From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FE4A1AE1 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:36:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx-out01.mykolab.com (mx01.mykolab.com [95.128.36.1]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F80AE1 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:36:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com X-Spam-Score: -2.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx03.mykolab.com (mx03.mykolab.com [10.20.7.101]) by mx-out01.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 515686161E for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 20:35:59 +0200 (CEST) From: Tom Zander To: Bitcoin Dev Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 19:33 +0100 Message-ID: <10955467.d0sKIOBqLD@garp> In-Reply-To: References: <2142297.qudDqxHTIz@garp> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 18:36:03 -0000 On Monday 5. October 2015 18.04.48 Gregory Maxwell wrote: > > Unsuccessfully. >=20 > I think rather successfully. Arguing that BIP66 rollout was a full success is in the same park of=20= "successful" ? Where for weeks people were told not to trust the longest chain until i= t was=20 30 blocks. Lets put that in perspective. The main functionality of Bitcoin =20 Frankly, if that fiasco happened in a company, people would get fired f= or=20 gross misconduct. Bottom line is that there is a horrible track record of doing soft fork= s in=20 the past, there are some really good technical reasons why this should = not=20 happen again.=20 And the defence against this argument is to do character assassination = because=20 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.=20 "all but outright said" is still not said. Is still just a suspicion yo= u have.=20 And you are accusing a man of something he didn't do. That=E2=80=99s 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. >=20 > 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 big= ger=20 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 goa= ls are=20 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= =20 functioning community. A good product and a well functioning community needs rules and needs t= imely=20 decisions and conflict resolution. It does not need muting of valuable voices, it does not need character=20= assassinations and it really doesn't need egos. I suggest reading this book; http://www.artofcommunityonline.org/