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 D087311CE for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:57:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-oi0-f45.google.com (mail-oi0-f45.google.com [209.85.218.45]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6700C1A0 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:57:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by oiev17 with SMTP id v17so93072672oie.1 for ; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 08:57:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=VrO+1iSrIf3je8PspWdwRDiWChIKxJHfLPlj2EQ4nBM=; b=M3Cf+c15NDK8rIMAhWZN6xKFiwYSZyRE0n40BXFlbo0XC1YuEgxuSYULH6zOnwyfrA 9XFE5AWwpffwzYSrS9D1ZFQsRuvDQOo1LDiXFdoUXtofWlGzq/jpcQELMWGmUxcYWg2N Wqs+GUcNxEKvQaUwuhgSIcxD3LKUlAR+BiP4IHx0yNqYpfmM2kTmekYFMOvKqQArx98S GMXg1rOk6PNNWWpkjB7uOrayyvCz5wMcKIXJ8L8KXiEeUIFyi39r3i87ezMe9KdQCKvp ecSWlFXCO80oufnuC9lQAwGYtoy8czTCOSJCqCR3/T82PSYbHY+l5ZdKesOSx4v7cslk Dpcw== X-Received: by 10.202.93.70 with SMTP id r67mr16681568oib.89.1444060632775; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 08:57:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.202.197.82 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 08:56:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Sergio Demian Lerner Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 12:56:33 -0300 Message-ID: To: bitcoin-dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d59aa0d04bf05215d913a 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 Subject: [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 15:57:13 -0000 --001a113d59aa0d04bf05215d913a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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. --001a113d59aa0d04bf05215d913a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Some of the people on this mailing list are blindly discus= sing the technicalities of a soft/hard fork without realizing that is not M= ike's main intention. At least I perceive (and maybe others too) someth= ing else is happening.

Let me try to clarify: the discussion h= as 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 technic= al 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 Bitco= in Core development and he has strategically pushed the discussion to a dea= d-end where the group either:

1) ignores him, whic= h is against the established criteria that all technical objections coming = from anyone must be addressed until that person agrees, so that a change ca= n be uncontroversial. If the group moves forward with the change, then the = "uncontroversial" criteria is violated and then credibility is lo= st. So a new governance model would be required for which the change is wit= hin the established rules.

2) respond to his techn= ical 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. Bu= t having a more formal decision making process may not be too bad for Bitco= in, maybe it can actually be good.

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

--001a113d59aa0d04bf05215d913a--