Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FD81BC4 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:36:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7C20166 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:36:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wiwl6 with SMTP id l6so64759347wiw.0 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 05:36:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=08qilVtlh6KCyIn3Y/UFfSDtXfUyt4urTVqzmonKBwQ=; b=bC0TFQmHzMHMoNQptI8facHxXNOlT4nig+gJtzlr/J+LA5ThfjlfkIGBRzNasSNEs+ JgWMRq6UzGBq9PWKiVqngQ8iQPgMU3L9PMDzyMTfGpzPSlFiWPQ2WgI2VLml/Ym9cayM INfFGcJ+2W9yvSkfoUhhNvIj3joGeIuaSRYD0AbW0sA1w4jyGqcIuLpP6ilOMlOl3OVe xaLjgLUnOZpBw8pG3R+ruM9I571aSvnlxRWXNg2WHECmNy6mWTTINv5WugoK99wfy9Tu 7VfFis+10o4j32KneBZYoXZcW69idPVDbl1WMvFPXS8bhjQhcUcusNFQblM6qmzYwIqk tq4A== X-Received: by 10.180.198.10 with SMTP id iy10mr5708376wic.46.1435408573652; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 05:36:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.41.66 with HTTP; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 05:35:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150627122558.A196641A3E@smtp.hushmail.com> References: <20150627074259.GA25420@amethyst.visucore.com> <20150627120935.GD25420@amethyst.visucore.com> <20150627121505.6E857417EC@smtp.hushmail.com> <20150627122558.A196641A3E@smtp.hushmail.com> From: Greg Sanders Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 08:35:54 -0400 Message-ID: To: NxtChg Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6226d023e57d05197f1a4a X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:36:15 -0000 --047d7b6226d023e57d05197f1a4a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >That requires an assumption that all developers are perfectly representing the whole community. I'll take that as a "no". But it's a strange bar to set: perfect representation of entire community. By that token, nobody can say anything is controversial if a different group is disagreeing. Greg On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 8:25 AM, NxtChg wrote: > > On 6/27/2015 at 3:18 PM, "Greg Sanders" wrote: > > >Can we agree n-1 dev Nacks would be a controversial hard fork? > > That requires an assumption that all developers are perfectly representing > the whole community. > > And no shady lobbying behind the scenes too. > > > --047d7b6226d023e57d05197f1a4a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>That requ= ires an assumption that all developers are perfectly representing the whole= community.

I'll take t= hat as a "no". But it's a strange bar to set: perfect represe= ntation of entire community. By that token, nobody can say anything is cont= roversial if a different group is disagreeing.

Greg=

On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 8:25 AM, NxtChg <nxtc= hg@hush.com> wrote:

On 6/27/2015 at 3:18 PM, "Greg Sanders" <gsanders87@gmail.com> wrote:

>Can we agree n-1 dev Nacks would be a controversial hard fork?

That requires an assumption that all developers are perfectly repres= enting the whole community.

And no shady lobbying behind the scenes too.



--047d7b6226d023e57d05197f1a4a--