From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 19:33 +0100
Message-ID: <10955467.d0sKIOBqLD@garp>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQhWSLSZgNr9rUQ6-iamnh0ZsHdXui59e7xmTa94zYhpw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKzdR-rPoByn=+CgsTc1ZnLkjwtYyJnbQLbn-VHOvz0dLciefQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<2142297.qudDqxHTIz@garp>
	<CAAS2fgQhWSLSZgNr9rUQ6-iamnh0ZsHdXui59e7xmTa94zYhpw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork
	technical debate
Precedence: list

On Monday 5. October 2015 18.04.48 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > Unsuccessfully.
>=20
> I think rather successfully.

Arguing that BIP66 rollout was a full success is in the same park of=20=

"successful" ?
Where for weeks people were told not to trust the longest chain until i=
t was=20
30 blocks.
Lets put that in perspective. The main functionality of Bitcoin =20
Frankly, if that fiasco happened in a company, people would get fired f=
or=20
gross misconduct.

Bottom line is that there is a horrible track record of doing soft fork=
s in=20
the past, there are some really good technical reasons why this should =
not=20
happen again.=20

And the defence against this argument is to do character assassination =
because=20
you think he has ulterior motives?  Like you say in this part;

> That Mike himself continues to misexplain
> things is not surprising since he has all but outright said that his
> motivation here is to disrupt Bitcoin in order to try to force his
> blocksize hardfork on people.=20

"all but outright said" is still not said. Is still just a suspicion yo=
u have.=20
And you are accusing a man of something he didn't do.
That=E2=80=99s just not right.

> > The point is that Bitcoin Core claims to have a consensus mechanism=
 and
> > sticks to "no change" on not reaching a consensus. And that rule is=
 the
> > reason why bigger blocks were blocked for years.
>=20
> You're repeating Mike's claims there-- not anyone elses. Take your
> complaint up with him-- not the list.

There is no complaint. Why do you think there is?
Are you claiming that not reaching consensus is NOT the reason that big=
ger=20
blocks are not in Bitcoin Core?


Reaching consensus is an admirable goal. But its exactly that, a goal.
And anyone that is a perfectionist will know that in the real world goa=
ls are=20
often not reached. That doesn't make them less useful. That makes them =
goals.
This specific goal is in conflict of building a good product and a well=
=20
functioning community.

A good product and a well functioning community needs rules and needs t=
imely=20
decisions and conflict resolution.
It does not need muting of valuable voices, it does not need character=20=

assassinations and it really doesn't need egos.

I suggest reading this book;
http://www.artofcommunityonline.org/