MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1819769.E416F0XigG@garp>
References: <CAKzdR-rPoByn=+CgsTc1ZnLkjwtYyJnbQLbn-VHOvz0dLciefQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<2081461.sDX5ARzIdv@garp>
	<CAAS2fgSsJ10P7YYAAsV4P6no3pC=WYozWuN64u=WLSB3h6cHwA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1819769.E416F0XigG@garp>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 21:26:01 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgRU3D7_9b=4rpG8B3HHnk_80Dw0WJTavvx5+1jFS6ZmEw@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 9:08 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Monday 5. October 2015 20.56.34 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>>  (In this case, I don't even believe we have any regulator
>> contributors that disagree).
>
> Regular contributor?
>
> Please explain how for a fork in the protocol should you only listen to
> regular Bitcoin Core contributors?

I'm providing some perspective and scope-- referencing again your
comment about following actions-- what element of the many dozens of
responses suggests to you that _anyone_ is not being listened to?

While I'm sure its not intended; your selective editing ends up
butchering the meaning---- I pointed out that there have been
disputes, even ones involving regular contributors (and, implicitly,
that I'm not lying by omission in not mentioning that the dispute was
a joke or from someone well known to attack Bitcoin) or-- in other
words, evidence that the disagreement was not less meaningful than
what you're talking about here. That's all, sorry I was unclear again.

Did you see in my message that I invited you to take a look for
examples-- I think they're easily found and you would find it
informative. I really recommend spending some time looking.