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 9A0DC95D for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 02:48:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-yw0-f178.google.com (mail-yw0-f178.google.com [209.85.161.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB81812F for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 02:48:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-f178.google.com with SMTP id a12so4288876ywh.3 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 19:48:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=R4lY36ur9MZnPaQdo+dcDXoHfiSzRbYBfhdeY+Gs05k=; b=sTkIMudaes6o+RcQJNdjMNoalsUKMfU7teL/nfUhn6WGwgoyYMX9/cU9bRim9L5iS1 4PT5sg7apTksrDZupxNJVDvKSOENeckqaPPtabls3EL+c5FgHr7vzLIgdg488qAotfk0 plRtCo7RerS/ccV5eY4d4MhAFsJF1YQA9FRB1oCC22fr6/Aszt6htX9o+BZ/3Gse/hKN uwtfZB8n3iZtPdjYSeosX+lyfQrhu6OHM90r761Cd+J537IrrrYkA6gU3UQ3bg6hL6Li yuBW7Wbre5ZeJkdvR15Ezm12nnhOgWNfQgU8r62yqnzz0RRslZVTlXmgzn1lRqaIFrki zOCQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=R4lY36ur9MZnPaQdo+dcDXoHfiSzRbYBfhdeY+Gs05k=; b=NRr8Cm9tj34LJICYeuEveFi2/1kGolEfmghIEUKYoJaViMvAH40JrqNs2WO1B0iJJQ O87dF2n0aYXA5jkh7zl3XxQ8kR0+DMiyOd5fcJbnI60BJRof4yQikJYtPVSezdLmfGuY 1bnsYQqza0EH5lkIwBdY6LYmCvYm8NqenWXa3g4e16YR1mMyAGWShtuxEt888wipVCAk YyLth0FB0tF5W2kxWWDze707ywQb40QPoKVIPdrds2VntTzwFF8Ev4lwqOxrloHvNQAg 2mf8wZxf5GxhiPEnkJE+WzYBYV5kEVmG9npXT9jWo5kRApqCnSB62Y7/NGsyQLnLBA3i beQQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw110wNrDbX93ub/PSsNCuu+YN/JAYkRVBR+lmvc+xx1K6yPB3GeaP 8Vj4XvbvVrL0j5A8FLmuivRGbFssFg== X-Received: by 10.129.76.72 with SMTP id z69mr862880ywa.251.1499827719095; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 19:48:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.129.71.4 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 19:48:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <001b20f2-1f33-3484-8ad2-1420ae1a2df5@gmail.com> References: <0119661e-a11a-6d4b-c9ec-fd510bd4f144@gmail.com> <1c1d06a9-2e9f-5b2d-42b7-d908ada4b09e@gmail.com> <001b20f2-1f33-3484-8ad2-1420ae1a2df5@gmail.com> From: Bryan Bishop Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:48:38 -0500 Message-ID: To: Paul Sztorc , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Bryan Bishop Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 02:50:03 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 02:48:40 -0000 On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev wrote: > it, etc. But I am not willing to press the issue. Some of your other > comments I also find confusing but there is little to be gained in > clarifying them. ) To me it looked as if I was reading an email that was making a bunch of points about how bitcoin development can't be coordinated and how things would be broken if it were to be coordinated ("high authority edicts"). There was a lot of harm caused by calling that 2015 email a roadmap. Somehow-- and there's no way to figure out how this happened I guess- people started putting timeline commitments to different features. But there's really no way to guarantee any of those timelines. And I think it's very quick to reach the point of unethical to advocate a perspective that there's guarantee to things will happen according to that timeline in the standard bitcoin development model. I think there's already such a huge amount of public misunderstanding around how bitcoin development works that giving guarantees even as a community would further increase the misunderstandings. > Generally, I still think that the roadmap was a helpful communication > device, which did more good than harm. And I am interested in hearing > what other people think. I think generally communicating about research directions and projects is useful and valuable, and I don't see any disagreement about that in itself from anyone in this thread. I recommend an abundance of caution with regards to whether to call these efforts roadmaps. >> Come now, this is needlessly insulting. I would have made the same >> comment if you had talked to me because you didn't talk to most/all of >> Matt Corallo, Wladimir, Pieter Wuille, Alex Morcos, etc.... e.g. the >> people doing most of the work of actually building the system. Before >> making that comment I went and checked with people to find out if only >> I was left out. Talking to Adam (who isn't involved in the project) >> and Luke-jr (who is but is well known for frustratingly extreme >> minority positions and also contracts for Blockstream sometimes) isn't > > Let me try to explain my point of view. I did speak to several people, > in addition to the two names that I privately volunteered to you when > you had done no research (you failed to uncover any additional names), Well I mean he did look at some of the people putting the most effort into bitcoin development. Why would he start at the other end of the list as a rough check..? > suggested that, other than yourself and a few others, no one is > qualified even to write a first draft of a summary of present day Those suggestions were mixed with strong avocado that summaries are good, coupled with recommendations that these aren't really roadmaps. As to qualifying from where knowledge is sourced, yeah it seems like talking with developers is a good idea, it seems everyone agrees with that in this thread. > activities. This response is typical of the hostile review environment > which has existed in Bitcoin for years (I am more than used to it). If Well, to the extent that criticism is being misinterpreted as hostile, I have seen people get upset from basic security review because "why were't we more friendly and just say OK instead of pointing out the problems". - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507