public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Separated bitcoin-consensus mailing list (was Re: Bitcoin XT Fork)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:59:53 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABm2gDpYdBjyCB=Dor0eE-FdPv9PbVXzWyJf0BPyQ4SDm9VznQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I see no problem with Satoshi returning to participate in peer review.
> Bitcoin development has long since migrated from a single authority figure
> to a system of technical peer review consensus. What is more of a problem is
> this list has degenerated to a generalised discussion forum where any
> academic or technical debate is drowned out by noise.
>
> I joined this list so I keep be abreast of bitcoin's technical development
> and proposals. I am sure many ecosystem stakeholders and participants also
> once used this list to keep abreast of technical developments and academic
> research. It would be splendid indeed if we could return to some semblance
> of decorum that once existed.
>
> Do you think we could have a "bitcoin-discuss" list where specifically
> non-technical discussion can happen leaving this list for more academic and
> technical debate together with setting a clear mandate about what is on
> topic for this list?

Apparently that existed already: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/
But technical people run away from noise while non-technical people
chase them wherever their voices sounds more loud.

One thing that I would like though, is separating Bitcoin
Core-specific development from general bips and consensus discussions.
I know, the bitcoin-consensus mailing list will probably still be
noisy, but at least we will have a non-noisy one and the ability to
say things like "Bitcoin Core's default policy is off-topic in
bitcoin-consensus" in the noisy one...
Also developers of alternative implementations may not be interested
in Bitcoin Core-specific things, so they may want to subscribe to
bitcoin-consensus and unsubscribe from bitcoin-dev.

I already told this to some people and everybody seemed to be positive
about this change, at most sometimes skeptics about the potential
benefits.

Thoughts?


             reply	other threads:[~2015-08-19  8:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-08-19  8:59 Jorge Timón [this message]
2015-08-19  9:58 ` [bitcoin-dev] Separated bitcoin-consensus mailing list (was Re: Bitcoin XT Fork) Btc Drak
2015-08-19 10:21   ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-19 14:20   ` Jeff Garzik
2015-08-19 18:47     ` Btc Drak
2015-08-19 19:28       ` Warren Togami Jr.
2015-08-19 23:16         ` Dave Scotese
2015-08-19 23:44           ` NxtChg
2015-08-20  0:14             ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-20  0:21 ` Bryan Bishop

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CABm2gDpYdBjyCB=Dor0eE-FdPv9PbVXzWyJf0BPyQ4SDm9VznQ@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=jtimon@jtimon.cc \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=btcdrak@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox