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 C6A901ADF for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 23:06:09 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.help.org (mail.help.org [70.90.2.18]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 450D112D for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 23:06:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.1.10.25] (Unknown [10.1.10.25]) by mail.help.org with ESMTPA ; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 19:06:05 -0400 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <5612ACF3.2080006@gmail.com> <5570C084-0C2D-4B79-A78E-B25699600EA9@gmx.com> From: Milly Bitcoin Message-ID: <5613024F.7010309@bitcoins.info> Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 19:05:51 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 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] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate 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: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 23:06:09 -0000 On 10/5/2015 6:56 PM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev wrote: > There is no development gridlock. Look at the IRC logs for core-dev; > Please desist from this intellectual dishonesty and toxicity. A system where anyone can veto a change promotes gridlock. Most people not on the devlpoment team see the block size debate as "gridlock." Much like "spam" "attack" and "decentralized" everyone has their own definition so arguing over it is generally pointless. Russ