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 51D1C1621 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 20:56:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f181.google.com (mail-ig0-f181.google.com [209.85.213.181]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2ACB1DF for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 20:56:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igxx6 with SMTP id x6so66766853igx.1 for ; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 13:56:34 -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=9bJ1AvF4yv5fSL4gGPwyC1QbHTIwJagl4BHbTR0AajA=; b=Bmmpfh0gYkHt2voeLIfL81NO842LpzwlaeSL/8fW6Hb9dzANuAtftvT6PL6aEqXZRr BsGSNLK94dYItASbZ4UKKsRVqYWuaiVV74vtfiBovCFRLVkhANpWmnDkijSZO6VuXr1t KM1IgUPx/xHUe3wuCVcSRQiWJDgtXZhvwADuInWTKwnIwyY304tQGXzDVFEiojawR6jW l9x/g4q/ZipkIfmQpBWQVanG0xJTq7GW3kvRGhO+m9G/5Zo+pBTyjykBrkAmJp9waP74 5WH7dsl94JX8yS4rKFIpdmy5+PKYSOXlUFcKIAc4fpP2XlZBnPIXqPOHiTzcHOEN8E1+ 7xLg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.62.227 with SMTP id b3mr11392668igs.48.1444078594513; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 13:56:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.19.30 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 13:56:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2081461.sDX5ARzIdv@garp> References: <1489086.kGfJeeyi4a@garp> <2081461.sDX5ARzIdv@garp> Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 20:56:34 +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 20:56:35 -0000 On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Fortunately I can say that while we certainly value your opinion, when peoples > opinions are hard to read, as you indicated they can be, we should look at > their actions. The group has followed the consensus rule quite rigorously, > which I applaud. What "consensus rule" do you refer to? Indeed, I suggest you look to actions-- it's not hard to find changes in Bitcoin Core that one contributor or another disliked. Did you try? (In this case, I don't even believe we have any regulator contributors that disagree). -- even for changes that effected system consensus, in fact. These things were not hard-forks, however, as there never has been one (+/- terminology disputes); and part of the point I was making was that the standard for that is different, and that these differences begin with technological fundamentals.