From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z5bCR-0001nn-QL for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 14:53:51 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com designates 209.85.218.49 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.218.49; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com; helo=mail-oi0-f49.google.com; Received: from mail-oi0-f49.google.com ([209.85.218.49]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z5bCQ-0007mQ-Qi for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 14:53:51 +0000 Received: by oigb199 with SMTP id b199so17593486oig.3 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 07:53:45 -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:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=5EddLIXYz2WFbCyy4BeGvjMoihNtmjYYnVI6aLawoLY=; b=lwA+9V0lGopl1OoGorcVgpvffqkBJhz7kdhPe0OOzQJ4jKxqiz2sKWVyfMa3oF1aXp UbeEcHgeT49+szDRv9s/kyyvEBVTdE9fMmdEH2DBtSc0fHN0Dh6dSnH38srgNTkGjzbZ ELlXDRfBhIIc3eGdghJFc6EC8z0eJgN4zFRtfnIWH5A4fEZq7C045HnKf4he6cWSQ6Tr N5enb8vM1x8pdBqPJ18lminb67PN0ZxQYx2FcDSKPPu2grs+7Rye7VT37cCZIvgWq2dR CGFQuc4bXEIwK4SKhF8rrnP9+Q4MdYYMba1hqFnaoUv6+8buYJWjFoJAdv0ZgzAK9+JF GHsg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm5b2FhoG9yRiT+bjolHQlwRNGkUNG6yZYci76MG6lNkQ/KcHsk31hnLji2gPi9LKr3mhO3 X-Received: by 10.202.55.7 with SMTP id e7mr8873266oia.56.1434639225383; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 07:53:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.202.108.149 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 07:53:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <55828737.6000007@riseup.net> <20150618111407.GA6690@amethyst.visucore.com> From: Jeff Garzik Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 10:53:24 -0400 Message-ID: To: Pieter Wuille Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113cea266910820518cbf9a9 X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 1.7 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1Z5bCQ-0007mQ-Qi Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 14:53:51 -0000 --001a113cea266910820518cbf9a9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Wladimir J. van der Laan < > laanwj@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Like in any open source project there is lots of decision making ability >> for code changes. I'd say look at the changelog for e.g. 0.11 >> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/0.11/doc/release-notes.md#0110-change-log, >> or follow pull requests for a while, to see how many decisions about >> changes are made from day to day. No, I'm not sitting on my hands, and so >> is none of the other contributors that you'd like to get rid of. >> > > The analogy goes further even. Even though I disagree with some of the > changes you're making, I respect Mike's (and anyone's) right to make a fork > of Bitcoin Core. That's how open source works: if people disagree with > changes made or not made, they can maintain their own version. However: > > >> Consensus changes are *much* more difficult, on the other hand. Even >> relatively straightforward softforks come with a long discussion process >> (see BIP62, BIP66). A hardfork is hard to do at the best of times (everyone >> needs to upgrade their software!), and simply not possible if almost the >> entire technical community disagrees with you. >> > > Consensus changes - in particular hardforks - are not about making a > change to the software. You are effectively asking users of the system to > migrate to a new system. Perhaps one which is a philosophical successor to > the old one, but a different system, with new rules that are incompatible > with the old one. > Indeed. I think Mike is glossing over this major facet. Consensus changes - worded another way - change Bitcoin's Constitution - The Rules that everyone in the system is -forced- to follow, or be ignored by the system. Changing bitcoin's rules IS IN NO WAY like Wikipedia or other open source software. -- Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ --001a113cea266910820518cbf9a9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gm= ail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Wladimir J. van der= Laan <laanwj@gmail.com> wrote:
Like in any open source project there is lots of decision making ab= ility for code changes. I'd say look at the changelog for e.g. 0.11 https://github.com/bit= coin/bitcoin/blob/0.11/doc/release-notes.md#0110-change-log, or follow = pull requests for a while, to see how many decisions about changes are made= from day to day. No, I'm not sitting on my hands, and so is none of th= e other contributors that you'd like to get rid of.

The analogy goes further even. Even though I disagr= ee with some of the changes you're making, I respect Mike's (and an= yone's) right to make a fork of Bitcoin Core. That's how open sourc= e works: if people disagree with changes made or not made, they can maintai= n their own version. However:
=C2=A0
Consensus changes are *much* more difficult, on the other hand. Even relati= vely straightforward softforks come with a long discussion process (see BIP= 62, BIP66). A hardfork is hard to do at the best of times (everyone needs t= o upgrade their software!), and simply not possible if almost the entire te= chnical community disagrees with you.

Consensus changes - in particular hardforks - are not about making a = change to the software. You are effectively asking users of the system to m= igrate to a new system. Perhaps one which is a philosophical successor to t= he old one, but a different system, with new rules that are incompatible wi= th the old one.

Ind= eed.=C2=A0 I think Mike is glossing over this major facet.

Consensus changes - worded another way - change Bitcoin's Cons= titution - The Rules that everyone in the system is -forced- to follow, or = be ignored by the system.

Changing bitcoin's r= ules IS IN NO WAY like Wikipedia or other open source software.
=

--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin= core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0https://bitpay.com/=
--001a113cea266910820518cbf9a9--