diff options
author | Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name> | 2015-06-18 17:42:51 -0400 |
---|---|---|
committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-06-18 21:43:00 +0000 |
commit | ad20663346ddda1870fda9933e7549bef2bb62e2 (patch) | |
tree | 890524ad2e6a646d40c9f87d1b91729b3218e089 | |
parent | b70fd759888dbf222dd91411df7157025b08f733 (diff) | |
download | pi-bitcoindev-ad20663346ddda1870fda9933e7549bef2bb62e2.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-ad20663346ddda1870fda9933e7549bef2bb62e2.zip |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers
-rw-r--r-- | cb/b6f4c2f5f0ed096008ef56efbd38af36353edd | 62 |
1 files changed, 62 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/cb/b6f4c2f5f0ed096008ef56efbd38af36353edd b/cb/b6f4c2f5f0ed096008ef56efbd38af36353edd new file mode 100644 index 000000000..ffcf41ce9 --- /dev/null +++ b/cb/b6f4c2f5f0ed096008ef56efbd38af36353edd @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <bip@mattwhitlock.name>) id 1Z5haO-0000jO-Jp + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Thu, 18 Jun 2015 21:43:00 +0000 +X-ACL-Warn: +Received: from resqmta-po-02v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.161]) + by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) + (Exim 4.76) id 1Z5haN-00035y-Hq + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Thu, 18 Jun 2015 21:43:00 +0000 +Received: from resomta-po-18v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.242]) + by resqmta-po-02v.sys.comcast.net with comcast + id hxi31q0035E3ZMc01xitWF; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 21:42:53 +0000 +Received: from crushinator.localnet + ([IPv6:2601:186:c000:825e:e9f4:8901:87c7:24a0]) + by resomta-po-18v.sys.comcast.net with comcast + id hxir1q00L4eLRLv01xitAB; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 21:42:53 +0000 +From: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name> +To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 17:42:51 -0400 +Message-ID: <1867667.WXWC1C9quc@crushinator> +User-Agent: KMail/4.14.9 (Linux/3.18.12-gentoo; KDE/4.14.9; x86_64; ; ) +In-Reply-To: <55831CAB.2080303@jrn.me.uk> +References: <55828737.6000007@riseup.net> + <CABm2gDoa7KxsgvREo3yiNjfd6AeayqAqkjMe2rvX8yyxR_ddcA@mail.gmail.com> + <55831CAB.2080303@jrn.me.uk> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit +Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" +X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) +X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. + See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. + -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, + no trust [96.114.154.161 listed in list.dnswl.org] + 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, + not necessarily valid + -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature +X-Headers-End: 1Z5haN-00035y-Hq +Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer + to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 +Precedence: list +List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 21:43:00 -0000 + +On Thursday, 18 June 2015, at 8:31 pm, Ross Nicoll wrote: +> I may disagree with Mike & Gavin on timescale, but I do believe there's +> a likelihood inaction will kill Bitcoin + +An honest question: who is proposing inaction? I haven't seen anyone in this whole, agonizing debate arguing that 1MB blocks are adequate. The debate has been about *how* to increase the block-size limit and whether to take action ASAP (at the risk of fracturing Bitcoin) or to delay action for further debate (at the risk of overloading Bitcoin). Even those who are arguing for further debate are not arguing for *inaction*. + + |