public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail•ch>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 19:33 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <10955467.d0sKIOBqLD@garp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQhWSLSZgNr9rUQ6-iamnh0ZsHdXui59e7xmTa94zYhpw@mail.gmail.com>

On Monday 5. October 2015 18.04.48 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > Unsuccessfully.
> 
> I think rather successfully.

Arguing that BIP66 rollout was a full success is in the same park of 
"successful" ?
Where for weeks people were told not to trust the longest chain until it was 
30 blocks.
Lets put that in perspective. The main functionality of Bitcoin  
Frankly, if that fiasco happened in a company, people would get fired for 
gross misconduct.

Bottom line is that there is a horrible track record of doing soft forks in 
the past, there are some really good technical reasons why this should not 
happen again. 

And the defence against this argument is to do character assassination because 
you think he has ulterior motives?  Like you say in this part;

> That Mike himself continues to misexplain
> things is not surprising since he has all but outright said that his
> motivation here is to disrupt Bitcoin in order to try to force his
> blocksize hardfork on people. 

"all but outright said" is still not said. Is still just a suspicion you have. 
And you are accusing a man of something he didn't do.
That’s just not right.

> > The point is that Bitcoin Core claims to have a consensus mechanism and
> > sticks to "no change" on not reaching a consensus. And that rule is the
> > reason why bigger blocks were blocked for years.
> 
> You're repeating Mike's claims there-- not anyone elses. Take your
> complaint up with him-- not the list.

There is no complaint. Why do you think there is?
Are you claiming that not reaching consensus is NOT the reason that bigger 
blocks are not in Bitcoin Core?


Reaching consensus is an admirable goal. But its exactly that, a goal.
And anyone that is a perfectionist will know that in the real world goals are 
often not reached. That doesn't make them less useful. That makes them goals.
This specific goal is in conflict of building a good product and a well 
functioning community.

A good product and a well functioning community needs rules and needs timely 
decisions and conflict resolution.
It does not need muting of valuable voices, it does not need character 
assassinations and it really doesn't need egos.

I suggest reading this book;
http://www.artofcommunityonline.org/




  reply	other threads:[~2015-10-05 18:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-10-05 15:56 Sergio Demian Lerner
2015-10-05 16:39 ` NxtChg
2015-10-05 16:51 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-10-05 16:56 ` Mike Hearn
2015-10-05 17:01   ` Paul Sztorc
2015-10-05 17:33     ` Peter R
2015-10-05 17:56       ` NxtChg
2015-10-05 22:56       ` Btc Drak
2015-10-05 23:05         ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-10-05 17:35   ` Btc Drak
2015-10-06 18:23   ` Venzen Khaosan
2015-10-06 18:28     ` Venzen Khaosan
2015-10-06 19:34       ` naama.kates
2015-10-05 17:03 ` Btc Drak
2015-10-05 17:26   ` Tom Zander
2015-10-05 17:52     ` Btc Drak
2015-10-05 18:04     ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-10-05 18:33       ` Tom Zander [this message]
2015-10-05 18:50         ` NotMike Hearn
2015-10-05 17:33 ` s7r
2015-10-05 18:51   ` Tom Zander
2015-10-05 18:35 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-10-05 19:13   ` Tom Zander
2015-10-05 19:41     ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-10-05 20:05       ` Steven Pine
2015-10-05 20:21         ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-10-06  7:17           ` cipher anthem
2015-10-06  7:20             ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-10-06  7:29               ` Marcel Jamin
2015-10-06  8:34                 ` NotMike Hearn
2015-10-06 19:40                   ` naama.kates
2015-10-05 20:28         ` Santino Napolitano
2015-10-05 20:35       ` Tom Zander
2015-10-05 20:54         ` Dave Scotese
2015-10-05 20:56         ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-10-05 21:08           ` Tom Zander
2015-10-05 21:16             ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-10-05 21:26             ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-10-06  7:14               ` Tom Zander
2015-10-05 21:27             ` Peter R
2015-10-05 21:30               ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-10-05 21:36                 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-10-05 21:37                 ` Peter R
2015-10-06  1:37           ` Tom Harding
2015-10-06  3:20             ` Peter R
2015-10-06  3:39               ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-10-06  4:54                 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-10-06  5:08                   ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-10-06  5:49                     ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-10-06  5:53                       ` Luke Dashjr
2015-10-06  6:03                         ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-10-06 22:14                       ` phm
2015-10-06  5:07               ` NotMike Hearn
2015-10-06  5:33                 ` Peter R
2015-10-05 19:36   ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-10-05 23:18 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-10-06 17:28 ` Venzen Khaosan
2015-10-07  0:04   ` Sergio Demian Lerner

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=10955467.d0sKIOBqLD@garp \
    --to=tomz@freedommail$(echo .)ch \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox