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 5DF441AFC for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 17:39:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:10:22 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.bihthai.net (unknown [5.255.87.244]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70E48261 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 17:39:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.8.0.6] (unknown [10.8.0.6]) by mail.bihthai.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 888EC80666; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 17:28:39 +0000 (UTC) Reply-To: venzen@mail.bihthai.net References: To: Sergio Demian Lerner , Bitcoin Dev From: Venzen Khaosan Openpgp: id=9BF4C669F5A36817CD2465186C0086541CF07D66; url=pool.sks-keyservers.net X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Organization: Bihthai Bai Mai Message-ID: <561404C5.80705@mail.bihthai.net> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 00:28:37 +0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no 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: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 17:39:06 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Sergio Demain, You and I have had our altercation, in private, about your assumptions of authority in this community. That was fine when you told me "for fuck's sake" on IRC. I'm a man and I made you see your error and apologize for your trespass. Now, you present me and the list with an interpretation of some higher goal that an obviously low-level participant, Mike Hearn, is actioning here. No. What you espouse is not what Hearn had premeditated. It all happened in your mind. "Agent" (quoting popular media) Hearn is a compulsive contrarian and has a verifiable track record of opposing and arguing against consensus wherever he endevors. According to Snowden, he did harm to the public and to colleagues vis-a-vis NSA surveillance while he held office at Google and he is doing the same via XT. He is no longer at Google - supposedly by free will. I would venture, from his own stated goals, that he is in Bitcoin in search of a salary, even though he displays a fundamental lack of understanding of Open Source methodology and ideology. And a misconception of Bitcoin's ability to scale. The self-proclaimed glory of bitcoinj is a false and empty claim. I have had to code my nodes to ignore bitjoinj because of its disregard for protocol policy. For numerous reasons they are more of an irritant than a positive presence on the network. You, Lerner, not having an issue with his fallacious position and actions, speaks about you, too. But you "have nothing for or against Mike personally" so he's just another participant, regardless of his behavior and track record, then you give him a thumbs up? Many, maybe a majority, including Satoshi, have expressed deplorement of O'Hearn and Andresen. With or without Satoshi you can see the terminal consensus breach these two populists had engaged in for yourself. Please answer me and the list how their action does not warrant rejection from the community? Yet, for the rest of list members: Agent Hearn, a known co-operative, shows up with challenges and you respond as if to an equal? A former head-man, before things fell apart, now an accomplice of Agent Hearn, Andresen, sprays criticism and you dutifully answer, as if to a Big Man? Who is he? That self-proclaimed grumpy old-timer? "Run to Google benchmarks" and there you go. Google? Come on! This is the man who broke the fundamental consensus rule and now he's got you introducing Google dependencies into Bitcoin? You're OK with that? Go to XT, you won't find me or anyone in the community objecting to you and Gavin playing with Google and all sorts of prefab code there. Sergio, don't presume to tell me or the list what another man is saying or what rhythmless jive he's playing. Like everyone here, I have eyes to see and a mind to comprehend: Hearn is not capable of the double-play you imply. Nor are you, for that matter. So, thanks for cutting the cake and showing your true colors, but best you don't speak for someone else. Speak for yourself so everything is clear and allegiances don't taint you and whatever you may want to speak, for yourself, later. On 10/05/2015 10:56 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Some of the people on this mailing list are blindly discussing the > technicalities of a soft/hard fork without realizing that is not > Mike's main intention. At least I perceive (and maybe others too) > something else is happening. > > Let me try to clarify: the discussion has nothing to do with > technical arguments. I generally like more hard forks than soft > forks (but I won't explain why because this is not a technical > thread), but for CLTV this is quite irrelevant (but I won't explain > why..), and I want CLTV to be deployed asap. > > Mike's intention is to criticize the informal governance model of > Bitcoin Core development and he has strategically pushed the > discussion to a dead-end where the group either: > > 1) ignores him, which is against the established criteria that all > technical objections coming from anyone must be addressed until > that person agrees, so that a change can be uncontroversial. If the > group moves forward with the change, then the "uncontroversial" > criteria is violated and then credibility is lost. So a new > governance model would be required for which the change is within > the established rules. > > 2) respond to his technical objections one after the other, on > never ending threads, bringing the project to a standstill. > > As I don't want 2) to happen, then 1) must happen, which is what > Mike wants. I have nothing for or against Mike personally. I just > think Mike Hearn has won this battle. But having a more formal > decision making process may not be too bad for Bitcoin, maybe it > can actually be good. > > Best regards from a non-developer to my dearest developer friends, > Sergio. > > > > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing > list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWFATEAAoJEGwAhlQc8H1mlBgH/288r/v0J0FFj2HukN3l4YLj 5+2d4WRJk/r4jfTUQvBiinmEph0cNuY8gtCYssCsipiOe5Ep0k8oQ3Jd/KWx0fIn v7eCRzHBLkPTDHd7gnrGSnIsHy1xpO7MGM79ROMOMjoQJUZqborxSxRfJVt5Mdqo bxMcDL0n+tJbKa4dbmjLtARH6EbTIWvE7kKh8c5ZHbLkXTOPSt6gCL9GKSVM+i1u mlF1m1TEBLSq4jQ2WJk/8aHHbN5IQr2KzpAEneP3tKqSvl/33b2oaW42LVKbxk95 kDnbtKrBChrHGbLeQ/SRb9NADmvIcnDim4NviphsEarPdl/9OyTW36x2u1j0Slk= =zgDh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----