Subject: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate

From: Sergio Demian Lerner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 12:56:33 -0300

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.