Wladimir is doing an amazing job under difficult circumstances. Give the guy a break, please. - Eric Lombrozo > On Jun 25, 2015, at 6:36 AM, s7r wrote: > > I guess you mean Wladimir here. You are wrong, Wladimir does decide and > if you look at the commit history on github.com for bitcoin core you > will see, that he does actually decide and does it really good. > > He just does not want to decide (and he really should not) on CONSENSUS > changes or protocol changes. This is totally different. > > Stop the analogy with "other open source projects". This is an open > source project (the code part) but unlike any other open source projects > which can just be forked, without affecting the other users, in bitcoin > we need all the users to trust a single blockchain, so it'll have value. > If some users fork the blockchain and change consensus rules, they are > not just harming themselves, they are affecting ALL the users, since > such a thing would have strong impact over the BTC/FIAT rate, affecting > everyone in the ecosystem. There is economics involved here and human > element, things which are hard to fix via code, even if the code is > developed in open source style. > > It's one thing to decide to merge some patches, improve the code, etc. > and another thing to decide for consensus rules when you literary play > with 4 billion united states dollars of other people's money. This > shouldn't be Wladimir's responsibility, it's just unfair for people to > throw this on his shoulders. > > I do not under any circumstances suggest that the consensus should > remain as it is now forever. We need to improve it, but this should not > be on the maintainer. I've seen smart suggestions on this mail list > where consensus changes can be made during a long period of time, > through soft forks, where all users/miners/exchangers/merchants get the > chance to choose / take action. > > On 6/25/2015 3:07 AM, Milly Bitcoin wrote: >> I have seen this question asked many times. Most developers become >> defensive and they usually give a very vague 1-sentence answer when this >> question is asked. It seems to be it is based on personalities rather >> than any kind of definable process. To have that discussion the >> personalities must be separated out and answers like "such-and-such >> wouldn't do that" don't really do much to advance the discussion. Also, >> the incentive for new developers to come in is that they will be paid by >> companies who want to influence the code and this should be considered >> (some developers take this statement as an insult when it is just a >> statement of the incentive process). >> >> The other problem you are having is the lead developer does not want to >> be a "decider" when, in fact, he is a very significant decider. While >> the users have the ultimate choice in a practical sense the chief >> developer is the "decider." Now people don't want to get him upset so >> nobody wants to push the issue or fully define the process. Now you are >> left with a broken, unwritten/unspoken process. While this type of >> thing may work with a small group of developers businesses/investors >> looking in from the outside will see this as a risk. >> >> Until you get passed all the personality-based arguments you are going >> to have a tough time defining a real process. >> >> Russ >> >> >> >> >> >> On 6/24/2015 7:41 PM, Raystonn wrote: >>> I would like to start a civil discussion on an undefined, or at least >>> unwritten, portion of the BIP process. Who should get to vote on >>> approval to commit a BIP implementation into Bitcoin Core? Is a >>> simple majority of these voters sufficient for approval? If not, then >>> what is? >>> >>> Raystonn >>> _______________________________________________ >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev