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 8522610CC for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 23:18:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f44.google.com (mail-pa0-f44.google.com [209.85.220.44]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17B2EAF for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 23:18:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pacfv12 with SMTP id fv12so193624494pac.2 for ; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 16:18:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:date:to:message-id; bh=L8VJd5M3BeUcLIsBn9sDjrCBNKDhf7orTqmaZ1vSkMk=; b=rx7Zo/onVLTX3JnOV5aAnoABaEdfj5QP+pfQ9n10BNQnHL/8jJzp6RW5dEhexEZbn1 jedX20bRhwoaj78HcBBTuxgsNJbMdkH4piEzgZI3nnpg3gs+PuvSd4T5Tz2tHfm1U5p/ r2jd4n8I9RSb7xngZsVAws3pVlJemR+0UmgyshEbt0dWyyrsva0tZ6U1phWi2C3+TTvy KLp4/pwT/uy7T+sPlyKRRWJSY3+l8UZHEQOIAV/KGYFKahhUt8SDq/lgQFKj5qoD2JY3 I5sViLqQ2nhpRYnpZWEnC8nSp/Hc6bst4hE27hxmoUz4/7e92wEBXTGh8dxoXUXxR3SZ UZiA== X-Received: by 10.68.234.200 with SMTP id ug8mr43483672pbc.13.1444087094744; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 16:18:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com. [76.167.237.202]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id tp6sm29578901pbc.81.2015.10.05.16.18.13 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 05 Oct 2015 16:18:14 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----YDBUJLN64BWVMADQEHCOGQJF0ITCN8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Eric Lombrozo Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 16:18:12 -0700 To: Sergio Demian Lerner , Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev , bitcoin-dev Message-ID: <82F8B78A-2031-4ADE-B882-DBE68D5AD7AD@gmail.com> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 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 23:18:15 -0000 ------YDBUJLN64BWVMADQEHCOGQJF0ITCN8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I agree with you, Sergio, up until the part about someone having won a battle. There's a difference between sincere technical objections and someone just being a dick. I think in this case this line has been crossed (and I don't think I'm alone here). - Eric On October 5, 2015 8:56:33 AM PDT, 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 -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. ------YDBUJLN64BWVMADQEHCOGQJF0ITCN8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I agree with you, Sergio, up until the part about someone having won a battle. There's a difference between sincere technical objections and someone just being a dick. I think in this case this line has been crossed (and I don't think I'm alone here).

- Eric

On October 5, 2015 8:56:33 AM PDT, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. ------YDBUJLN64BWVMADQEHCOGQJF0ITCN8--