Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

[Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>]

On Monday 5. October 2015 18.04.48 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > Unsuccessfully.
> 
> I think rather successfully.

Arguing that BIP66 rollout was a full success is in the same park of 
"successful" ?
Where for weeks people were told not to trust the longest chain until it was 
30 blocks.
Lets put that in perspective. The main functionality of Bitcoin  
Frankly, if that fiasco happened in a company, people would get fired for 
gross misconduct.

Bottom line is that there is a horrible track record of doing soft forks in 
the past, there are some really good technical reasons why this should not 
happen again. 

And the defence against this argument is to do character assassination because 
you think he has ulterior motives?  Like you say in this part;

> That Mike himself continues to misexplain
> things is not surprising since he has all but outright said that his
> motivation here is to disrupt Bitcoin in order to try to force his
> blocksize hardfork on people. 

"all but outright said" is still not said. Is still just a suspicion you have. 
And you are accusing a man of something he didn't do.
That’s just not right.

> > The point is that Bitcoin Core claims to have a consensus mechanism and
> > sticks to "no change" on not reaching a consensus. And that rule is the
> > reason why bigger blocks were blocked for years.
> 
> You're repeating Mike's claims there-- not anyone elses. Take your
> complaint up with him-- not the list.

There is no complaint. Why do you think there is?
Are you claiming that not reaching consensus is NOT the reason that bigger 
blocks are not in Bitcoin Core?


Reaching consensus is an admirable goal. But its exactly that, a goal.
And anyone that is a perfectionist will know that in the real world goals are 
often not reached. That doesn't make them less useful. That makes them goals.
This specific goal is in conflict of building a good product and a well 
functioning community.

A good product and a well functioning community needs rules and needs timely 
decisions and conflict resolution.
It does not need muting of valuable voices, it does not need character 
assassinations and it really doesn't need egos.

I suggest reading this book;
http://www.artofcommunityonline.org/