreciate the reference for the actual employees, but there is no
mention of Kyle Torpey, Aaron van Wirdum or brg444/bergalex on that
page. Do you have actual proof that they hire these journalists and an
internet troll that you can provide?

Not that I particularly care, or would use that in any way to form any
judgment whatsoever, I just find that it odd that you would clearly
reference some people, but in the same paragraph throw in some
unreferenced questionable people.

> You can find a fairly well documented history of censorship in r/bitcoin
> here :
> https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-in-r-bitcoin-c85a290fe43
> , similar things are going on in the main channels.

If I read that article, and the comments, I see that not everyone agrees
that this is an objective history of r/bitcoin. It seems like people
disagree and counter-assertions suggest that there were some toxic
people spreading lies, abuse and other issues in r/bitcoin and they were
banned because of that behavior. They got mad and then started r/btc and
then started to ban people themselves on r/btc, causing people to claim
censorship by those who were originally claiming censorship. This all
sounds like typical reddit drama... who was right? Who cares?!

Was it censorship by some evil dictator, or was it just moderation?
Nobody will ever know! I wont wait in suspense until it is finally
solved, let the drama llamas go spin their own wool.

I dont think Debian is at all interested. If someone wants to package
the other clients and maintain them, they are welcome to do so in the
team, as long as nobody brings trollish behavior along with it.

> I would suggest reading everything from John Blocke, that very high quality
> content.
>
> If you are more interested why RBF and SegWit are opposed, you can read:
> https://medium.com/@octskyward/replace-by-fee-43edd9a1dd6d
> https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-fork-too-far-87d6e57a4179

I have to say that at this point, I'm not interested in knowing anymore,
about either side. 

> Finally, there was an agreement about a year ago known as the HK agreement
> in the community. The agreement state that core will rollout SegWit and a
> solution to get bigger blocks. Greg Maxwell (blockstream's CTO) soon
> qualified these who signed it of "well meaning dipshit" and essentially
> opposed any effort to have the agreement succeed. Since then, it seems
> unlikely that both side will find a common ground, as they can barely talk
> to each others due to the rampant censorshipn and conversly, when core
> supporter go out of the walled garden, they are received with the
> proverbial pitchforks, so they do it less and less.

Ok, so I'm selling all my btc now because the clown house is clearly not
worth it.

> The version packaged by debian is bitcoin core, in its version 0.13, which
> enables SegWit and RBF. Overall, I think that's fine, I don't think this is
> debian's place to tell user what software they should run, but I think it
> would be preferable to let user chose.

If someone wants to package the alternative, they are welcome to do
so. Debian isn't picking sides, its more like the sides are picking if
they want to complain, or do work.

> I think the sensible #1 step here is to rename the current bitcoin packages
> and make virtual package to replace them. That'll allow to add alternatives
> in the future. I have no idea where to start, however. Is there a
> repository I should clone to start hacking ?

What would you rename the current bitcoin packages to be?