[bitcoin-dev] bitcoin-dev list etiquette

[bitcoin-dev] bitcoin-dev list etiquette

[Alex Morcos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1357 bytes --]

This is a message that I wrote and had hoped that all the core devs would
sign on to, but I failed to finish organizing it.  So I'll just say it from
myself.

There has been a valuable discussion over the last several months regarding
a hard fork with respect to block size.  However the sheer volume of email
and proportion of discussion that is more philosophical than technical has
rendered this list almost unusable for its primary purpose of technical
discussion related to Bitcoin development.  Many of us share the blame for
letting the discourse run off topic to such a degree, and we hope that an
appeal for individual self restraint will allow this list to return to a
higher signal-to-noise ratio.
-Please consider the degree to which any email you send is related to
technical development before sending it.
-Please consider how many emails you are sending to this list regarding the
same topic.
This list is not appropriate for an endless back and forth debate on the
philosophical underpinnings of Bitcoin.  Although such a debate may be
worthwhile it should be taken to another forum for discussion.  Every email
you send is received by hundreds of developers who value their time as much
as you value yours.  If your intended audience isn't really the majority of
them, perhaps private communication would be more appropriate.

Thanks,
Alex

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1805 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin-dev list etiquette

[Eric Lombrozo]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2143 bytes --]

Alex,

With all due respect, right now the biggest challenge facing Bitcoin is not technical but political. I would love to see this list go back to technical discussions, but unfortunately, until this political stuff is resolved, even technical discussion is purely philosophical as there’s little chance of actually making good progress on consensus…which in a space where everything depends on consensus pretty much makes everything else moot.

> On Aug 19, 2015, at 1:08 PM, Alex Morcos via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> This is a message that I wrote and had hoped that all the core devs would sign on to, but I failed to finish organizing it.  So I'll just say it from myself.
> 
> There has been a valuable discussion over the last several months regarding a hard fork with respect to block size.  However the sheer volume of email and proportion of discussion that is more philosophical than technical has rendered this list almost unusable for its primary purpose of technical discussion related to Bitcoin development.  Many of us share the blame for letting the discourse run off topic to such a degree, and we hope that an appeal for individual self restraint will allow this list to return to a higher signal-to-noise ratio.
> -Please consider the degree to which any email you send is related to technical development before sending it.
> -Please consider how many emails you are sending to this list regarding the same topic.
> This list is not appropriate for an endless back and forth debate on the philosophical underpinnings of Bitcoin.  Although such a debate may be worthwhile it should be taken to another forum for discussion.  Every email you send is received by hundreds of developers who value their time as much as you value yours.  If your intended audience isn't really the majority of them, perhaps private communication would be more appropriate.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alex
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3310 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 842 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin-dev list etiquette

[Eric Lombrozo]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2552 bytes --]

Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber.
- Plato

> On Aug 19, 2015, at 1:11 PM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com <mailto:elombrozo@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Alex,
> 
> With all due respect, right now the biggest challenge facing Bitcoin is not technical but political. I would love to see this list go back to technical discussions, but unfortunately, until this political stuff is resolved, even technical discussion is purely philosophical as there’s little chance of actually making good progress on consensus…which in a space where everything depends on consensus pretty much makes everything else moot.
> 
>> On Aug 19, 2015, at 1:08 PM, Alex Morcos via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> This is a message that I wrote and had hoped that all the core devs would sign on to, but I failed to finish organizing it.  So I'll just say it from myself.
>> 
>> There has been a valuable discussion over the last several months regarding a hard fork with respect to block size.  However the sheer volume of email and proportion of discussion that is more philosophical than technical has rendered this list almost unusable for its primary purpose of technical discussion related to Bitcoin development.  Many of us share the blame for letting the discourse run off topic to such a degree, and we hope that an appeal for individual self restraint will allow this list to return to a higher signal-to-noise ratio.
>> -Please consider the degree to which any email you send is related to technical development before sending it.
>> -Please consider how many emails you are sending to this list regarding the same topic.
>> This list is not appropriate for an endless back and forth debate on the philosophical underpinnings of Bitcoin.  Although such a debate may be worthwhile it should be taken to another forum for discussion.  Every email you send is received by hundreds of developers who value their time as much as you value yours.  If your intended audience isn't really the majority of them, perhaps private communication would be more appropriate.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Alex
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>
> 


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4616 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 842 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin-dev list etiquette

[Hector Chu]

Haha. Reminds me of when I asked Gavin earlier this year about whether
he cared about politics and he replied that he only cared about and
was responsible for the technicals. Little did he know he would
unwittingly become the technical enabler for Mike's political
shenanigans.

On 19 August 2015 at 21:19, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed
> by those who are dumber.
> - Plato
>
> On Aug 19, 2015, at 1:11 PM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Alex,
>
> With all due respect, right now the biggest challenge facing Bitcoin is not
> technical but political. I would love to see this list go back to technical
> discussions, but unfortunately, until this political stuff is resolved, even
> technical discussion is purely philosophical as there’s little chance of
> actually making good progress on consensus…which in a space where everything
> depends on consensus pretty much makes everything else moot.
>
> On Aug 19, 2015, at 1:08 PM, Alex Morcos via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> This is a message that I wrote and had hoped that all the core devs would
> sign on to, but I failed to finish organizing it.  So I'll just say it from
> myself.
>
> There has been a valuable discussion over the last several months regarding
> a hard fork with respect to block size.  However the sheer volume of email
> and proportion of discussion that is more philosophical than technical has
> rendered this list almost unusable for its primary purpose of technical
> discussion related to Bitcoin development.  Many of us share the blame for
> letting the discourse run off topic to such a degree, and we hope that an
> appeal for individual self restraint will allow this list to return to a
> higher signal-to-noise ratio.
> -Please consider the degree to which any email you send is related to
> technical development before sending it.
> -Please consider how many emails you are sending to this list regarding the
> same topic.
> This list is not appropriate for an endless back and forth debate on the
> philosophical underpinnings of Bitcoin.  Although such a debate may be
> worthwhile it should be taken to another forum for discussion.  Every email
> you send is received by hundreds of developers who value their time as much
> as you value yours.  If your intended audience isn't really the majority of
> them, perhaps private communication would be more appropriate.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin-dev list etiquette

[Theo Chino]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3726 bytes --]

And this is why I love Bitcoin, politics + technical = all in one.

Regards,
Theo Chino
https://www.facebook.com/groups/557495624389384 (politics in NYS about
bitcoin.)
http://frenchmorning.com/en/2014/08/18/french-robin-hood-bitcoin-new-york

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Haha. Reminds me of when I asked Gavin earlier this year about whether
> he cared about politics and he replied that he only cared about and
> was responsible for the technicals. Little did he know he would
> unwittingly become the technical enabler for Mike's political
> shenanigans.
>
> On 19 August 2015 at 21:19, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being
> governed
> > by those who are dumber.
> > - Plato
> >
> > On Aug 19, 2015, at 1:11 PM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Alex,
> >
> > With all due respect, right now the biggest challenge facing Bitcoin is
> not
> > technical but political. I would love to see this list go back to
> technical
> > discussions, but unfortunately, until this political stuff is resolved,
> even
> > technical discussion is purely philosophical as there’s little chance of
> > actually making good progress on consensus…which in a space where
> everything
> > depends on consensus pretty much makes everything else moot.
> >
> > On Aug 19, 2015, at 1:08 PM, Alex Morcos via bitcoin-dev
> > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > This is a message that I wrote and had hoped that all the core devs would
> > sign on to, but I failed to finish organizing it.  So I'll just say it
> from
> > myself.
> >
> > There has been a valuable discussion over the last several months
> regarding
> > a hard fork with respect to block size.  However the sheer volume of
> email
> > and proportion of discussion that is more philosophical than technical
> has
> > rendered this list almost unusable for its primary purpose of technical
> > discussion related to Bitcoin development.  Many of us share the blame
> for
> > letting the discourse run off topic to such a degree, and we hope that an
> > appeal for individual self restraint will allow this list to return to a
> > higher signal-to-noise ratio.
> > -Please consider the degree to which any email you send is related to
> > technical development before sending it.
> > -Please consider how many emails you are sending to this list regarding
> the
> > same topic.
> > This list is not appropriate for an endless back and forth debate on the
> > philosophical underpinnings of Bitcoin.  Although such a debate may be
> > worthwhile it should be taken to another forum for discussion.  Every
> email
> > you send is received by hundreds of developers who value their time as
> much
> > as you value yours.  If your intended audience isn't really the majority
> of
> > them, perhaps private communication would be more appropriate.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alex
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5276 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin-dev list etiquette

[Nelson Castillo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4363 bytes --]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Theo Chino via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> And this is why I love Bitcoin, politics + technical = all in one.
>

If you think developers do not talk politics go read LKML... Politics are
inevitable.
I think the "I don't know enough to code (Bitcoin) but I think that"
belongs somewhere else (This is the -dev list).


>
> Regards,
> Theo Chino
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/557495624389384 (politics in NYS about
> bitcoin.)
> http://frenchmorning.com/en/2014/08/18/french-robin-hood-bitcoin-new-york
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Haha. Reminds me of when I asked Gavin earlier this year about whether
>> he cared about politics and he replied that he only cared about and
>> was responsible for the technicals. Little did he know he would
>> unwittingly become the technical enabler for Mike's political
>> shenanigans.
>>
>> On 19 August 2015 at 21:19, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> > Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being
>> governed
>> > by those who are dumber.
>> > - Plato
>> >
>> > On Aug 19, 2015, at 1:11 PM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Alex,
>> >
>> > With all due respect, right now the biggest challenge facing Bitcoin is
>> not
>> > technical but political. I would love to see this list go back to
>> technical
>> > discussions, but unfortunately, until this political stuff is resolved,
>> even
>> > technical discussion is purely philosophical as there’s little chance of
>> > actually making good progress on consensus…which in a space where
>> everything
>> > depends on consensus pretty much makes everything else moot.
>> >
>> > On Aug 19, 2015, at 1:08 PM, Alex Morcos via bitcoin-dev
>> > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > This is a message that I wrote and had hoped that all the core devs
>> would
>> > sign on to, but I failed to finish organizing it.  So I'll just say it
>> from
>> > myself.
>> >
>> > There has been a valuable discussion over the last several months
>> regarding
>> > a hard fork with respect to block size.  However the sheer volume of
>> email
>> > and proportion of discussion that is more philosophical than technical
>> has
>> > rendered this list almost unusable for its primary purpose of technical
>> > discussion related to Bitcoin development.  Many of us share the blame
>> for
>> > letting the discourse run off topic to such a degree, and we hope that
>> an
>> > appeal for individual self restraint will allow this list to return to a
>> > higher signal-to-noise ratio.
>> > -Please consider the degree to which any email you send is related to
>> > technical development before sending it.
>> > -Please consider how many emails you are sending to this list regarding
>> the
>> > same topic.
>> > This list is not appropriate for an endless back and forth debate on the
>> > philosophical underpinnings of Bitcoin.  Although such a debate may be
>> > worthwhile it should be taken to another forum for discussion.  Every
>> email
>> > you send is received by hundreds of developers who value their time as
>> much
>> > as you value yours.  If your intended audience isn't really the
>> majority of
>> > them, perhaps private communication would be more appropriate.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Alex
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6668 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin-dev list etiquette

[Theo Chino]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5488 bytes --]

Nelson,

Talking politics, Devs do day and night, however politics is also about
knocking on door and not sitting behind a keyboard writing a perl script to
spam the politicians with the same content. Politics is about maneuvering
to be in a position to get the elected official to do what you want because
if he don't, you will make sure it will not get elected next time.

I personally never could finish drilling into the code (which is very
elegantly written) because some New York idiot decided that Bitcoin was too
dangerous for society to handle. I had to stop playing with the code and
turn my attention elsewhere. *You can read the opinion of one of the idiot
here :
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/opinion/apple-google-when-phone-encryption-blocks-justice.html
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/opinion/apple-google-when-phone-encryption-blocks-justice.html>*

Theo

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Nelson Castillo <nelsoneci@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Theo Chino via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> And this is why I love Bitcoin, politics + technical = all in one.
>>
>
> If you think developers do not talk politics go read LKML... Politics are
> inevitable.
> I think the "I don't know enough to code (Bitcoin) but I think that"
> belongs somewhere else (This is the -dev list).
>
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Theo Chino
>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/557495624389384 (politics in NYS about
>> bitcoin.)
>> http://frenchmorning.com/en/2014/08/18/french-robin-hood-bitcoin-new-york
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Hector Chu via bitcoin-dev <
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Haha. Reminds me of when I asked Gavin earlier this year about whether
>>> he cared about politics and he replied that he only cared about and
>>> was responsible for the technicals. Little did he know he would
>>> unwittingly become the technical enabler for Mike's political
>>> shenanigans.
>>>
>>> On 19 August 2015 at 21:19, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
>>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> > Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being
>>> governed
>>> > by those who are dumber.
>>> > - Plato
>>> >
>>> > On Aug 19, 2015, at 1:11 PM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Alex,
>>> >
>>> > With all due respect, right now the biggest challenge facing Bitcoin
>>> is not
>>> > technical but political. I would love to see this list go back to
>>> technical
>>> > discussions, but unfortunately, until this political stuff is
>>> resolved, even
>>> > technical discussion is purely philosophical as there’s little chance
>>> of
>>> > actually making good progress on consensus…which in a space where
>>> everything
>>> > depends on consensus pretty much makes everything else moot.
>>> >
>>> > On Aug 19, 2015, at 1:08 PM, Alex Morcos via bitcoin-dev
>>> > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > This is a message that I wrote and had hoped that all the core devs
>>> would
>>> > sign on to, but I failed to finish organizing it.  So I'll just say it
>>> from
>>> > myself.
>>> >
>>> > There has been a valuable discussion over the last several months
>>> regarding
>>> > a hard fork with respect to block size.  However the sheer volume of
>>> email
>>> > and proportion of discussion that is more philosophical than technical
>>> has
>>> > rendered this list almost unusable for its primary purpose of technical
>>> > discussion related to Bitcoin development.  Many of us share the blame
>>> for
>>> > letting the discourse run off topic to such a degree, and we hope that
>>> an
>>> > appeal for individual self restraint will allow this list to return to
>>> a
>>> > higher signal-to-noise ratio.
>>> > -Please consider the degree to which any email you send is related to
>>> > technical development before sending it.
>>> > -Please consider how many emails you are sending to this list
>>> regarding the
>>> > same topic.
>>> > This list is not appropriate for an endless back and forth debate on
>>> the
>>> > philosophical underpinnings of Bitcoin.  Although such a debate may be
>>> > worthwhile it should be taken to another forum for discussion.  Every
>>> email
>>> > you send is received by hundreds of developers who value their time as
>>> much
>>> > as you value yours.  If your intended audience isn't really the
>>> majority of
>>> > them, perhaps private communication would be more appropriate.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Alex
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8053 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin-dev list etiquette

[Gary Mulder]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 101 bytes --]

So guys, do we need a BIP to address the existence of XT and its possible
impact to the block chain?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 172 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin-dev list etiquette

[Btc Drak]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Gary Mulder via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> So guys, do we need a BIP to address the existence of XT and its possible
> impact to the block chain?

I believe there is BIP99 that addresses hard forks.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin-dev list etiquette

[Jorge Timón]

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 12:25 AM, Gary Mulder via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> So guys, do we need a BIP to address the existence of XT and its possible
> impact to the block chain?

The potential impacts of Schism/controversial/contentious hardforks
are shortly covered in
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/181/files#diff-e331b8631759a4ed6a4cfb4d10f473caR137
It is still a BIP draft so improvements are welcomed.