Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 02:13:34 -0700
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris.com>
Message-ID: <20150820091334.GA5448@muck>
References: <CALqxMTFkgGx0FxMiZ77inOZSs_+TQ88Wpj-q-c12COkO9tP4gQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+w+GKTXAvq76sX4ttiYHhRcGp1MOynGAovYs8Dq1A1Q=9K4KQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="rwEMma7ioTxnRzrJ"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+w+GKTXAvq76sX4ttiYHhRcGp1MOynGAovYs8Dq1A1Q=9K4KQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
Precedence: list


--rwEMma7ioTxnRzrJ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:00:14AM +0200, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> >
> > It is just that no one else is reckless enough to bypass the review pro=
cess
>=20
>=20
> I keep seeing this notion crop up.
>=20
> I want to kill this idea right now:
>=20
>    - There were months of public discussion leading to up the authoring of
>    BIP 101, both on this mailing list and elsewhere.
>=20
>    - BIP 101 was submitted for review via the normal process. Jeff Garzik
>    specifically called Gavin out on Twitter and thanked him for following=
 the
>    process:
>=20
>    https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/614412097359708160
>=20
>    https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/163
>=20
>    As you can see, other than a few minor typo fixes and a comment by sip=
a,
>    there was no other review offered.
>=20
>    - The implementation for BIP 101 was submitted to Bitcoin Core as a pu=
ll
>    request, to invoke the code review process:
>=20
>    https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6341
>=20
>    Some minor code layout suggestions were made by Cory and incorporated.
>    Peter popped up to say there was no chance it'd ever be accepted .....=
 and
>    no further review was done.

No, I said there was no chance it'd be accepted "due to a number of
BIP-level issues in addition to debate about the patch itself. For
instance, Gavin has never given any details about testing; at minimum
we'd need a BIP16 style quality assurance document. We also frown on
writing software with building expiration dates, let alone expiration
dates that trigger non-deterministically. (Note how my recently merged
CLTV considered the year 2038 problem to avoid needing a hard fork at
that date)"

Of course no further review was done - issues were identified and they
didn't get fixed. Why would we do further review on something that was
broken whose author wasn't interested in fixing even non-controversial
and obvious problems?

The process is to do review, fix issues identified, and repeat until all
issues are fixed.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000402fe6fb9ad613c93e12bddfc6ec02a2bd92f002050594d

--rwEMma7ioTxnRzrJ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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==
=8BzH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--rwEMma7ioTxnRzrJ--