From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z5Xly-0006i0-BW for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:14:18 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.212.178 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.178; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f178.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com ([209.85.212.178]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z5Xlx-0002Zy-Bf for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:14:18 +0000 Received: by wiga1 with SMTP id a1so167708903wig.0 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 04:14:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.87.105 with SMTP id w9mr63235467wiz.32.1434626051289; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 04:14:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from amethyst.visucore.com (dhcp-089-098-228-253.chello.nl. [89.98.228.253]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ef10sm11793281wjd.49.2015.06.18.04.14.09 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 18 Jun 2015 04:14:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 13:14:09 +0200 From: "Wladimir J. van der Laan" To: Mike Hearn Message-ID: <20150618111407.GA6690@amethyst.visucore.com> References: <55828737.6000007@riseup.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Spam-Score: -0.8 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (laanwj[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 0.8 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1Z5Xlx-0002Zy-Bf Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:14:18 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:00:17PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote: > Core is in the weird position where there's no decision making ability at > all, because anyone who shows up and shouts enough can generate > 'controversy', then Wladimir sees there is disagreement and won't touch the > issue in question. So it just runs and runs and *anyone* with commit access > can then block any change. Bitcoin Core is completely different from your average open source project in one aspect: where it concerns consensus. Like in any open source project there is lots of decision making ability for code changes. I'd say look at the changelog for e.g. 0.11 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/0.11/doc/release-notes.md#0110-change-log, or follow pull requests for a while, to see how many decisions about changes are made from day to day. No, I'm not sitting on my hands, and so is none of the other contributors that you'd like to get rid of. Consensus changes are *much* more difficult, on the other hand. Even relatively straightforward softforks come with a long discussion process (see BIP62, BIP66). A hardfork is hard to do at the best of times (everyone needs to upgrade their software!), and simply not possible if almost the entire technical community disagrees with you. Bitcoin is supposed to be a robust, global, decentralized network beyond anyone's control. It makes *no sense* to try to run it as a dictatorship. This would create a handy central position where power can be applied, pushing through changes to the behavior of the system, either by force or other ways of motivation. I refuse to take part in that. Hence, anything that is controversial needs to be considered really carefully. If I suddenly start making changes to the consensus code without full agreement, by all means take away my commit privileges. (a major reason for the ongoing libconsensus work is to separate "Bitcoin Core, the node software" and "The Bitcoin Consensus" along clear lines, to avoid this kind of nasty confusion) Wladimir -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVgqfOAAoJEHSBCwEjRsmmFT8H/Rkm29AhLhT8R1Vx8oKUIzID +NB7tOps3lIilkDQIC5zHSknx5iugrrAdRf1w7qPj/o8+xhCZw9ruu8eIq+djkRQ tvzbHil2pqgT3VHriRlY4lvlmu2NmBcYrAuX9sDhUHBo6cwGajfKMJPfE0haK3K4 7EmfdGXJYJmiBnhE6ikOiU687M2WgsmIGrBDIxeA5wYwVK9Ph8hfcbuj7AHvIMI9 ZNU/V6uhcTjn5wT+6DHGIOxHipYHyAwKb7jKho0XkM6Yi4ORe1mxF5HDtqA0ztta mZPNjNrt/ngK20xRbqkb0GtxoyZq38ZF3Bq1gaWl2v9MBBMD5ZxQAvgCNUQFEo0= =W26K -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----