Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_ECD56AA5-F47B-4503-AF18-5FD1AC70853A";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDpAOQim63Q7r9r-Pv-K+FqizgDHNUmQ7uheGMuMt-e2QA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:04:16 -0700
Message-Id: <E3D72CF4-3D1C-4235-87F9-A035AFF28C27@gmail.com>
References: <CALqxMTFkgGx0FxMiZ77inOZSs_+TQ88Wpj-q-c12COkO9tP4gQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADJgMzv+cKPY9wrAzbk5pgQJS0=R9KWu-+EuppM=nmXs8RHxYg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150819182010.GB12306@muck>
	<CADJgMzskK9iNoRzVr0BtK+XH-x2w5mGZtBiieQpwcGevnHRjGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<55D4D9C3.5070004@riseup.net>
	<C47D37EE-AE42-4175-AD6B-F6FD0841287B@gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDpAOQim63Q7r9r-Pv-K+FqizgDHNUmQ7uheGMuMt-e2QA@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?utf-8?Q?Jorge_Tim=C3=B3n?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
Precedence: list


--Apple-Mail=_ECD56AA5-F47B-4503-AF18-5FD1AC70853A
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

FWIW,

I would fully like to see the consensus stuff split off into a separate =
organization from everything else. Let XT continue to support additional =
p2p messages or relay policies or whatever. Let Mike and Gavin argue for =
their improved wallet or whatever - I have absolutely no problem with =
that.

But the consensus code should NOT be subject to the same commit =
policies=E2=80=A6and we should make an effort to separate the two =
clearly. And we should find a way to communicate the difference =
succinctly and clearly to laypeople (which is something I think the XT =
opponents have been horrible at doing so far).


> On Aug 19, 2015, at 12:58 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> =
wrote:
>=20
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> [...]
>> core devs=E2=80=9D and relying on the fact that many people out there =
can=E2=80=99t seem to
>> tell the difference between a source code fork and a blockchain fork.
>=20
> And this is precisely why we should make perfectly clear that we're
> not against a code fork where Hearn or anyone else acts as a
> "benevolent dictator", just against the controversial hardfork it is
> attempting to deploy.
> Otherwise the PR battle is probably lost (which may mean users sell
> all their BTC for XTBTC [or just forget about their BTC and only care
> about their XTBTC]).


--Apple-Mail=_ECD56AA5-F47B-4503-AF18-5FD1AC70853A
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=T4pv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_ECD56AA5-F47B-4503-AF18-5FD1AC70853A--