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 CAAF168 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:59:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lb0-f176.google.com (mail-lb0-f176.google.com [209.85.217.176]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 108DEEA for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:59:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lbbpu9 with SMTP id pu9so119609306lbb.3 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 01:59:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=m+Ncf/hFdZ6kVjvauMfzsdEzgp7PjPqPsONRUUQdbCA=; b=QBwbxMTW82D6MP7+v9rDpOpaLYLUNWvtRnkejqYh15Kpody13h+uitF6bffeWGH/zb +8UNZ63rl6Kr9u0NIDc+S66iM9IoXQ+kwBewUco/nSYvnYiGthlECT87dA4J3nw9qWVK BPlbfTE954/qk6jNKDza1JHOn277jy57T9BAySy/BN/Mgpe5oIIf+HcwLmp8xUHqpONZ aWcNLBzwavnvbUYmGHCHg9nZXzDgL8ntUvCto+/gGxGax3hdO+cuSPDd3zWm0anIeBTN byIgvErMgU+OekDxLdz3zbAGBpPz9+PgvwQH1o3PT1MICEU6PoZZ6agji55IR7zBuMhL Cyuw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm8ACiWyyFlcVXMNHznCvnwU2d8VgjdMG5MdU3Am294fYHNS5zGPoaLCO4W+mtREa3KHveu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.156.168 with SMTP id wf8mr10345730lbb.114.1439974793252; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 01:59:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.15.22 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 01:59:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:59:53 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Btc Drak Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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: [bitcoin-dev] Separated bitcoin-consensus mailing list (was Re: Bitcoin XT Fork) 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: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:59:55 -0000 On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev 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?