From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z5aS5-0007BB-A0 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 14:05:57 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.212.170 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.170; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f170.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com ([209.85.212.170]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z5aS1-0006Fn-9d for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 14:05:57 +0000 Received: by wicnd19 with SMTP id nd19so61736487wic.1 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 07:05:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.83.40 with SMTP id n8mr28582490wiy.57.1434636347265; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 07:05:47 -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 v3sm13280056wix.8.2015.06.18.07.05.46 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 18 Jun 2015 07:05:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 16:05:45 +0200 From: "Wladimir J. van der Laan" To: Mike Hearn Message-ID: <20150618140544.GA7674@amethyst.visucore.com> References: <55828737.6000007@riseup.net> <20150618111407.GA6690@amethyst.visucore.com> 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: -1.3 (-) 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 0.3 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1Z5aS1-0006Fn-9d 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 14:05:57 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 03:49:06PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote: > One reason I keep banging on about *process* and how Wladimir needs to be > The Decider is that the current attempt at "process" is so vague, not only > is it unexplainable, but it's wide open to manipulation. It looks as if you entirely missed my point. I'm The Decider for *code issues* regarding Bitcoin Core. Consensus issues should not be considered part of that, they span multiple implementations. So I'm *not* the decider for anything that concerns the behavior of the global consensus, and I cannot be, as I have explained in the previous post, and as Sipa explained in his. Speaking of process, let me remind you that there is a BIP processs: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0001.mediawiki If you think it's not clear enough, which may explain why you did not even attempt to follow it for your block size increase, feel free to make improvements. Wladimir -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVgtAOAAoJEHSBCwEjRsmmLPUH/1ug5pvLz6ptIhvuROclV7Jh z0Szk5FOqfg4ejT3nYV5LRV5WNHUGDdFnHZJRFsKYH9B0LFgOlnkc488Qg6hBb+1 rf5zEF/D2X4MhPIx6GqI++gvhDzdBH2t9yxbU7LVZALo7+wtW+ms5eHHFs8WrU0z m7NgiZRen4cpQUiBWHlt0PojmXBVZQNU0CD6ErcOpQXhN8J0sb0l0DuFswQgUqxk rrNe3LvKp89xT0kDxyzQts/CeIG/8kQYLwIJ1QQDXvYayj2aHHYMkSEWfDlew3IC zQkFgHCTGihGHPFeow+dnuW1DI1l92yPYNDLbxivSam3X+qCAGzUTOWTFE+iprk= =tE4K -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----