Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process and Votes

From: Jorge Timón <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 13:13:17 +0200

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Milly Bitcoin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> "Cultish" means making claims without any supporting facts.

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Milly Bitcoin <[email-masked]> 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?