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 1013F1E31 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 17:03:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com [209.85.212.180]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E6F41BE for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 17:03:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicge5 with SMTP id ge5so130021095wic.0 for ; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 10:03:25 -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=RLxf5gfBxb60YQ1IxZ6HAkidZS4Dn4Y36sbHcWtH6sQ=; b=mKPXRm+y+yvd3Z0lpOV8jMbTcrWMKD6nxfDbTy6r9j7LB6gnJ0/uHa2eEl0KaRHcv+ SOjTb9c/t4Q9lgPUd+a0nwwbgHX55BZksf9SosOlC3ldLctwjQMfpDdajebDSV8XF3Yp cmoKv1Oy47C/fz/kY1kJsQTpDEMF1DyoUkObsmSU+eEQdIrnxNQRUDs/psx1GxbNDPVm kBE5Ww2JPup6c15AHXmWYS6Xjz3z1oZyDK2rIehGtQdZl/1QMBw1jnv5N9Zgmb0zeGsF ZdjU7xwgGlPSVqONisGTM47/sOKgUogmdokkL1tZT5sBNvqJI5y7/bdmLkAbAqZf7I8p XC7g== X-Received: by 10.194.204.195 with SMTP id la3mr30454821wjc.77.1444064604897; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 10:03:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.21.200 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 10:03:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Btc Drak Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:03:05 +0100 Message-ID: To: Sergio Demian Lerner Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bae4462cec6c405215e7d33 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 17:03:27 -0000 --047d7bae4462cec6c405215e7d33 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 You are absolutely right and this is something I have often unsuccessfully tried to explain as "disruption strategies". The problem is that most people in the technical community assume good faith at all times, which plays right into the frame required for disruption. However, I would like to challenge your assumption of point 1 that that by Mike making a rabble, it somehow makes CLTV deployment controversial. His arguments have been refuted. Mike has not presented anything convincing and history actually shows that ISM works, and we have learned how to make it even more streamlined. We know ISM has consensus because miners have accepted ISM for past softfork rollouts. Simply making a noise does not make something controversial. When it is controversial, it is obvious and plain to see. On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Some of the people on this mailing list are blindly discussing the > technicalities of a soft/hard fork without realizing that is not Mike's > main intention. At least I perceive (and maybe others too) something else > is happening. > > Let me try to clarify: the discussion has nothing to do with technical > arguments. I generally like more hard forks than soft forks (but I won't > explain why because this is not a technical thread), but for CLTV this is > quite irrelevant (but I won't explain why..), and I want CLTV to be > deployed asap. > > Mike's intention is to criticize the informal governance model of Bitcoin > Core development and he has strategically pushed the discussion to a > dead-end where the group either: > > 1) ignores him, which is against the established criteria that all > technical objections coming from anyone must be addressed until that person > agrees, so that a change can be uncontroversial. If the group moves forward > with the change, then the "uncontroversial" criteria is violated and then > credibility is lost. So a new governance model would be required for which > the change is within the established rules. > > 2) respond to his technical objections one after the other, on never > ending threads, bringing the project to a standstill. > > As I don't want 2) to happen, then 1) must happen, which is what Mike > wants. I have nothing for or against Mike personally. I just think Mike > Hearn has won this battle. But having a more formal decision making process > may not be too bad for Bitcoin, maybe it can actually be good. > > Best regards > from a non-developer to my dearest developer friends, > Sergio. > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --047d7bae4462cec6c405215e7d33 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
You are absolutely right and this is something I have ofte= n unsuccessfully tried to explain as "disruption strategies". The= problem is that most people in the technical community assume good faith a= t all times, which plays right into the frame required for disruption.
=
However, I would like to challenge your assumption of point = 1 that that by Mike making a rabble, it somehow makes CLTV deployment contr= oversial. His arguments have =C2=A0been refuted.

M= ike has not presented anything convincing and history actually shows that I= SM works, and we have learned how to make it even more streamlined. We know= ISM has consensus because miners have accepted ISM for past softfork rollo= uts.

Simply making a noise does not make somet= hing controversial. When it is controversial, it is obvious and plain to se= e.

On = Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Some of the people on this= mailing list are blindly discussing the technicalities of a soft/hard fork= without realizing that is not Mike's main intention. At least I percei= ve (and maybe others too) something else is happening.

Let me = try to clarify: the discussion has nothing to do with technical arguments. = I generally like more hard forks than soft forks (but I won't explain w= hy because this is not a technical thread), but for CLTV this is quite irre= levant (but I won't explain why..), and I want CLTV to be deployed asap= .

Mike's intention is to criticize the in= formal governance model of Bitcoin Core development and he has strategicall= y pushed the discussion to a dead-end where the group either:
1) ignores him, which is against the established criteria that = all technical objections coming from anyone must be addressed until that pe= rson agrees, so that a change can be uncontroversial. If the group moves fo= rward with the change, then the "uncontroversial" criteria is vio= lated and then credibility is lost. So a new governance model would be requ= ired for which the change is within the established rules.

2) respond to his technical objections one after the other, on nev= er ending threads, bringing the project to a standstill.

As I don't want 2) to happen, then 1) must happen, which is what= Mike wants. I have nothing for or against Mike personally. I just think Mi= ke Hearn has won this battle. But having a more formal decision making proc= ess may not be too bad for Bitcoin, maybe it can actually be good.

Best regards=C2=A0
=C2=A0from a non-developer to= my dearest developer friends,
=C2=A0 Sergio.

<= /div>

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--047d7bae4462cec6c405215e7d33--