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 3C2E014F1 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 21:26:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f194.google.com (mail-ig0-f194.google.com [209.85.213.194]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C103B87 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 21:26:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igcpb10 with SMTP id pb10so11326886igc.2 for ; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 14:26:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=WXakWoyFsFoZu23PNXndv58cfdcpxpiVHvWffPXH3+s=; b=pJJK0NAkQPHY7UEs9g948Gg7t29ThG30tVTpe6hUNm3Ld4VBDd/shHxfG970znbMpp cmqMKwXg0ufNldhFBiZYMhhS15S7UE2uGFc7fXMvinsbLQoMRaWhGuGunxX2deq3ScNM S3hxS2wK5OdDcQ/fjxyn7gK762aE0UrUV65CLq5hUvGPWm3zXi5Efq7iNGSuKOPIO1xy KfXhb1mZgnrh/48AoFYKC2UE+NaL60K7+8NbxzVJDSypVSGaCz44XH/Y1EnSOxZYjg9y WGwncm+zvcmr9hThk3pZGfIyplMLxNPUrPMCsNp914jGm4+49cDeCFSAEn/scxYhmoN+ pDlQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.23.80 with SMTP id k16mr12316910igf.62.1444080361328; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 14:26:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.19.30 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 14:26:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1819769.E416F0XigG@garp> References: <2081461.sDX5ARzIdv@garp> <1819769.E416F0XigG@garp> Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 21:26:01 +0000 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Tom Zander Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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 21:26:02 -0000 On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Monday 5. October 2015 20.56.34 Gregory Maxwell wrote: >> (In this case, I don't even believe we have any regulator >> contributors that disagree). > > Regular contributor? > > Please explain how for a fork in the protocol should you only listen to > regular Bitcoin Core contributors? I'm providing some perspective and scope-- referencing again your comment about following actions-- what element of the many dozens of responses suggests to you that _anyone_ is not being listened to? While I'm sure its not intended; your selective editing ends up butchering the meaning---- I pointed out that there have been disputes, even ones involving regular contributors (and, implicitly, that I'm not lying by omission in not mentioning that the dispute was a joke or from someone well known to attack Bitcoin) or-- in other words, evidence that the disagreement was not less meaningful than what you're talking about here. That's all, sorry I was unclear again. Did you see in my message that I invited you to take a look for examples-- I think they're easily found and you would find it informative. I really recommend spending some time looking.