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 96188B5C for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 17:52:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com (mail-wi0-f179.google.com [209.85.212.179]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19F5E90 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 17:52:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicfx3 with SMTP id fx3so125686119wic.0 for ; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 10:52:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=6jy+88yRV8/fuuMZHH0hSqFGyJeXZJkKwKL9Xb8s8IQ=; b=t01YNSGaDWOnGZLx35sn9il6FYGPPgPaPDK4YZW/nO2Jho1kXyAJOOH3vr8EVW2vaj etlkZ+xNf6xMV/eFuq+x9OvG22R1FhfM0R/vgUSoJtIJywHzAjTebO1+ZFs5N32SwuD/ LfEpjNZ2Xy1yAvY0HTk8oYDGtSij3mLXnM8B4kEZgzC4cI+g3y+9R7uACcYpQoxoVy8T jjydMxV9BAK9rUdUAJueklCVfeAQHVJGFdCqLBlNFSWVadmRt9V7ZCherlqb5lrpJ5rT SyN+0Eed0i/EyH6Fad13ydLO5yt/zdQ42gr7fon2J73LxNPlcGudVZoqIcFQSZBFAxNA FTVA== X-Received: by 10.194.174.227 with SMTP id bv3mr35301414wjc.142.1444067564795; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 10:52:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.21.200 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 10:52:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2142297.qudDqxHTIz@garp> References: <2142297.qudDqxHTIz@garp> From: Btc Drak Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:52:25 +0100 Message-ID: To: Tom Zander Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d0f9a3b3ae605215f2ea0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM, HK_RANDOM_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no 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 17:52:46 -0000 --089e013d0f9a3b3ae605215f2ea0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > History has shown that for many decision making processes this doesn't > work, > and this argument has been made to Core. > Until today this was essentially a rule that hurt the things that Mike was > really passionate about. > Today this hurts the things that some other devs are passionate about. > If you are referring to some of Mike's PRs that were either refused or reverted, it was because they where substantial technical objections to them. This isn't even in the same ballpark. Surely you see the absurdity of arguing against soft forks after we successfully used them already for BIP34 and BIP66? --089e013d0f9a3b3ae605215f2ea0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On M= on, Oct 5, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev &l= t;bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
History has shown that for many decision making processes this doesn= 't work,
and this argument has been made to Core.
Until today this was essentially a rule that hurt the things that Mike was<= br> really passionate about.
Today this hurts the things that some other devs are passionate about.
<= /blockquote>

If you are referring to some of Mike's = PRs that were either refused or reverted, it was because they where substan= tial technical objections to them. This isn't even in the same ballpark= .

Surely you see the absurdity of arguing against = soft forks after we successfully used them already for BIP34 and BIP66?=C2= =A0
=C2=A0


=
--089e013d0f9a3b3ae605215f2ea0--