From: s7r <s7r@sky-ip•org>
To: Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.lerner@gmail•com>,
bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 20:33:04 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5612B450.3040703@sky-ip.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKzdR-rPoByn=+CgsTc1ZnLkjwtYyJnbQLbn-VHOvz0dLciefQ@mail.gmail.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hello,
First, this only makes reference to hard forks not to soft forks. This
is very important because we are trying to apply a hard fork
requirement to a soft fork procedure which obviously won't work.
Your statement that 'all objections coming from anyone must be
addressed until that person agrees' is not applicable in reality. What
if that person objecting is explained several times, with plausible
and verifiable technical arguments, and that person still doesn't
agree (either on purpose, either really doesn't understand the
explanations)? What will we do in this case? Assume it's controversial
because someone refuses to or simply doesn't understand? This seams at
least a little bit unfair.
It's like we are in a court room where a text from a law (like this
requirement from that BIP) can be twisted and interpreted in various
way in an endless debate. We cannot apply everything as-it-is-stated
word-by-word and apply it _blindly_ like robots in every situation,
everything always depends on context and other factors.
For example, I don't see this controversial nor a violation of the BIP
requirements. Mike had some fair objections, they were explained by
gmaxwell and Jorge, everybody understood. The explanation is clear,
with plausible practical examples, so from my point of view the
objections have no arguments to sustain the claim. I don't see
anything controversial here. Now of course it's Mike's right to reject
those explanations, but what's the 'controversial' here?
On 10/5/2015 6:56 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 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.
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWErRQAAoJEIN/pSyBJlsRxJMIAI9eoPny6B2VOH/wSkfeeVbu
bZ+0ZBLfDIwzQ2Tqn0DZQ8TWHfHPHacA7IxtTRnkSqPTMcDUgZ5/URBE4Tt8p2F2
zDda0NjqMUIJIBkLHRHzApRTK+BcshtarSbGJOr7HUaOb2hyDnQp1bzOMPGpIdTq
YA5EY39SdzzJaF7uto/bhFj6g51kdxux2epbmbaJjUHFUO1+6RAw/irI6hkyzWzi
VS8l6ZpXiaV3Y1pU+Nc60sa4GacYwKvFmvve7DTIYVsPV6KzJmbT924n5TW3191H
JBxRnUUqoWEae/h85pOQiYbJGX/EtXOmy2CZcGm0TkL3vXsAwxiDQyz8NlNyAOI=
=ClSy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-05 17:33 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
2015-10-05 18:50 ` NotMike Hearn
2015-10-05 17:33 ` s7r [this message]
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=5612B450.3040703@sky-ip.org \
--to=s7r@sky-ip$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=sergio.d.lerner@gmail$(echo .)com \
/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