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 0AE6383D for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 13:41:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pd0-f172.google.com (mail-pd0-f172.google.com [209.85.192.172]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 820D9137 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 13:41:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pdcu2 with SMTP id u2so53843831pdc.3 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 06:41:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=xJZXQPqkoxN7lPbrZxaWvhQABTPlh+7Ld/5i1tMaaRQ=; b=QhLOvyab20PKxlz8GHgTTlOiMoGDcGU+rzCSizwcQySEVcgf2xcBIEKWl8uWcJJcZc gpWQfuEhrbb39fDI0zuMQssT4pR0PxC22MOpnPgAz6Q7Rzk9UcjMhDuHvpW2HWh7S7PC yFfddUdnFP2Lv0EnY07rz24yNaNlt53f+2F5wBWfAAphv8Mx+twJox627656dJFo0W+/ YHuOXQKoS/6OB4+2EhfOSu3+0OXKB/WHRicbT/XMNRRWap0vMclbP0wvHWjIH7MpJtv9 04nOAZEEI0v98lwD9mFXmua8jCdNS16OUG+1uokW9FD1CQzsGcf/z9y5tf2ZV7sVWpiO L1Cg== X-Received: by 10.69.19.161 with SMTP id gv1mr90041141pbd.21.1435239675212; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 06:41:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.102] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com. [76.167.237.202]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id go5sm30138729pbd.36.2015.06.25.06.41.03 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 25 Jun 2015 06:41:04 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BAF567DA-0AAA-4C33-82EE-720314ECC0C9"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6 From: Eric Lombrozo In-Reply-To: <558C03F1.70603@sky-ip.org> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 06:41:01 -0700 Message-Id: <53DED62D-6645-464A-998F-C31464FD0C1A@gmail.com> References: <558B4632.8080504@bitcoins.info> <558C03F1.70603@sky-ip.org> To: s7r@sky-ip.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,URIBL_BLACK autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process and Votes 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: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 13:41:16 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_BAF567DA-0AAA-4C33-82EE-720314ECC0C9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Wladimir is doing an amazing job under difficult circumstances. Give the = guy a break, please. - Eric Lombrozo > On Jun 25, 2015, at 6:36 AM, s7r wrote: >=20 > I guess you mean Wladimir here. You are wrong, Wladimir does decide = and > if you look at the commit history on github.com for bitcoin core you > will see, that he does actually decide and does it really good. >=20 > He just does not want to decide (and he really should not) on = CONSENSUS > changes or protocol changes. This is totally different. >=20 > Stop the analogy with "other open source projects". This is an open > source project (the code part) but unlike any other open source = projects > which can just be forked, without affecting the other users, in = bitcoin > we need all the users to trust a single blockchain, so it'll have = value. > If some users fork the blockchain and change consensus rules, they are > not just harming themselves, they are affecting ALL the users, since > such a thing would have strong impact over the BTC/FIAT rate, = affecting > everyone in the ecosystem. There is economics involved here and human > element, things which are hard to fix via code, even if the code is > developed in open source style. >=20 > It's one thing to decide to merge some patches, improve the code, etc. > and another thing to decide for consensus rules when you literary play > with 4 billion united states dollars of other people's money. This > shouldn't be Wladimir's responsibility, it's just unfair for people to > throw this on his shoulders. >=20 > I do not under any circumstances suggest that the consensus should > remain as it is now forever. We need to improve it, but this should = not > be on the maintainer. I've seen smart suggestions on this mail list > where consensus changes can be made during a long period of time, > through soft forks, where all users/miners/exchangers/merchants get = the > chance to choose / take action. >=20 > On 6/25/2015 3:07 AM, Milly Bitcoin wrote: >> I have seen this question asked many times. Most developers become >> defensive and they usually give a very vague 1-sentence answer when = this >> question is asked. It seems to be it is based on personalities = rather >> than any kind of definable process. To have that discussion the >> personalities must be separated out and answers like "such-and-such >> wouldn't do that" don't really do much to advance the discussion. = Also, >> the incentive for new developers to come in is that they will be paid = by >> companies who want to influence the code and this should be = considered >> (some developers take this statement as an insult when it is just a >> statement of the incentive process). >>=20 >> The other problem you are having is the lead developer does not want = to >> be a "decider" when, in fact, he is a very significant decider. = While >> the users have the ultimate choice in a practical sense the chief >> developer is the "decider." Now people don't want to get him upset = so >> nobody wants to push the issue or fully define the process. Now you = are >> left with a broken, unwritten/unspoken process. While this type of >> thing may work with a small group of developers businesses/investors >> looking in from the outside will see this as a risk. >>=20 >> Until you get passed all the personality-based arguments you are = going >> to have a tough time defining a real process. >>=20 >> Russ >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> On 6/24/2015 7:41 PM, Raystonn wrote: >>> I would like to start a civil discussion on an undefined, or at = least >>> unwritten, portion of the BIP process. Who should get to vote on >>> approval to commit a BIP implementation into Bitcoin Core? Is a >>> simple majority of these voters sufficient for approval? If not, = then >>> what is? >>>=20 >>> Raystonn >>> _______________________________________________ >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --Apple-Mail=_BAF567DA-0AAA-4C33-82EE-720314ECC0C9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVjATtAAoJEJNAI64YFENUfIsP/37ezA7UyMMjuekY6lRaB25k a79vogIeJXstDjUejV4+6m0pyLR5VPHeF7WPI4nU2ocvZ4fTtG3ygrti3s7E2Mty AoC22WfXvDQQINIsoxdMgjNFWVIz575dFEXfVeJGggQ0Yw9C15fuw5giY3UvxBNW PgvjmbzHz0fUwjqmDPTsMuTiE7Q4VZJsjFO+UgF1Y5fWCkUvEn6BZisazKN1tsyU ZmSSlbzYqacDXj1wOFcDsHuzhMQ8OxIVKIR/g06ihMi4rsxOHxro4Gtl5rVkrTrj DrT9y8eAxOxuc4b6pUPWxUyYVFLSF78jEDR/RvehRbAlRwwpSlxV3etis+78SsyF qbzYuCkQdvR8pz60KXHS8QnRtHMWvbJlOLsB7y8vGAquRkwawx/5ukiOMjwpcdsw VEBsjoxQtkunO+spf0g2LTImCw1Iql1/UrFCXRNH1GxTLxTkZ/Zb3j9LdIvXlAzR m6AcjX9SRaFUeg67zrgzOEQI3BnJmZhKfx+XuRRp8RP6A+zku88JlkWXXTm+5rYu vqHTEZ6M3Baf/c63A4GlG7n4ZvgO/FTjQzlA896OUFo3eg4D5bRhIrIp8Qr5yWds g3ffq3GwHaPhNE/xESW76ezgi9rK9c4vB2VB2LxWV+a+jV26dff81n0onUhJdO+k RlxixxLlvgAPSHV1ya0G =E4BJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_BAF567DA-0AAA-4C33-82EE-720314ECC0C9--