From: Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins•info>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process and Votes
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 08:34:52 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <558D46EC.6050300@bitcoins.info> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDrCxLyxC=BkgiQOjRczy26kQOZb2+p9xDXOh4HuDG8nRw@mail.gmail.com>
Without looking up specific links I am confident people like Mircea
Popescu will oppose just about any change. Maybe they don't post their
objection to Github but the point I am making is that no matter what
change you make someone, somewhere will be against it. Some of the
developers think that Github is the only place that matters and that the
only opinions that matter is a tiny group of insiders. I don't think
that way which is the reasoning behind my statement.
I am saying that after all the concerns are addressed as far as
reasonably possible someone, somewhere has to decide whether or not to
commit the changes to the official release. Right now the only person
who makes that decision if the version manager. I agree it should not
fall onto the shoulders of one person who is also very busy doing other
things. I am saying there should be some process to move forward and
make decisions when needed.
Also, you already saw one of the Core developers calling me a "troll"
and telling others to ignore my messages. I have heard of several
people who just drop out of the github discussions because of stuff like
that. They also delete message from Gihub discussions so that archive
is not 100% credible. I have seen things like a Github discussion
between 3 or 4 people and then Garzik send out a tweet that there is
near universal approval for the proposed change as it nobody is allowed
to question it. After watching the github process for a couple years I
simply don't trust it because the developers in charge have a
dictatorial style and they shut out many stakeholders instead of
soliciting their opinions. I view the Github system as the biggest
centralized choke-point in Bitcoin and probably its biggest threat to
its continued survival. Anyone can come in and hire a couple core
developers and veto any change they don't want.
Russ
On 6/26/2015 7:13 AM, Jorge Timón wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins•info> wrote:
>> "Cultish" means making claims without any supporting facts.
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins•info> wrote:
>> As for developers, the consensus on code changes are almost never 100% and
>> someone has to make the decision about what is an a acceptable consensus.
> This statement seems "cultish" by your own definition.
> I'm going to make the opposite statement: the consensus on code
> changes is almost always 100%.
> Mark has already given a couple examples of changes to consensus rules
> (the most risky type of change), here's a few thousand other examples
> of changes to the bitcoin core's code that had no opposition:
>
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/master
>
> Can you please point us to a few examples were changes were made with
> opposition to them?
> In those cases (which you assure is what happens almost always), would
> you say that the result of letting a decider decide instead of fixing
> or addressing all the concerns (either by changing the proposed code
> or explaining it) better in restrospective?
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-26 12:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-25 3:00 Raystonn
2015-06-25 3:19 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-26 11:13 ` Jorge Timón
2015-06-26 12:34 ` Milly Bitcoin [this message]
2015-06-27 11:28 ` Jorge Timón
2015-06-27 12:50 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-28 12:30 ` Jorge Timón
2015-06-28 13:13 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-28 15:35 ` Jorge Timón
2015-06-28 16:23 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-28 19:05 ` Patrick Murck
2015-06-28 20:10 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-28 20:16 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-06-28 20:26 ` Ricardo Filipe
2015-06-28 21:00 ` Adam Back
2015-06-29 0:13 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-29 0:23 ` Andrew Lapp
2015-06-29 1:11 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-28 23:52 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-28 20:21 ` NxtChg
2015-06-25 19:03 ` Tom Harding
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-06-25 3:53 Raystonn
2015-06-25 0:18 Raystonn
2015-06-24 23:41 Raystonn
2015-06-24 23:49 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-25 0:11 ` Bryan Bishop
2015-06-25 0:21 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-25 0:07 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-25 1:50 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-06-25 2:30 ` Alex Morcos
2015-06-25 2:34 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-25 5:07 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-25 5:41 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-25 6:06 ` Pindar Wong
2015-06-25 6:15 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-06-25 6:16 ` Warren Togami Jr.
2015-06-25 6:27 ` Pindar Wong
2015-06-25 7:51 ` cipher anthem
2015-06-25 10:09 ` nxtchg
2015-06-25 12:42 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-25 20:05 ` Tier Nolan
2015-06-26 0:42 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-07-01 22:34 ` odinn
2015-06-25 3:42 ` Gareth Williams
2015-06-25 4:10 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-25 13:36 ` s7r
2015-06-25 13:41 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-25 13:51 ` s7r
2015-06-25 14:08 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-25 17:03 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-25 17:29 ` Milly Bitcoin
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=558D46EC.6050300@bitcoins.info \
--to=milly@bitcoins$(echo .)info \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(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