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

[Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>]

On Monday 5. October 2015 21.26.01 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
> 
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Monday 5. October 2015 20.56.34 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> >>  (In this case, I don't even believe we have any regulator
> >> 
> >> contributors that disagree).
> > 
> > Regular contributor?
> > 
> > Please explain how for a fork in the protocol should you only listen to
> > regular Bitcoin Core contributors?
> 
> I'm providing some perspective and scope-- referencing again your
> comment about following actions-- what element of the many dozens of
> responses suggests to you that _anyone_ is not being listened to?

Have you ever been at a meeting where you didn't feel like you were being 
listened to?
You get comments like;
 «I respond to the technical arguments not because I believe they are
 earnestly motivated, but because they provide an avenue for learning for
 myself and others.»

 «"there is no gridlock here» After several respected members stated there is
 disagreement.

 «That Mike himself continues to misexplain things is not surprising since he
 has all but outright said that »[snip]  Which is putting words in the mouth 
of someone you disagree with.


But what really gives a lot of people here the suggestion that members of the 
community that are against the softfork are not being listened to is the 
simple undeniable fact that an alternative or a remedy is not even considered.
There is no code. There is no question posted by the authors which flags to 
use.

Actions speak much louder than words. Read the topic of this thread!
The actions show a disregard for the many objections.  Consensus is not build 
by repeating again and again the arguments that you belief will convince your 
debate-opponent. It is about reaching a middle ground. If either side of the 
debate refuses to budge from their position, you have gridlock.

What came of the request made to PeterT to document the risks and required 
changes in wallets should this soft fork continue?

Why is it soo bad to use a hardfork (with proper voting) instead of a softfork 
that we are in a place that the Bitcoin Core team is willing to throw out a 
lot of goodwill and show their true colours in hundreds of mails that leave 
the opposing side of this debate feeling ignored and left out?


I don't feel specifically unique or special. Nobody needs to reply to this 
email. I don't claim peoples time.

All I'm doing is spelling out what has been living in the back of my head, and 
with me a great deal of others, about how this is playing out.

If you choose to ignore this and you force a softfork, I belief you may be 
surprised at how many active players in the Bitcoin marketplace may see that 
the "Bitcoin Core" team is not an ally any longer.
It is good to remember that the graveyards are filled with people that 
believed to be unreplaceable.
Bitcoin will go on.

Have a nice day!