diff options
author | Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch> | 2015-10-05 21:35:05 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-10-05 20:38:06 +0000 |
commit | 8de8030f6b7950601372f8139f1f6e4496428d16 (patch) | |
tree | 279f9f3bc6e2d5dc2ebef64780e3261fcc286ec3 | |
parent | a828cc7f2bbc9eb5ac93acb396055e5d1fe8991c (diff) | |
download | pi-bitcoindev-8de8030f6b7950601372f8139f1f6e4496428d16.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-8de8030f6b7950601372f8139f1f6e4496428d16.zip |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate
-rw-r--r-- | 32/3fa3c74337e51108a678ce7f1d89fc62ccc592 | 106 |
1 files changed, 106 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/32/3fa3c74337e51108a678ce7f1d89fc62ccc592 b/32/3fa3c74337e51108a678ce7f1d89fc62ccc592 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..49ad7e4b4 --- /dev/null +++ b/32/3fa3c74337e51108a678ce7f1d89fc62ccc592 @@ -0,0 +1,106 @@ +Return-Path: <tomz@freedommail.ch> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F4F5FFB + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 5 Oct 2015 20:38:06 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mx-out02.mykolab.com (mx01.mykolab.com [95.128.36.1]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E638B8E + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 5 Oct 2015 20:38:05 +0000 (UTC) +X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com +X-Spam-Score: -2.9 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW + autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 +Received: from mx03.mykolab.com (mx03.mykolab.com [10.20.7.101]) + by mx-out02.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B1356223A + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 5 Oct 2015 22:38:03 +0200 (CEST) +From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch> +To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 21:35:05 +0100 +Message-ID: <2081461.sDX5ARzIdv@garp> +In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgSyWaRfXHKWZYzZ4X8ksMECaO47dTXum67XwpTTYnbDXg@mail.gmail.com> +References: <CAKzdR-rPoByn=+CgsTc1ZnLkjwtYyJnbQLbn-VHOvz0dLciefQ@mail.gmail.com> + <1489086.kGfJeeyi4a@garp> + <CAAS2fgSyWaRfXHKWZYzZ4X8ksMECaO47dTXum67XwpTTYnbDXg@mail.gmail.com> +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit +Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" +X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on + smtp1.linux-foundation.org +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork + technical debate +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 20:38:06 -0000 + +On Monday 5. October 2015 19.41.30 Gregory Maxwell wrote: +> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev +> +> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: +> > It is an eloquent change, but not really the topic we were discussing. It +> > also makes you attack Mike (calling him out as having a strawman) without +> > basis. For the second time in this thread. +> > I would suggest arguing on the topic, not on the man. +> +> Such a shame you appear to reserve that wisdom for those you disagree +> with, biting your tongue when others emit all forms of ad hominem-- + +You are special only in your eloquent use of the language. Consider yourself +lucky :) + +> In this case, I think, however your correction is also misplaced at +> least on this message; though I would otherwise welcome it. + +I would not expect anything less. + +> I'm not complaining about the man; +> but pointing out the behavior of stating an +> opinion no one has held as theirs and attacking it is not a productive +> way to hold a discussion. It's an argument or a behavior, not a +> person, and beyond calling it bad I attempted to explaining (perhaps +> poorly) why its bad. + +Thanks for explaining your thinking. + +Fortunately I can say that while we certainly value your opinion, when peoples +opinions are hard to read, as you indicated they can be, we should look at +their actions. The group has followed the consensus rule quite rigorously, +which I applaud. +But next to that people like Black and Laan have given strong verbal +indications confirming the practice you personally keep explaining is not +real. + + +When I was a little boy of maybe 12 years, I remember reading a short story, +that stuck with me. It was about a man that had vowed to never lie. He was +invited to a dinner party and asked to assist with another man's accusation of +a crime he claimed to not have committed. +The end result was that the accused man was indeed guilty, but he minced his +words so well that every sentence uttered was true. To the layman he seemed +truthful and pleasant. Certainly innocent. +But to the man that never lied, his stories quickly fell apart as he himself +had had years of practice with the same. And the guilty man was jailed. + + +I really enjoy reading your emails and github posts too, they have an +eloquence and a brashness. + +> If there is continued +> misunderstanding, I do not doubt its my fault; but it's probably not a +> good use of hundreds/thousands of people's time for you to help me +> interactively improve my explanation on list. + +Quite. + |