MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2081461.sDX5ARzIdv@garp>
References: <CAKzdR-rPoByn=+CgsTc1ZnLkjwtYyJnbQLbn-VHOvz0dLciefQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1489086.kGfJeeyi4a@garp>
	<CAAS2fgSyWaRfXHKWZYzZ4X8ksMECaO47dTXum67XwpTTYnbDXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<2081461.sDX5ARzIdv@garp>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 20:56:34 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSsJ10P7YYAAsV4P6no3pC=WYozWuN64u=WLSB3h6cHwA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork
 technical debate
Precedence: list

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 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.

What "consensus rule" do you refer to?

Indeed, I suggest you look to actions-- it's not hard to find changes
in Bitcoin Core that one contributor or another disliked. Did you try?
 (In this case, I don't even believe we have any regulator
contributors that disagree).
-- even for changes that effected system consensus, in fact. These
things were not hard-forks, however, as there never has been one (+/-
terminology disputes); and part of the point I was making was that the
standard for that is different, and that these differences begin with
technological fundamentals.