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 A458949D for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 22:31:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f180.google.com (mail-ig0-f180.google.com [209.85.213.180]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05D2CEA for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 22:30:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iggf3 with SMTP id f3so144585684igg.1 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:30:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=oG9G+Ta8OeKfliGLWd9t022Q3qwh3ymijQ6COs0d37w=; b=L5z1aNcflxXAHhG3u3+O0LFyMJ0BG1KaV6/tzEXevlQJOUlQG9hAuO1RcG8K2HIZH6 qEcfp2sPbYMep0yfXEzgDakXtt7toOq2utlePUUahOk7+HmCCsYDSBNwf3qsRcF3CyG5 cOMtNij0I/hu51qK97PcOZXWdVLh0V6mcEXhwbQdRUvQGoM3a9+HCm9XX2uJPBA6qm3V UGvP/OBtxfQhuIvzr9sDrMYLSbfhI/Prlc28eOnWCIHcwQzOE0HW0e+vJSBWAC/3BYWI cG6w8Ut/P4Yph+0xD6t3IHCPgANQ7ICVle7rNEr8ov0DJfp0KtLNby6UfDWM45GjPBip +f2w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.168.145 with SMTP id e17mr8757571ioj.112.1437604259507; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:30:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.79.38.79 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:30:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:30:59 -0700 Message-ID: From: Jeff Garzik To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1142e4fc373511051b7e532e X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core and hard forks 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, 22 Jul 2015 22:31:00 -0000 --001a1142e4fc373511051b7e532e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I wouldn't go quite that far. The reality is somewhere in the middle, as Bryan Cheng noted in this thread: Quoting BC, > Upgrading to a version of Bitcoin Core that is incompatible with your ideals is in no way a forced choice, as you have stated in your email; forks, alternative clients, or staying on an older version are all valid choices. If the majority of the network chooses not to endorse a specific change, then the majority of the network will continue to operate just fine without it, and properly structured consensus rules will pull the minority along as well. The developers *propose* a new version, by publishing a new release. The individual network nodes choose to accept or reject that. So I respectfully disagree with "core devs don't control the network" and "core devs control the network" both. There are checks-and-balances that make the system work. Consensus is most strongly measured by user actions after software release. If the developers fail to reflect user consensus, the network will let us know. On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Hi Pieter, > > I think a core area of disagreement is this: > >> Bitcoin Core is not running the Bitcoin economy, and its developers have >> no authority to set its rules. >> > In fact Bitcoin Core is running the Bitcoin economy, and its developers do > have the authority to set its rules. This is enforced by the reality of > ~100% market share and limited github commit access. > > You may not like this situation, but it is what it is. By refusing to make > a release with different rules, people who disagree are faced with only two > options: > > 1. Swallow it even if they hate it > 2. Fork the project and fork the block chain with it (XT) > > There are no alternatives. People who object to (2) are inherently > suggesting (1) is the only acceptable path, which not surprisingly, makes a > lot of people very angry. > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --001a1142e4fc373511051b7e532e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I wouldn't go quite that far.=C2=A0 The reality is som= ewhere in the middle, as Bryan Cheng noted in this thread:

Quoting BC,
> Upgrading to a= version of Bitcoin Core that is incompatible with your ideals is in no way= a forced choice, as you have stated in your email; forks, alternative clie= nts, or staying on an older version are all valid choices. If the majority = of the network chooses not to endorse a specific change, then the majority = of the network will continue to operate just fine without it, and properly = structured consensus rules will pull the minority along as well.
=

The developers propose=C2=A0a new version, by pu= blishing a new release.=C2=A0 The individual network nodes choose to accept= or reject that.

So I respectfully disagree with = "core devs don't control the network" and "core devs con= trol the network" both.

There are c= hecks-and-balances that make the system work.=C2=A0 Consensus is most stron= gly measured by user actions after software release.=C2=A0 If the developer= s fail to reflect user consensus, the network will let us know.










<= /span>

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Hi Pieter,

I= think a core area of disagreement is this:
<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">
<= p dir=3D"ltr">Bitcoin Core is not running the Bitcoin economy, and its deve= lopers have no authority to set its rules.

In = fact Bitcoin Core is running the Bitcoin economy, and its developers do hav= e the authority to set its rules. This is enforced by the reality of ~100% = market share and limited github commit access.

You= may not like this situation, but it is what it is. By refusing to make a r= elease with different rules, people who disagree are faced with only two op= tions:

1. Swallow it even if they hate it
2. Fork the project and fork the block chain with it (XT)

<= /div>
There are no alternatives. People who object to (2) are inherentl= y suggesting (1) is the only acceptable path, which not surprisingly, makes= a lot of people very angry.

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


--001a1142e4fc373511051b7e532e--