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 5D3F3305 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 19:04:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com (mail-pa0-f41.google.com [209.85.220.41]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DB85118 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 19:04:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pabvl15 with SMTP id vl15so54780485pab.1 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 12:04:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=+STOkq2uiu6lRU5ubSkgK6QCUuGWstGGDbggF5LLsvQ=; b=P6KohTNDDCI+wdkgx6nS7jEG5V25JokBYruYKIN9LEI7AL0zqW9lbfX041KNpEm8cI yYiyydi/kJKCT4Hi7/cR7JizqBx/ak4q9ofcPGh5QpQaKHdkDNPfTBD4lJMZZgrymd1A efRMDLBPMy8P9eDRxn8tUmyPf3pXIVl9moCC+7kVVtfSGDqiU0e3FTa03CZdTnfxHJLJ MqQ9RiNpBnt1Rr6kjCpOwI8tmuRlKwK87TKva/cGMYzamDF/UCBxb9NxcCBAAl48ldSw BAIEtO9Cx+fMx2pd1EuH8TzNead4FTizdhQxS9XVWMEcdaqhqouf6DVEYsmEyMnyz2mt /uow== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmqSZIXjwz9uesaHVTPmzJ7zVvfS53KphFtUOvPNeNiKHllNImRNDch7QzuqLDxFBrlUVRC X-Received: by 10.68.186.35 with SMTP id fh3mr2704569pbc.62.1435259091643; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 12:04:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.100.1.239] ([204.58.254.99]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id kh6sm30802809pbc.50.2015.06.25.12.04.49 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 25 Jun 2015 12:04:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <558C509D.4010804@thinlink.com> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 12:03:57 -0700 From: Tom Harding User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Raystonn References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.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 19:04:52 -0000 On 6/24/2015 8:00 PM, Raystonn wrote: > > > Consensus-code changes are unanimous. They must be. > > Excellent. Now we are getting to some actual written rules. How about > updating the BIP process documentation with this? Everyone should be > able to read the rules of the coin they are buying. > > One moment though. Can you tell me how this particular rule came to > be? The creator of Bitcoin violated this rule many times. So it must > have been adopted after his departure. What process was followed to > adopt this new rule? Was there consensus for it at the time? A huge > portion of the user community is under the impression that Satoshi's > written plans, some of which violate this new rule, will be > implemented. So there certainly would not be consensus for this rule > today. > Great question; very fair. I, for one, eagerly await Mark's answer. I hope nobody forgot to tell adversaries totally outside the open source ecosystem what the rules for hard forking changes are. The Chinese miners have it right - we have to work together. If you want to see who's trying, look at who has written a concrete BIP/code vs. who hasn't; who has made changes in response to feedback, and who hasn't.