From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z5aCs-00057R-Hx for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 13:50:14 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.215.52 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.52; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com; helo=mail-la0-f52.google.com; Received: from mail-la0-f52.google.com ([209.85.215.52]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z5aCr-0005cy-HA for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 13:50:14 +0000 Received: by lacny3 with SMTP id ny3so54787414lac.3 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 06:50:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.45.98 with SMTP id l2mr13151933lam.77.1434635407138; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 06:50:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.19.7 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 06:50:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <55828737.6000007@riseup.net> <20150618111407.GA6690@amethyst.visucore.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:50:07 +0200 Message-ID: From: Pieter Wuille To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1b572d3257e0518cb15d8 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com) -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 X-Headers-End: 1Z5aCr-0005cy-HA 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 13:50:14 -0000 --001a11c1b572d3257e0518cb15d8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > OK, let's agree to unpack the two things. > > The first issue is how are decisions made in Bitcoin Core? I struggle to > explain this to others because I don't understand it myself. Is it a vote > of people with commit access? Is it a 100% agreement of "core developers" > and if so, who are these people? Is it "whoever reverts the change last"? > Could I write down in a document a precise description of how decisions are > made? No, and that's been a fairly frustrating problem for a long time. > > But let's leave it to one side for a moment. > > Let's focus on the other issue: what happens if the Bitcoin Core > decision making process goes wrong? > Why do you keep talking about Bitcoin Core maintainers? The means for doing a hard fork is convincing the network to run modified code, whether that is a new version of Bitcoin Core or a fork of it, or something else entirely. If I see consensus about a proposed network change, I will be in favor of implementing it in Bitcoin Core. But we're not at that point. There is no network change proposed with consensus. There is not even a patch to be discussed. There are working proposals, and people are talking about them. This is good. I think maintainers of particular software should not be, and are not those who decide the network's rules. People running the code are. Of course maintainers have a large influence, but so do other people - like you. > This was a reference to a post by Gregory on Reddit where he said if Gavin were to do a pull request for the block size change and then merge it, he would revert it. And I fully believe he would do so! I believe so too, and I would do the same. Because I believe implementing a consensus rule change without having very good expectations that the network will adopt it, is reckless from the point of view of maintainers, for all reasons I have mentioned before. -- Pieter --001a11c1b572d3257e0518cb15d8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.ne= t> wrote:
OK, let's agre= e to unpack the two things.

The first issue is how= are decisions made in Bitcoin Core? I struggle to explain this to others b= ecause I don't understand it myself. Is it a vote of people with commit= access? Is it a 100% agreement of "core developers" and if so, w= ho are these people? Is it "whoever reverts the change last"?=C2= =A0 Could I write down in a document a precise description of how decisions= are made? No, and that's been a fairly frustrating problem for a long = time.

But let's leave it to one side for a mom= ent.

Let's focus on the other issue: =C2=A0 wh= at happens if the Bitcoin Core decision making process goes wrong?=C2=A0

Why do you keep talki= ng about Bitcoin Core maintainers? The means for doing a hard fork is convi= ncing the network to run modified code, whether that is a new version of Bi= tcoin Core or a fork of it, or something else entirely.

I= f I see consensus about a proposed network change, I will be in favor of im= plementing it in Bitcoin Core. But we're not at that point. There is no= network change proposed with consensus. There is not even a patch to be di= scussed. There are working proposals, and people are talking about them. Th= is is good.

I think maintainers of particular software sh= ould not be, and are not those who decide the network's rules. People r= unning the code are. Of course maintainers have a large influence, but so d= o other people - like you.

> This was a reference to a= post by Gregory on Reddit where he said if=20 Gavin were to do a pull request for the block size change and then merge it, he would revert it. And I fully believe he would do so!

<= div>I believe so too, and I would do the same. Because I believe implementi= ng a consensus rule change without having very good expectations that the n= etwork will adopt it, is reckless from the point of view of maintainers, fo= r all reasons I have mentioned before.

--
Pieter
<= br>
--001a11c1b572d3257e0518cb15d8--